There is an old saying about beware that you might actually get what you wish for. When I was 18 I did the first ever year of an Environmental Studies A- level, around 1978. I knew all about acid-rain, photochemical smog, CFCs and the ozone layer. But I especially knew all about the greenhouse effect. I joined Greenpeace in those days and would bang on about all these issues to anyone I thought would be interested. This is when absolutely no one else I knew had heard of any of it. I always wished for the greenhouse effect to be centre stage. Now that it is I am shocked and astounded at the puerile debate. I cheered when CFCs were banned, though the science was still somewhat speculative, banning CFCs did not do any harm. The CO2 issue is on a completely different level. I just think that more nuclear and more bio-fuels is more likely to damage the earth than another 0.01% of CO2, especially when it is possible that more CO2 does not necessarily mean more temperature increase due to limits on absorption at its specific spectrum band.
On Dec 22, 11:27 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > Physics gets pretty fuzzy round the edges - this is pretty much the > general case in science - core research programmes with anomalies and > speculation. What I can't stand about the global warming stuff is > that I do almost completely agree with Chaz - perhaps as much as > blokes like us would ever want to agree or need to to act if there was > anything we could do - and yet the basic scientific explanations are > missing, or at least if they are there access requires a lot of > research skill and scientific knowledge. > There is a basic calculation. This assumes CO2 absorbs infra-red > emitted by the Earth. Bonds in CO2 bend and stretch and then emit > photons in a more or less random direction, 50% coming 'back to us'. > We can 'weigh' the CO2. We know the energy equations. So there is a > simple calculation about how much energy could lead to 'extra > warming'. I'm OK up to about here. Questions as to where the CO2 > absorbs the radiation arise, which bring in the 'saturation argument', > which I assume to be about much of the absorption taking place not far > from the Earth's surface (perhaps 100 metres or so). Experiments in > this area by sceptics and pro tend to agree. Schneider, Kucerovsky, > and Brannen (Appl. Opt. 28:5, 1998) give an absorption coefficient at > 9.90 ± 1.49 cm-1 atm-1 for low concentrations of CO2 in a 1-atm > nitrogen atmosphere at 4.2 microns. This works out to 376 absorbance > units per km for 380 ppm CO2, which is about as close to 100% > absorption as you can get. Heinz Hug, a global warming skeptic, > measured a similar value (0.03 absorbance units/10 cm for 357 ppm at > 15μm) (http://www.john-daly.com/artifact.htm). > > Some leap from here to conclude CO2 is broadly irrelevant, others that > the effects will not be as severe as the IPCC has it. What I want to > see is scientists arguing this out and leaving the data, models and > argument around so I can get some kind of grok, not be told by some > dire politician like Brown that I'm a flat-earther if I don't > believe. I also don't want to put my own books on hold and spend a > year trying to find out the 'truth'. The absence of clear arguments > for many is much the same as my 12 year olds not knowing about rusting > - they just aren't looking and probably lack the capability. Let's > face it the media would struggle to put even these facts out. I > realised long ago I was convinced on trust - it was the patronising > pro 'arguments' that put me off (Gore etc.) - looking around I find I > just can't find out. The IPCC reports leave me as dead as Hutton, > Butler and the current Iraq enquiry farce which simply tell me what I > thought blatantly obvious at the time is true. > > There are other, much more decent reasons to go green than 'carbon'. > If we are measuring the amount of energy hitting Earth and leaving it > and have a model that explains it all and includes how much of this > (through measurement) is down to CO2 (and where) I haven't spotted > it. There are empirical models that tend to suggest what we are > modelling more theoretically may be either wrong or in need of > adjustment. Science is always thus, until we have got approximate > enough. My own preference is for a new quality of life politics and > to get our current leadership systems out of decision-making as far as > we can. The small ppm or ppb argument doesn't bother me - the ozone > layer is very thin in these terms and gases do 'work' in very small > concentrations. I have forgotten how much CO2 we can breathe as a > percentage - presumably we don't want to get to that. Lomberg has > made some decent arguments along Chaz's later lines I do know - we start to feel bad at a full 1 % - we might get a slight headache. Interestingly enough I also learned from my A-level all those years ago that plants will demonstrate accelerated growth at up to the same 1%, but not beyond it. That is why horticulturalists use fuel heaters in their poly tunnels. We are a long way off that figure. > > On 22 Dec, 14:23, chazwin <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On Dec 22, 2:34 am, Sam Carana <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Thanks Archytas, > > > > It's a good scientific principle to keep the door open for other > > > explanations than what seems to be the explanation that is widely > > > accepted. However, if the widely-accepted view among scientists is > > > that the future of our civilization is at risk, due to excessive > > > emissions, than it makes sense to strive to reduce emissions. > > > > What puzzles me most is that there are so few scientists trying to > > > work out how such reductions can best be achieved. In this case, it's > > > not so much a question of physics, it's more up to economists, > > > accountants, diplomats and the like to get their act together. > > > Most scientists are too busy building models that actually say > > something positive rather than speculative to have time suggesting > > ways to reduce emissions, especially since the role of those emission > > is not fully understood. > > Sadly the whole issue is in the hands of the politicians who seem to > > have their eyes fixedly on CO2 like a one trick pony. This rag-doll is > > now the focus of political interests which want to see the rise of > > nuclear power; and massive excuse to further the the vitality out of > > the economy; a further excuse to seek bio-fuels with the consequent > > further destruction of rain forest environments and the acquisition of > > land which would be better used for the production of food for a > > starving world. > > And all this to avoid a highly speculative 1 or 2 degree rise in > > temperature that scientists are still arguing over. > > > > That in itself is also a struggle within science. Disciplines like > > > political science, trend analysis and prognosis, economics and > > > accountancy, law, political science, psychology and other social > > > sciences have sometimes been regarded as second-rank types of > > > science, > > > as if the "hard" science such as physics, chemistry and yes, > > > climatology, were based on "truth", while other studies were merely > > > "opinions" and personal views. > > > Sorry but climatology is not as hard as physics, it is far more akin > > to economy and sociology. If the climate were like a billiard table > > then they would not have taken over 100 years to say something > > definite about CO2s role in the atmosphere. > > > > The struggle in Copenhagen has made it clear that, what we need(ed) is > > > some robust science from areas such as political science, economics, > > > diplomacy, and other social sciences. A huge amount of money is spent. > > > What Copenhagen has made clear is that we had all better prepare for > > climate change, whatever form that may take be it warming or an over- > > due return to the ice-age, because one thing is for sure we are NEVER > > going to agree on an International stage to do anything effective. > > > > on efforts to verify whether temperatures are rising, etc, but - as it > > > turned out - what we need most now is for science to compare the > > > various political instruments on their merits, such as subsidies, > > > taxes, emissions trading schemes, standards, border adjustments and > > > diplomacy. > > > That might be useful is Climate change can be understood from carbon > > science - it cannot. > > > > Cheers > > > Sam Carana > > > > On Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 1:08 PM, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >http://nov55.com/ntyg.htmlhasanapparently well-argued case for > > > > what Chaz may be on about when he mentions saturation. There is a > > > > lot of stuff like this about - it's very well presented and could > > > > quite easily look like science to the lay eye. In fact it's trash and > > > > so well organised one has to suspect a real case of vested interests > > > > intentionally trying to confuse the issues. > > > > > On 22 Dec, 01:46, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> Hi Sam, > > > >> Been a while. I wouldn't have bothered with such a lengthy (yet still > > > >> partial) explanation if I didn't like Chaz. I'm by no means convinced > > > >> by the rush to green through carbon restrictions myself - what he says > > > >> other than on the issue of the trace CO2 is pretty sound. Nice offer > > > >> - I don't suppose we could extend it to the 12 year olds I've just > > > >> wasted a few sessions on? I don't usually teach in schools, but was > > > >> asked by a friend to bring a few of my more explosive demonstrations > > > >> along to see if she could get at her class through entertainment (my > > > >> grandson goes there so I felt obliged). Little swines could do with a > > > >> bit of philosophical fundamentals! Bring a big stick! > > > > >> On 21 Dec, 23:51, Sam Carana <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > >> > Chazwin, > > > > >> > There is plenty of scientific information available on this topic. I > > > >> > think your position results from a philosophical line of thinking, > > > >> > which forces you into denial. I suggest that you rethink the > > > >> > fundamentals of your philosophy. If you like, I'm happy to go over > > > >> > the > > > >> > philosophical fundamentals with you, to see if it adds up. > > > > >> > Cheers, > > > >> > Sam Carana > > > > >> > On Dec 22, 10:10 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > >> > > There is a point at which more CO2 would be just like another set > > > >> > > of > > > >> > > shutters nailed over several others already blocking light. This > > > >> > > point has long been factored in. Mars' atmosphere is thought to > > > >> > > have > > > >> > > been a lot thicker once. At some point in a pub crawl my mates > > > >> > > tend > > > >> > > to say 'are we doing one' when they want to move on. Usual notions > > > >> > > for Mars' atmosphere 'doing one' are: > > > >> > > Possible causes for the depletion of a previously thicker martian > > > >> > > atmosphere include the following: > > > >> > > Catastrophic collision by a body large enough to blow away a > > > >> > > significant percentage of the atmosphere; > > > >> > > Gradual erosion of the atmosphere by solar wind; and > > > >> > > On-going removal of atmosphere due to electromagnetic field and > > > >> > > solar > > > >> > > wind interaction. > > > >> > > Others suggest its magnetic field 'walked away' - hence that crap > > > >> > > move > > > >> > > The Core. It's not the CO2 on its own or even in combination with > > > >> > > other stuff like methane. On Venus it's held warming isn't > > > >> > > greenhouse > > > >> > > at all. Indeed, 'greenhouse' is a misnomer - greenhouses heat up > > > >> > > by > > ... > > read more » -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
