|
Post by Ratty on Feb 22, 2009 0:38:47 GMT
One side of the AGW debate ...... Debate: A formal contest of argumentation in which two opposing teams defend and attack a given proposition. There may be debate on this forum but there is no public debate.
|
|
|
Post by donmartin on Feb 22, 2009 7:52:57 GMT
someone - please assist: - assume Earth to have the same mass as Mars (3.7N/kg) -presumably Earth, like Mars would lose much of its atmosphere of lighter gas ( say 1/3 gravity) (and cannot determine loss of atmosphere due to absence of dipolar magnetic field on Mars to deflect solar wind - but probably significant) -Martian atmosphere, contrary to earlier comments in this thread does contain H20 - seasonal variation - Earth atmosphere contains 1% H2O -the atmosphere of Mars contains 3000 times the CO2 content of the atmosphere of Earth -solar radiation (not including ultra violet) on Mars is say 1/2 that of Earth - 590W/m2 to 1366W/ms -according to IPCC, were Earth to be equivalent to Mars in mass and volume, and have an atmosphere identical to Mars, Earth would have runaway greenhouse event due to carbon dioxide content -Mars does not have greenhouse phenomenon It appears that density of atmosphere is likely (to use an IPCC expression) the determinant of atmospheric temperature - not atmospheric composition. Why is it that the atmosphere of Venus, which also does not have a magnetic field, but is the same size as Earth, has an atmosphere 100 times denser than Earth? Finally, I have seen discussion concerning "absorption" of energy by atoms or molecules in relation to the "greenhouse' effect. But is it not indicated in the Zeeman effect and Schrodinger equation that an "atom" or "molecule" will emit as much energy it "absorbs" - conservation of energy and momentum? And now I find out that heat and temperature are not the same thing at all
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Feb 22, 2009 14:39:09 GMT
It would be nice if in addition to having a go at me, people would also have a go at the obviously faulty saturation argument. Or please win your Nobel prize by constructing an earth-like atmosphere that cannot be influenced by the instantaneous doubling of a gas that strongly absorbs infrared. Fine by me, tell Obama to give me a grant. However, the truth is the AGW folks have gone overtime trying to stall such projects. Einstein based most of his science on thought experiments. It wasn't till many years after that there was any decent experimental confirmation. But we do have plenty of experimental evidence that supports CO2-induced warming (including measurements of the top of atmosphere radiation balance). Where can I find this? Yes much of it is about piecing together sometimes circumstantial evidence. But frankly, the level of proof demanded here is tantamount to requiring that unless Einstein really did take observations while riding on top of a photon, he was merely trying to make his name by pulling the wool over the eyes of his betters. I now await the "Well if you are trying to kill poor people with your stupid business destroying eco-theories you need better evidence" reply. But isn't your argument essentially for government to tell people what they can do at the point of gun? And isn't your excuse is we are killing ourselves?
|
|
|
Post by steve on Feb 23, 2009 11:23:28 GMT
But isn't your argument essentially for government to tell people what they can do at the point of gun? And isn't your excuse is we are killing ourselves? No, my argument is mostly debating what (little) I know about the science. The energy industry have without a doubt invested many millions in politically undermining the AGW debate. A fraction of these millions would have paid for a small research department to take a scientfically "sceptic" line eg. using any of the many IPCC climate models that are available entirely freely, or free for academic use. In my experience it has typically been the energy companies and industry restricting the freedoms of people. In Europe, information about energy performance of appliances has been introduced in the teeth of resistance from the industry. Recently, a proposal to introduce smart metering was killed off by the power companies. Basically this would allow people to see what energy they are using at a given time, so enabling them to understand the costs of incandescent lights, and of leaving appliances on or on standby etc. Yesterday I visited a friend on low income who said she left her PC on 24x7, having no idea that it was probably costing her £3 a week.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Feb 23, 2009 11:24:47 GMT
donmartin,
I posted something on the CO2 and saturation thread. Can we follow up there rather than on this thread?
|
|
|
Post by donmartin on Feb 23, 2009 21:03:28 GMT
Interesting, Steve, and I agree with you - with one caveat. Is it plausible that the oil business (companies, et al) derive greater profit from less production - through a higher marginal cost? And would that industry not then support the AGW position?
Almost 40 years ago our university class was advised by an oil executive in a multi-thousand dollar suit that the amount of oil, then reserved and potential, would last only 30 more years. That was 40 years ago. And, of course, within two years of that little lecture, the price of oil and gasoline increased dramatically. Then Middle East had a go at it. OPEC showed recently how this works: when the price decreases, decrease supply.
AGW may be the icing on the cake. If it is successfully argued that oil produces a bad atmosphere, and the population will accept the notion less oil production makes our lives safer, then with the same or less capital, the oil business will make the same or more money.
If I were an oil company, I would certainly not want people to think there was an abundance of oil and its conversion to energy had a benign effect on the atmosphere.
Also, it is noteworthy that there is discussion in the United States in relation to nationalizing banks when the oil/energy pricing scenario is an anchor on the economy and could prevent recovery.
And I have moved to the other thread - still trying to get my mind around density/composition/heat content.
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Feb 24, 2009 0:19:32 GMT
The energy industry have without a doubt invested many millions in politically undermining the AGW debate. A fraction of these millions would have paid for a small research department to take a scientfically "sceptic" line eg. using any of the many IPCC climate models that are available entirely freely, or free for academic use. Yes and the green people have been spending a fortune to build up the myth that there's a good correlation between CO2 and global temperatures. Hmmm, both groups with their own agendas. Gee, maybe if we looked at the data instead of listening to a bunch of cigar smoking fat cats or Birkenstock wearing, granola eating tree huggers...we'd get the real story. Hmmm, no good correlation suggesting CO2 does anything significant to global temperatures...nope, turns out the side the oil guys support happens to be right *shrug* who'd have thought it. Yep...temperatures have recently gone up as much with no significant CO2 increase. Yep, temperatures have gone down or stayed level for DECADES with enormous increases. Earth's not a raging inferno so we can assume the laughable strong, positive feedback idea is wrong. Models are outside their error bars so the modelers apparently have insufficient knowledge of the things driving climate changes. The fact that someone backed by an oil company may or may not have a valid point to make...still doesn't change the fact that there's no reason to believe in any significant AGW from CO2. If you disproved each and every one of the opposing theories...the theory that the amounts of CO2 added by man leads to significant warming is still junk. Of course...many of the other theories DO hold up. Solar forcing has an obvious affect. Maybe it's not all the temperature increase but hey, you've got nothing so what difference does it make? Ocean currents obviously have an impact (Or are driven by something that does)...again, maybe not all but you're not bringing a valid theory to the table. If you want to go with the only reasonable number (1.5C by 2100) then sure...I can see that it MIGHT be possible...but honestly, it's FAR easier to just "adapt" to that change. Technically it's not really adapting of course. Most of our structures are torn down within those timeframes anyway...the "adaptation" costs of building new infrastructure that you were going to build anyway is effectively...zero.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Feb 24, 2009 10:04:55 GMT
Interesting, Steve, and I agree with you - with one caveat. Is it plausible that the oil business (companies, et al) derive greater profit from less production - through a higher marginal cost? And would that industry not then support the AGW position? Almost 40 years ago our university class was advised by an oil executive in a multi-thousand dollar suit that the amount of oil, then reserved and potential, would last only 30 more years. That was 40 years ago. And, of course, within two years of that little lecture, the price of oil and gasoline increased dramatically. Then Middle East had a go at it. OPEC showed recently how this works: when the price decreases, decrease supply. AGW may be the icing on the cake. If it is successfully argued that oil produces a bad atmosphere, and the population will accept the notion less oil production makes our lives safer, then with the same or less capital, the oil business will make the same or more money. If I were an oil company, I would certainly not want people to think there was an abundance of oil and its conversion to energy had a benign effect on the atmosphere. Also, it is noteworthy that there is discussion in the United States in relation to nationalizing banks when the oil/energy pricing scenario is an anchor on the economy and could prevent recovery. And I have moved to the other thread - still trying to get my mind around density/composition/heat content. OPEC achieved what they did by becoming a cartel. In a competitive industry, no individual company can effectively constrict supply so the race is on to dig out the most oil as quick as possible. These days, OPEC is less effective because noone seems to believe them when they announce quota changes. Presumably there are enough sheiks willing to sell oil out of the back door. In other words, the market is great for efficiently allocating capital, but it's terrible for managing a limited resource. Anyway, getting off Popper again.
|
|