[TheForge] Slack tank...POL OT

Sat Dec 18 12:36:08 EST 2010

I am a scientist, but not a climate scientist.  I have for years
considered the world to be going the wrong way in terms of
ever-increasing human population, continued extinctions of species,
and every-increasing reliance on fossil fuels.  Frankly, I believe the
human race is doomed by its own stupidity, but that doesn't matter
much to me because I will be long gone before the cataclysm.   I have
no offspring nor relatives closer by blood than a second cousin, so it
will not be me or mine who suffers from this, but only you or yours.

(Is that cold?  Shouldn't I be concerned about all children, not just
my own?  Well, the entrenched powers that be have essentially decided
that anyone interested in working with kids must be a pedophile.
Therefore, though I do volunteer work, I refuse to do any work with
children even though I might find it quite rewarding.  Conservatives
will blame "those Liberals" for this state of affairs, but  being
Liberal myself, I know it actually to be due to entrenched powers
seeking to increase their power, which is about as non-Liberal as one
can get.  But all this should be saved for another flame war.)

It is a FACT that "global warming" IS occurring.*  In addition, I have
seen too much evidence NOT to believe that atmospheric carbon dioxide
is increasing.  That constitutes correlation, and any good scientist
(which by no means includes all scientists) recognizes that
correlation does not imply causation.**

However, there is every reason to believe that an increase in
atmospheric carbon dioxide WILL LEAD to global warming.  This is due
to the infrared absorbance spectrum of carbon dioxide and other
atmospheric gases -- the well known greenhouse effect.  Light of short
wavelength (high energy) such as visible and UV impinge upon the
earth, which heats up and re-radiates IR light (low energy, long
wavelength).

With no atmosphere, all this IR would radiate out into space.  The air
absorbs some small amount of IR. (I don't have the spectra in front of
me, but I recall that oxygen in the "near infrared" -- the higher
energy end of the IR spectrum -- whereas nitrogen doesn't absorb until
the "far infrared".)  Since we wouldn't care to do without a
nitrogen-oxygen atmosphere, we can take that amount of absorbance as
"baseline."   (BTW, this has nothing to do with the "hole in the ozone
layer", a common misconception.)

The Wikipedia article on air gives the following tabulation:
Gas 	                                 Volume
Nitrogen (N2) 	                780,840 ppmv (78.084%)
Oxygen (O2) 	                 209,460 ppmv (20.946%)
Argon (Ar)                   	9,340 ppmv (0.9340%)
Carbon dioxide (CO2) 	390 ppmv (0.039%)
[plus other gases at lesser amounts.]
Not included in above dry atmosphere:
Water vapor (H2O) 	~0.40% over full atmosphere, typically 1%-4% at surface

Note that water vapor absorbs a lot of IR, and some say that it cannot
be disregarded as a contributor to the greenhouse effect.  This is
very true, but irrelevant.  Water vapor varies widely due to
temperature changes, etc., and therefore its contribution to IR
absorbance is not constant. In any event, it is not something that
human activity increases -- except perhaps insofar as atmospheric
water vapor increases due to increased surface temperature.

By contrast, when carbon dioxide enters the atmosphere, it pretty much
stays there.  It can be removed by dissolution in water, by absorption
on alkali (which is probably irrelevant), or its incorporation into
plant material by photosynthesis.  Carbon dioxide is less soluble in
warm water than in cold water, so increased ocean temperature may
result in increased atmospheric carbon dioxide.

Hence, the only ways to lower carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are to
vastly increase plant growth or to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

Now, pretend for a moment that the global warming activists managed to
convince everybody on Earth, especially those in positions of power,
that atmospheric carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels was
ultimately responsible for global warming, and that it continuance
would result in severe catastrophe.  What would they do?  Well, they'd
make lots of noise about doing stuff, but ultimately they would do
nothing.  Atmospheric carbon dioxide would increase till whatever
result that causes happened.

Why do I say this?  Because I understand human nature.  Look at the
economy.  Look at all the lip service given it.  Is anything
substantial being done by either party?  Well, they'd have you think
so, but ultimately NO politician will advocate true austerity.  (It's
not commonly appreciated that even while Nazi Germany was losing the
war the Nazi govt. was very careful to maintain production of consumer
goods so as to avoid austerity measures, despite the fact that
curtailing their production would have freed up factories and workers
for munitions production.)  People don't like to confront ugly
reality, and will make every excuse not to do so, or not to do so in
any meaningful way.  This same psychology will prevent any meaningful
policy changes to reduce significantly the consumption of fossil
fuels.

But I've saved the real cataclysm for last.  People see soda water
every day without appreciating its implications.  People paddle their
boats through marshes, stirring up "rotten egg" smells of hydrogen
sulfide, without appreciating its implications.  Few people outside
the petroleum industry have ever heard of hydrocarbon hydrates,
including methane hydrate, but the end may come as a result of it.
Carbon dioxide (which will suffocate you and will cause enhanced
greenhouse effect), hydrogen sulfide (which not only stinks, but is
more toxic than cyanide gas), and methane (believe to exist in vast
amounts as a hydrate at the bottom of oceans) may someday upwell from
the oceans into the atmosphere as a result of changes in the earths
temperature, global or local.  If this occurs in a modest way, it WILL
increase the greenhouse effect and may lead to a further accelerating
increase thereto.  If it occurs massively in one fell cataclysm, it
will poison the atmosphere or perhaps even render it explosive.

Meanwhile, even if humanity recognizes this probability, we are NOT
going to make any changes to policies because it might cause true
austerity and, heaven forbid, cut into corporate (and fat cats')
profits.  It is as certain as 1+1=2 that we will continue to blunder
on until we run out of fossil fuel.  If we manage to last that long,
there's some hope.  At that point, starvation and war for the
remaining resources would reduce the human population to sustainable
levels (which may be only a few hundred thousand by then) , evolution
would adapt humans or other life forms to tolerate what remains of the
ecosystem, and life would go on -- in some form or other.

But YOU -- you're doomed, folks.  Or rather, your grandchildren are
doomed, as I doubt this will happen sooner than a lifetime from now.

Happy Holidays, everybody,

--------------------
*In a a room at normal "room temperature", place a thermometer and an
ice cube or two in a cup of water and stir well.  The thermometer WILL
read 32*F (0*C).  (This is a fact and is not subject to debate.)  Keep
stirring and watch the ice and the thermometer.  The thermometer will
continue to read 32*F until the ice is GONE.  (This is also a fact,
not subject to debate.)

At that point the water temperature will begin to rise (at a rate
dependent upon many things) until it eventually reaches room
temperature.  Note that while ice is present in the glass, the
temperature does not change despite the fact that warming is clearly
occurring.  This is due to the distinction between heat (which is
increasing) and temperature (which does not increase until the ice is
melted).

Now apply this to the Earth.  The average temperature on earth will
not increase significantly till all the ice is melted.  (Due to
inhomogeneity of mixing, this statement is not such an absolute as the
statements  about the ice water, but in general it is true.)
What this means is that "global warming" refers to an overall increase
in the BTU content of the Earth, and NOT to an overall increase in its
temperature.

----------------------
**E.g., hem lines are correlated to the stock market.  If that were
true we would have long ago mandated that hem lines not drop below the
clavicle -- a result I'd support for all the wrong reasons.

On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 8:33 PM, Mike Linn <bamablacksmith at comcast.net> wrote:
>
> I'd say it possible but the jury is out. Until we can accurately predict the weather (micro climates) with any degree of accuracy I don't believe we can make trillion dollar decisions.
>
>  Does laying down multiple square miles of asphalt in East Kurachi change the average temperature nearby. You bet. Does it affect the average temperature in Lima, Peru... Doubtful at best.
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Dec 17, 2010, at 7:09 PM, xlch58 at swbell.net wrote:
>
>>>
>>>
>> That was my point Mike,  it is changing.  What can be debated is why and
>> what man has and will contribute to that change positive or negative.
>> As regards micro climates do you believe man has had no impact on the
>> climate conditions in Phoenix or LA?
>>
>> Charles
>> ______________________________________________________________
>>
> ______________________________________________________________
> TheForge mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/theforge
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:TheForge at mailman.qth.net
>
> TheForge mail list group photo site is
> http://www.photoworks.com
> Login: blacksmithblacksmith at hotmail.com
> Password: anvil
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>

-- 
Bruce
NJ