[TheForge] Slack tank...POL OT

[peter fels & phoebe palmer]

Nice, clear exposition Bruce.
What he said!

On 12/18/2010 9:36 AM, Bruce Freeman wrote:
> 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
>>
>
>