Another theory that must be rejected by conservatives

[palerider]

Science is rarly unequivocal, regardless of the phenomenon studied. We have no unequivocal evidence that the sun will die in 5 billion years. Yet the consensus of the vast majority of the world's scientists agree that it will based on available data.

Science is usually unequivocal, especially where the physical sciences are concerned, less with the biological. Proof abounds within the physical sciences.

That aside, you and yours are asking not just myself, but the entire world to drastically alter the way we live based on your belief. When you start asking people to alter their lives, you must be willing to take up a heavy burden of proof. And when you are asking people to make changes that will dramatically alter their lives and may very well send the entire global economy into the tank, an exceedingly heavy burden of proof rests on your shoulders. Mewling that science is rarely unequivocal doesn't cut it. If you expect me to alter my life, I expect to to show hard, observed evidence that man is altering the climate and altering it to a degree that is potentially dangerous.

To date, I have not even seen any real evidence that suggests that the climate today is at the optimum for human habitation. Paleoclimate strongly suggests that during warmer times, life proliferated at a rate the likes of which we have never seen.

You want a result that is not possible no matter how much evidence we collect.

Do you honestly believe that hard observed evidence that man is altering the climate is imposible to collect? Are you actually arguing that now, in the 21st century, if we were altering the climate that it would be impossible to collect observed data to prove it? Do explain the weakness in physical science that would prevent us from collecting hard cause and effect data and explain how it is that if we aren't bright enough to actually collect the data that we can be so sure that it is happening due to us.

That said, the evidence has convinced the majority ot eh world's scientist that global warming is occurring and that it has a very significant human component.

The "consensus" is a sham. You know it, I know it, and the rest of the world knows it. It was a useful tool when people believed it, but those days are over. Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy and appeal to a fabricated authority is just plain dishonest.

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com...-climate-change-was-phoney-says-ipcc-insider/

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...30382048494.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_sections_opinion

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sponsored/russianow/opinion/7980382/Kyoto-is-costing-Russia-too-much.html

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/08/97-consensus-is-only-76-self-selected.html

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/06/ipcc-consensus-on-solar-influence-was.html

http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2008/08/report-from-33d-intl.html

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...cool-on-theories/story-e6frg6t6-1111119126656

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....ecord_id=865DBE39-802A-23AD-4949-EE9098538277

http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/in...ecord_id=10fe77b0-802a-23ad-4df1-fc38ed4f85e3

As for the percentages, all CO2 in the atmosphere is a fraction of one percent, and yet it has a significant effect on the temperature of the Earth's atmosphere.

This assumption is at the heart of your argument. To date, you have not proved it. To date, no climate scientist has proved it. Paleohistory tells us that even during ice ages, the atmospheric CO2 concentrations have been higher than the present and during warmer periods atmospheric CO2 concentrations have been lower than the present. When you have some proof that CO2 has a "signifigant" effect on the temperature of the atmosphere, let me be first in line to see it.

Measurements of pre-industrial atmospheric conditions indicate that prior to the industrial revolution, the average concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere was 280 ppm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas), whereas, the current level is 388 ppm, an increase globally of 108 ppm. So the amount has increase by over 38% in just 260 years. This an increase that is unprecedented in the last 200,000 years.

First, don't cite wiki if you expect to have any crediblity at all. An individual there has fabricated or rewritten over five thousand wiki articles to suit his personal beliefs with regard to climate change.

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/12/18/370719.aspx

CLIP:

"Connolley took control of all things climate in the most used information source the world has ever known – Wikipedia. Starting in February 2003, just when opposition to the claims of the band members were beginning to gel, Connolley set to work on the Wikipedia site. He rewrote Wikipedia’s articles on global warming, on the greenhouse effect, on the instrumental temperature record, on the urban heat island, on climate models, on global cooling. On Feb. 14, he began to erase the Little Ice Age; on Aug.11, the Medieval Warm Period. In October, he turned his attention to the hockey stick graph. He rewrote articles on the politics of global warming and on the scientists who were skeptical of the band. Richard Lindzen and Fred Singer, two of the world’s most distinguished climate scientists, were among his early targets, followed by others that the band especially hated, such as Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, authorities on the Medieval Warm Period.

All told, Connolley created or rewrote 5,428 unique Wikipedia articles. His control over Wikipedia was greater still, however, through the role he obtained at Wikipedia as a website administrator, which allowed him to act with virtual impunity. When Connolley didn’t like the subject of a certain article, he removed it — more than 500 articles of various descriptions disappeared at his hand. When he disapproved of the arguments that others were making, he often had them barred — over 2,000 Wikipedia contributors who ran afoul of him found themselves blocked from making further contributions. Acolytes whose writing conformed to Connolley’s global warming views, in contrast, were rewarded with Wikipedia’s blessings. In these ways, Connolley turned Wikipedia into the missionary wing of the global warming movement."

With regard to your claims of an "unprecedented" rise in atmospheric CO2, lets look at the facts. Here is a rendering of the Vostok ice core data:

Interesting that you pic 200,000 years as if 200,000 years were more signifigant than 400,000 years. If you look at the ice core data for about 125,000 years ago, your claim that the present levels are unprecedented in the past 200,000 years falls. Not only was the atmospheric CO2 concentration higher, it rose at a far more rapid pace than anything we have seen in the present. Explain that, and explain how the temperature could have fallen after that if your hypotheis regarding the effect of CO2 on atmospheric temperatures is valid. In fact, in the past 450,000 years, there have been multiple periods where the atmospheric CO2 concentration was higher than present and numerous periods where the temperature was higher than the presesnt. Take note of the fact that atmospheric CO2 concentrations lag temperature rises. This strongly suggests that increased CO2 concentrations are a result of temperature rises, not a cause.

And your claim of a 108 ppm rise since the industrial revolution doesn't seem particularly impressive when one looks at the data. Here is a high resolution image from the Vostok data covering the past 50,000 years. The climb from 280 to 390 or so since the onset of the industrial revolution doesn't look any more impressive to me than the climb from 180 ppm to 260 ppm at the onset of our present warming period with no help from man at all.

And there remains the fact that neither you, nor anyone else has offered up a shred of proof that proves that CO2 has a "signifigant" effect on the temperature.

By the way, take note of the multiple periods in which the tempratures are higher than the present. I count about a dozen in the past 5 or 6 thousand years. How about you? Any thoughts or comments on that?

(continued)

 

[palerider]

(continuation)

What's to consider? It is a well established fact of chemistry.[.quote]

Perhaps you should further aquaint yourself with the "well established" facts of chemistry. Lets have a look at your link as you clearly didn't understand what bit of truth there was there.

http://www.ucar.edu/learn/1_3_1.htm

Like most warmist cites that claim to present the facts, they do mix enough truth there to make it seem like an honest page to someone who has a pre existing leaning towards what they are selling.

It is refreshing to see that they didn't try to hold up venus as an example of "runaway" global warming like so many of that sort of site does. It is good to see that they acknowledge that pressure is the reason for the climate of venus and not any particular atmospheric composition. Some truth, that's good.

In the next section, they start off with the truth and then begin to deviate. They state "These gases, mainly water vapor ( ), carbon dioxide (), methane (), and nitrous oxide (), all act as effective global insulators. To understand why, it's important to understand a few basic facts about solar radiation and the structure of atmospheric gases."

If honesty were their goal, they would note that water vapor is the real workhorse of the bunch as it is the only one able to absorb and retain heat. The rest are, at best, bit players.

They are pretty good with the nature and components of sunlight, but are misleading when they simply state that various components absorb ultraviolet and IR as if that were all there were to it. That is really neither here nor there, so lets not worry about it.

When they get to the greenhouse gasses though, they become dishonest eitehr by design, or by accident. The why isn't really as important in the long run as the fact that the information is deceptive. They say:

"Carbon dioxide () is one of the greenhouse gases. It consists of one carbon atom with an oxygen atom bonded to each side. When its atoms are bonded tightly together, the carbon dioxide molecule can absorb infrared radiation and the molecule starts to vibrate. Eventually, the vibrating molecule will emit the radiation again, and it will likely be absorbed by yet another greenhouse gas molecule. This absorption-emission-absorption cycle serves to keep the heat near the surface, effectively insulating the surface from the cold of space. "

And they give you this nifty little graphic:

I am guessing that this particular section was what prompted you to give me this page when I asked if you could show me the mechanism by which a gas molecule could absorb and retain heat in the form of IR.

The graphic clearly depcits IR passing through the CO2 molecule and the text states, somewhat misleadingly, that "eventually" the molecule will emit the radiation again. That sentence in and of itself, confirms my statment that a gas can not absorb and retain heat. If a factual and accurate representation of the process were their goal, they would have replaced the word "eventually" with the words "almost instantaneously". I am going to guess that you at least know, if not fully understand" what absorption and emission spectra are.

When IR radiation "hits" a CO2 molecule, or any other molecule for that matter, an absorption spectrum and and equal and opposite emission spectrum happen within fractions of a picosecond of each other. The molecule vibrates as a result of the passage of energy in the form of IR, but does not store the energy.

Your site further misleads the reader by stating that once the molecule has emitted its the radiation, it will likely be absorbed by another greenhouse gas molecule. An emission spectrum is the opposite of an absorption spectrum. A molecule can not reabsorb the emission spectrum of a like molecule.

Seriously? Ok. Build a greenhouse. Set up a thermometer inside. Close all the doors and windows so that the air is trapped inside. Measure the maximum rise in temperature due to heat absorption by the air and surrounding structure.

First, there is no heat absorption by air. The surfaces within the greenhouse provide the heat. Water vapor can absorb a certain amount of heat but can not hold on to it indefinately. The heat build up in a greenhouse is due to the restriction of conduction, and, in turn, convection with the outside air.

This is your baseline reading for experimental purposes. Now add 108 ppm of CO2 into your greenhouse (the amount of CO2that Man has added to the atmosphere since 1750).

Are you kidding? Tell me, how long do you believe any individual CO2 molecule resides in the atmosphere? To suggest that the atmospheric CO2 is static except for man's contribution is a gross misunderstanding of one of the basic elements of the discussion. And you sidestepped a critical issue in the fact that mankind's contribution to atmospheric CO2 is not enough to overcome the natural deviation in the earth's own CO2 making machienry from year to year.

And then measure the rise in temperature. The difference between the baseline temperature and the temperature result after adding CO2 is the the amount of heat energy which is absorbed by the CO2 and added to the system.

I have done the experiment and have been doing it for years for Boy Scout troops to help them earn their environmental science merit badge. We do the experiment with progressively larger containers and eventually get up to the size of a greenhouse. I happen to have two that are identical in my yard so the measurements can be taken in real time. By the time you get to a container the size of a greenhouse (mine are 12x16x10) you need a thermometer than reads to 4 places to detect any difference. CO2, because if its logarithmic warming effect, peters out very quickly. So, if you have a thermometer capable of reading the differences, you will see that the more you add, the less effect you get.

This is a very simple experiment than anyone can conduct, and in fact has been conducted for decades with very reliable results.

And since it is conducted in a closed system, it, in reality, has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the open system of the earth. Any and all experiments that are claimed to demonstrate the warming effect of CO2 happen in closed systems and therefore do not prove anything about an open system.

 

[palerider]

Are you seriously trying to counter irrationality with empirical evidence? You know that is futile. Once minds are made up, facts can not change them.

I suggest that you try the experiment yourself. I hope you have access to a very high end thermometer if you expect to see any results at all, and when you are finished, remind yourself that the experiment you just performed is only valid in a closed system. The atmosphere of the earth is an open system.

Don't you find it odd that climatologists have attempted to unilatarally redefine the earth as a closed system so that thier "gas in a bottle" experiments and simulations based on their experiments might have some validity.

Here is the definition of open, closed, and isolated systems.

open system - a region separated from its surroundings by a boundary that admits a transfer of matter or energy across it.

closed system - a region separated from its surroundings by a boundry that allows a transfer of energy but no matter.

Isolated - a region separated from its surroundings by a boundry that allows no transfer of energy or matter.

The earth, is by definition an open system. Matter comes in in the form of tons of cosmic dust daily, meteorites, etc. Matter leaves primarily in the form of hydrogen but some other very light elemental gasses escape as well.

 

[palerider]

Correction)

I wrote "Not only was the atmospheric CO2 concentration higher, it rose at a far more rapid pace than anything we have seen in the present."

When I should have wrote that past atmospheric CO2 rises have been more rapid than anything we have seen in the present.

 

[orogenicman]

Then why all the attitude? I'm guessing you didn't bother to read the actual "article" in question. It didn't appear to me they were calling for the GTR to be abandonded but rather more openly questioned.

They made a point which I think is valid, that the "wide acceptance" of GTR as fact, rather than theory, could retard progress in that field of science. Just look at the knee jerk reaction the suggestion of GTR's fallability has solicited from you. Attacking anyone who points out the fallability of the GTR theory is no way to go about finding a new, and better, theory.

Attacking? Who am I attacking? How is it that you viewed what I posted as an attack?

I'm not claiming GTR is wrong, I think it is the best explanation out there so far, but the reality remains that it has not been proven to be a fact (true). To ignore it's contradictions with known scientific laws is illogical.

GTR has been repeatedly shown to be valid. What part of GTR, in your view, contradicts the known laws of physics?

Here you are saying that because many people believe it to be correct, that it is more likely to be correct. That is illogical.

Scientific theories don't become widely accepted very easily. There has to be a preponderance of evidence in it's support. GTR has that preponderance of evidence, which is why it is so widerly accepted within the scientific community. There is nothing illogical about that.

If you want to argue that something is more likely to be correct because a great number of people believe it to be so, then the God analogy is very apropos.

See above.

That's nonsense. Only if you wanted to replace the current theory with your another would you have to both disprove the first and prove the second.

That's not how usually science works. Einstein's ideas on gravity didn't replace Newton's. He didn't disprove Newton. He expanded on Newton's findings. Most of Newton's ideas are just as valid today as it was then he penned them.

 

[orogenicman]

I suggest that you try the experiment yourself. I hope you have access to a very high end thermometer if you expect to see any results at all, and when you are finished, remind yourself that the experiment you just performed is only valid in a closed system. The atmosphere of the earth is an open system.

Don't you find it odd that climatologists have attempted to unilatarally redefine the earth as a closed system so that thier "gas in a bottle" experiments and simulations based on their experiments might have some validity.

Here is the definition of open, closed, and isolated systems.

open system - a region separated from its surroundings by a boundary that admits a transfer of matter or energy across it.

closed system - a region separated from its surroundings by a boundry that allows a transfer of energy but no matter.

Isolated - a region separated from its surroundings by a boundry that allows no transfer of energy or matter.

The earth, is by definition an open system. Matter comes in in the form of tons of cosmic dust daily, meteorites, etc. Matter leaves primarily in the form of hydrogen but some other very light elemental gasses escape as well.

Greenhouse gases act as a barrier that prevents infrared radiation entering the atmosphere from being re-radiated back out into space. In this sense, it "closes" the system for infrared radiation.

 

[orogenicman]

"That aside, you and yours are asking not just myself, but the entire world to drastically alter the way we live based on your belief. When you start asking people to alter their lives, you must be willing to take up a heavy burden of proof. And when you are asking people to make changes that will dramatically alter their lives and may very well send the entire global economy into the tank, an exceedingly heavy burden of proof rests on your shoulders. Mewling that science is rarely unequivocal doesn't cut it. If you expect me to alter my life, I expect to to show hard, observed evidence that man is altering the climate and altering it to a degree that is potentially dangerous."

Leave aside the climate argument for a moment. There is no doubt that we are heading for an energy defict. No matter what you view is on global warming, the fact is that we are going to run out of oil. The fact is that buring fossil fuels is extremely polluting, and releases not only huge amounts of greenhouse gases, but millions of tons of toxic pollutants into the environment every year.

The only way to mitigate the effects of these pollutants is to stop emitting them. And the only way to prepare for the eventual end of their use is to develop alterative energy. And by the way, the argument against such development is the same argument that hase been made about every revolutionary new idea - it will ruin the economy. Well, the auotomobile didn't ruin the economy, despite the fact that it caused the loss of so many stable hand jobs. There is no reason that those who work in the energy sector today can't work in tomorrow's energy sector. Do you see any reason why they can't?

And finally, if you want to convince a scientist that your ideas on global warming have any merit, you are going to have to do a lot better than post propaganda from an right wing Australian political web site. I'll post a response to the 'data' you posted in a bit.

 

[orogenicman]

This is the record of CO2 concentrations found in the Vostok ice core:

With the exception of the one little "blip" that occurred just over 100,000 years ago, my statement that it is higher now than at any time in the last 200,000 years is true. However, the scale of this graph doesn't allow you to resolve the data for just the last 50 years.

When you look at that data, you will note that current levels are higher than they have been at any time during the last 400,000 years, as measured relative to the Vostok data.

Below is a graph showing the global carbon emissions since 1800. This graph coresponds quite well with the increase in CO2 levels over the same time period, as well with the increase in gloibal temperatures over the same time period.

 

[orogenicman]

What's to consider? It is a well established fact of chemistry.[.quote]

Perhaps you should further aquaint yourself with the "well established" facts of chemistry. Lets have a look at your link as you clearly didn't understand what bit of truth there was there.

I don't need a refresher course in basic chemistry, Palerider. 3 years of college chemistry is enough for me to know that my statement about it being a well established fact of chemistry is true. I might add that nothing in your link de-establishes the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and that it acts as a barrier to prevent re-emission of absorbed infrared radiation from the sun. Your suggestion that the Earth's atmoshpere is an open system is irrelevant to this singular fact, since greenhouse gases close the system to re-emission of infrared radiation.

 

[PLC1]

I think not.

Facts are facts. Theories are theories. Do you know the difference?

Why do libs think theories are facts? Why do libs condemn those who tell them theories are not facts?

I could care less about evolution and relativity...but libs are politicizing them too. Every thing is political with libs.

My theory is that you didn't read, or perhaps didn't understand, my posts, and don't really know what my argument is. You did unwittingly support my position, whether you meant to or not.

 

[PLC1]

I suggest that you try the experiment yourself. I hope you have access to a very high end thermometer if you expect to see any results at all, and when you are finished, remind yourself that the experiment you just performed is only valid in a closed system. The atmosphere of the earth is an open system.

Don't you find it odd that climatologists have attempted to unilatarally redefine the earth as a closed system so that thier "gas in a bottle" experiments and simulations based on their experiments might have some validity.

Here is the definition of open, closed, and isolated systems.

open system - a region separated from its surroundings by a boundary that admits a transfer of matter or energy across it.

closed system - a region separated from its surroundings by a boundry that allows a transfer of energy but no matter.

Isolated - a region separated from its surroundings by a boundry that allows no transfer of energy or matter.

The earth, is by definition an open system. Matter comes in in the form of tons of cosmic dust daily, meteorites, etc. Matter leaves primarily in the form of hydrogen but some other very light elemental gasses escape as well.

Aren't you another self described "conservative?"

If so, you are confirming my argument with every post.

 

[palerider]

Greenhouse gases act as a barrier that prevents infrared radiation entering the atmosphere from being re-radiated back out into space. In this sense, it "closes" the system for infrared radiation.

[/quote]

Sorry, but that simply is not true. Whenever IR is absorbed by a gas molecule, that IR is instantaneously re emitted as an equal and opposite emission spectrum. No energy is held by the gas molecule, and it does not act as a barrier as the energy passes through it instantaneously.

 

[palerider]

Leave aside the climate argument for a moment. There is no doubt that we are heading for an energy defict.

If you believe in peak oil, then perhaps you could make the case based on your belief, but again, no hard proof. Reserves are greater now than at any time in history.

No matter what you view is on global warming, the fact is that we are going to run out of oil. The fact is that buring fossil fuels is extremely polluting, and releases not only huge amounts of greenhouse gases, but millions of tons of toxic pollutants into the environment every year.

The pollution, I can agree with, but until such time as there is a genuine profit motive (not to be confused with tax breaks and government programs), there will be no real advance in alternative energy. That being said, there is a fairly large body of science (and growing) that strongly suggests an abiotic origin for hydrocarbons.

I am a biochemist and have actually seen hydrocarbons created in a laboratory under conditions of high heat and pressure very similar to the interior of the earth and with materials known to exist in great quantities within the earth. To date, no scientist can offer up a genuinely plausable senario in which dead dinosaurs and rotting plant matter could change into oil.

The only way to mitigate the effects of these pollutants is to stop emitting them. And the only way to prepare for the eventual end of their use is to develop alterative energy.

That they will run out is, again, an assumption on your part. The more likely senario is that we find more efficient ways of using them because there is a genuine profit motive in the development of more efficent burning of fuels.

And by the way, the argument against such development is the same argument that hase been made about every revolutionary new idea - it will ruin the economy. Well, the auotomobile didn't ruin the economy, despite the fact that it caused the loss of so many stable hand jobs.

There was a profit motive in development of the automobile. Entrepreneurs risked their own fortunes in pursuit of profits. Government is not entrepreneurial and can very easily send an economy into the tank with even good hearted motives attempting to force change on a less than willing populous.

There is no reason that those who work in the energy sector today can't work in tomorrow's energy sector. Do you see any reason why they can't?

Care to describe tomorrow's energy sector? The best engineers in the world can't do it. They can't even begin to imagine how to replace the present energy consumption, let alone the future needs of developing economies.

The best minds in the world have estimated that in order to get us off oil and coal, we need about 15,000 nuclear reactors or about 146 million wind turbines. Once more with emphasis, till there is a genuine profit motive for getting off oil, new technology won't be emerging.

And finally, if you want to convince a scientist that your ideas on global warming have any merit, you are going to have to do a lot better than post propaganda from an right wing Australian political web site. I'll post a response to the 'data' you posted in a bit.

The vostok ice core data is propaganda? Good one. I didn't post any comments or thoughts she had with regard to the data, I simply used those graphs because they look the best and have been broken down into fairly high resolution segments. Circumstantial ad hominems are of no more value than appeals to authority. Logical fallacy is logical fallacy. If you have some specific point you would like to make with the accuracy of the graphs and are prepared to prove an error, by all means, lets see. Otherwise, complaining about a source simply because you don't like it is useless.

 

[orogenicman]

Sorry, but that simply is not true. Whenever IR is absorbed by a gas molecule, that IR is instantaneously re emitted as an equal and opposite emission spectrum. No energy is held by the gas molecule, and it does not act as a barrier as the energy passes through it instantaneously.[/QUOTE]

More than 60 years of experiments on the effect of CO2 on infrared radiation says that you are completely wrong. CO2 absorbs infrared radiation, period. This can readily be demonstrated by placing an infrared light source inside a transparant glass chamber filled with CO2 gas and then photographing the chamber with an infrared camera. What you find is spectroscopic extinction of the infrared light as it tries to pass through the gas. This occurs because the CO2 is absorbing the infrared light. It does not get re-radiated as infrared light. And because it cannot, the heat energy from the infrared radiation gets trapped and heats the chamber.

 

[palerider]

With the exception of the one little "blip" that occurred just over 100,000 years ago, my statement that it is higher now than at any time in the last 200,000 years is true.

Since that little blip invalidates your statement, why continue on trying to make truth out of dishonesty? Do you have any comments on that blip? How it might have happened? I know how it happened, (same as most of the present CO2 increase) but am interested in your hypothesis.

When you look at that data, you will note that current levels are higher than they have been at any time during the last 400,000 years, as measured relative to the Vostok data.

400,000 years is an eyeblink in earth history. Explain how for most of earth history the atmospheric CO2 concentrations have been considerably higher than the present.

Below is a graph showing the global carbon emissions since 1800. This graph coresponds quite well with the increase in CO2 levels over the same time period, as well with the increase in gloibal temperatures over the same time period.

Correlation is not causation. I asked before and you didn't answer. How long do you suppose any given CO2 molecule resides in the atmosphere. I ask because it is important with regard to your line of thought.