| Thursday,
June 5, 2008
Subject: Global Warming
"Light gets back out. Heat does
not."
I'm nowhere near a 'clever
hairless monkey', but if heat can't get out wouldn't we all have been burnt
up millenia ago? Certainly heat does have to dissipate somewhere? After
all, even Sol sends us its heat.
Couv
--
David Couvillon
Colonel of Marines;
Former Governor of Wassit Province, Iraq;
Righter of Wrongs; Wrong most of the time;
Distinguished Expert, TV remote control;
Chef de Hot Dog Excellance; Collector of Hot Sauce;
Avoider of Yard Work
Heat gets out, of course. Light waves come in and
hit the earth. This shifts the energy toward the IR. IR is absorbed by CO2
-- and far more so by water vapor -- much more efficiently than light waves.
This is known as the "Greenhouse Effect" (although as Petr Beckmann used to
say, any farmer would tell you "Ain't the way MY greenhouse works).
And there are many ways to change the Earth's
albedo. High clouds do that. Most climate models can't handle clouds (there
just isn't enough computing power). Water vapor, which is a very efficient
IR absorber, also makes clouds. High clouds are reflective and more of the
light that was coming to the Earth is reflected away and thus never gets to
the ground to be converted into heat. Climate models are not very good at
actually dealing with this, so most of them have some kind of fudge factor.
The efficiency of making water vapor given solar input varies like crazy
with terrain, wind conditions (waves don't reflect like mill ponds) and
such; this makes modeling a very difficult thing both to do and to test. I
don't envy climate modelers.
Incidentally, Joanne is a retired electrical
engineer specializing in communications, and was considered pretty good at
her work, so her questions aren't based on total ignorance.
=========
Heat traps
Joanne; The Earth radiates a great deal of heat into
space. The blockage of IR is at best partial, and at limited frequencies.
Water and CO2 block the same range, and water vapour is 19X more abundant in
the atmosphere. So if you want to let the heat out, which is turning out to
perhaps be a very bad idea indeed, you should concentrate on keeping water
vapour out of the air. Perhaps we could spread oil over all the ocean
surfaces to prevent evaporation? Of course, that would end rainfall
everywhere, too ... Problems, problems ...
<http://mail.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/tsmileys2/18.gif>
Brian Hall
As Freeman Dyson points out, the only places that
CO2 can make much difference are cool, dry places; if there's much water
vapor, the CO2 effect is essentially nil.
=========
A Dialogue:
In Response to Joanne Dow's Question
Question
I'm slightly confused about the idea here. Joanne says
that with all the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the heat would come
through with the light, bounce off the planet, and the heat would stay while
the light escapes...
#1. If the heat gets _through_ the atmosphere with no
difficulty, why would it have trouble getting back out, especially if it is
an inherent property of the light?
#2. The carbon dioxide supposedly traps the heat in.
Shouldn't that property work in reverse as well? Keep the heat out? I've
heard "greenhouse effect", where the heat + light come in, but aren't able
to escape, but for some reason, that theory didn't ever really convince me.
Yes, the light comes into a glass/plastic house and warms it up. However,
that's an enclosed area. I don't think that heat would have that much of a
problem dissipating. After all, doesn't heat excite the movement of
molecules, which then gradually entropy? A gas like carbon dioxide and the
myriad other gases in our environment are no different than the gases we
observe on the ground...if anything, we should be worrying about "burning
away" our atmosphere.
This is all theory, and it's based more on logic
according to the basic rules of geothermal science that I do know. Heat has
this crazy tendency to dissipate, rather than propagate. If we're disrupting
the equilibrium of Earth's heating and cooling, thermodynamics states that
the entropy of the system will increase, rather than decrease. I don't see
how global warming can be seen as a common sensical proposition, rather, it
seems like a strange sort of science fiction (which I would love, if it was
seen as that). The problem lies in the complete break with established
science that those who believe in global warming have. That's my issue with
it. It's great to have theories. I could make up a dozen theories, but if
past data and current data don't confirm them, it's just that.
A theory.
Blake Richardson
=
I replied:
That is the nature of the "greenhouse effect".
Longer wave lengths (lower frequencies) are absorbed more by water vapor and
CO2. Energy comes in, hits the earth, heats it, and the IR then tries to get
back out...
That's observable. It's also clear that CO2 is a
greenhouse gas only where there isn't any water vapor, which is to say where
it's dry, because water vapor is a much greater absorber of IR than CO2
Jerry Pournelle
Chaos Manor
=
So basically...carbon dioxide emissions would only
show a significant heating effect in areas like the Southwestern United
States, various desert regions in Asia, and the desert regions of Africa?
That makes the whole global warming theory seem even less plausible then
before. I can see why you and Dr. Dyson have such an issue with it, and with
NASA for propagating it.
I take issue with the fact that the proponents of
global warming are blatantly fear-mongering, in a very "cardboard sign
wearing hobo with a Bible" sort of way. I'm especially disappointed by Vice
President Gore's method of taking advantage. I suppose in a world like Earth
that holds the entire population of a species, we can't avoid end of the
world theory. I can only hope we manage to get an off-world colony before a
_real_ disaster does befall us.
Blake Richardson
I have little regard for those who profit from the
Global Warming scare. As I have said many times, the proper policy would be
massive investment in finding out what is going on -- including grants to
those seeking to DISPROVE the Human Caused Global Warming theories -- by
gathering more reliable data. When we know what is happening it is time to
devise a policy to deal with it, but until then, costly efforts to reduce
CO2 cannot be worth their costs. Or so say I.
==
Subject: less-than-infinite global warming
Joanne Dow writes:
"My understanding of the basic thermal model for
the planet has Sun light reaching the planet and being trapped as heat.
It hits the ground and is reflected upwards where only a percentage gets
out."
I'm interested in reading the explanation too, because
there must be more to it. Sunlight has been reaching the Earth for several
billion years, but the effect obviously is not cumulative, although that
result is suggested by the description.
--Mike Glyer
All planets have an equilibrium temperature. As
temperature rises, more gets out. As it falls, less gets out. There is also
reflectivity. If the Earth is cold and dry and covered with ice it will be
shiny so more light is reflected at high frequencies without being absorbed.
And so forth.
Physics always works.
==
Subject: Joanne Dow's Question
Sunlight consists of energetic photons, which reach
the Earth. Some are used by plants to create complex compounds, others are
immediately reflected into space (see 'albedo'), and yet others are absorbed
by the atmosphere and surface, driving atmospheric (weather) and
hydrospheric (currents, etc.) dynamics and eventually being degraded into
heat. The heat is then radiated, mostly at night. The effect of greenhouse
gases is to increase the efficiency of atmospheric absorption of incoming
light or outgoing heat photons so that the atmospheric and hydrospheric
systems contain more energy at any time. One way this is expressed is in
more extreme weather, another is in an increase in the mean global
temperature. Solar energy collection that bypasses some of the absorption
and dumps the waste heat directly into the ground for radiation at night
should reduce the weather problems.
-- Harry Erwin, PhD, Program Leader, MSc Information
Systems Security, University of Sunderland.
<http://scat-he-g4.sunderland.ac.uk/~harryerw> Weblog at:
<http://scat-he-g4.sunderland.ac.uk/~harryerw/blog/index.php>
==================
Dear Dr. Pournelle,
On Tuesday, May 27, 2008 you wrote:
"Nuclear power comes to mind. Nuclear is,
of course, a temporary strategy: we'll run out of uranium if we don't
find a lot more and mine it."
Well, I could say that you’re wrong on both
accounts...
Nuclear power doesn’t come to everybody’s mind,
especially here in Brussels during that "Green Week 2008" with its slogan
"Only One Earth" (<http://ec.europa.eu/environment/greenweek/home.html>
).
But now for the good news:
"There is enough uranium known to exist to fuel the
world's fleet of nuclear reactors at current consumption rates for at least
a century, according to the latest edition of the world reference on uranium
published today [3 June 2008].
'Uranium 2007: Resources, Production and Demand,' also
known as the Red Book, estimates the identified amount of conventional
uranium resources which can be mined for less than USD 130/kg to be about
5.5 million tonnes, up from the 4.7 million tonnes reported in 2005.
Undiscovered resources, i.e. uranium deposits that can be expected to be
found based on the geological characteristics of already discovered
resources, have also risen to 10.5 million tonnes. This is an increase of
0.5 million tonnes compared to the previous edition of the report. The
increases are due to both new discoveries and re-evaluations of known
resources, encouraged by higher prices.
[...]
Deployment of advanced reactor and fuel cycle
technologies could increase the long-term availability of nuclear energy
from a century to thousands of years."
Source: The Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA), a specialised
agency within the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
(OECD).
<http://www.nea.fr/html/general/press/2008/2008-02.html>
With my best wishes for a complete recovery!
A. Romain
Alas. Known to exist is not the same as opening
Uranium Mines. Would that it were. But the good news is that there are many
more applications for nuclear power plants in the US, and in the present
climate there is a lot more public support.
The bad news is that I doubt Obama will approve the
measures needed to actually get nuclear power plants built in the US.
Alert: Cooling Underway: Global
Temperature Continues to Drop in May
<http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?
FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord
_id=53de09dc-802a-23ad-4ec4-c8accd44a47d>
June 4, 2008
Posted By Marc Morano – 9:51 AM EST – Marc_Morano@EPW.Senate.Gov
<mailto:Marc_Morano@EPW.Senate.Gov>
Cooling Underway: Global Temperature Continues to Drop
in May
'Significantly Colder' - 16-month temperature drop of
-0.774°C!
Global temperatures continued to slide in May 2008.
Meteorologist Anthony Watts details the cooling temperatures in a report
titled “Global Temperature Dives in May.” The new global temperature data
reveals a whopping three quarters of a degree Celsius drop in temperatures
since January 2007. Watts reported late yesterday
<http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/
2008/06/03/uah-global-temperature-dives-in-may/>
that the cooling is “equal in magnitude to the generally agreed upon ‘global
warming signal’ of the last 100 years.”
“Confirming what many of us have already noted from
the anecdotal evidence coming in of a much cooler than normal May, such as
late spring snows as far south as Arizona, extended skiing in Colorado, and
delays in snow cover melting in many parts of the northern hemisphere, the
University of Alabama, Huntsville (UAH), published their satellite-derived
Advanced Microwave Sounder Unit data set of the Lower Troposphere for May
2008,” Watts reported on June 3.
“It is significantly colder globally, colder even than
the significant drop to -0.046°C seen in January 2008,” Watts explained. The
updated global temperature chart is here <http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/
2008/06/uah_may_08.png> )
“But even more impressive is the change since the last
big peak in global temperature in January 2007 at 0.594°C, giving a 16 month
change in temperature of -0.774°C which is equal in magnitude to the
generally agreed upon ‘global warming signal’ of the last 100 years,” he
added.
Climatologist Dr. Roy Spencer, formerly of NASA and
currently principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in
Huntsville, commented on the new data. “If you exclude the anomalous 1992
cooling from the Pinatubo volcano eruption, it’s the coolest May in 20
years,” Spencer said.
Physicist Dr. Lubos Motl, formerly of Harvard
University, also reacted to the new temperature data. “The global anomaly
was -0.17 °C, the coldest reading after January 2000 and the third coldest
monthly figure after September 1993. Yes, I mean that anomaly-wise, May was
even colder than all the cool months of 2008, despite the dramatically
weakening La Nina that now seems likely to change to ENSO neutral conditions
this month. For example, the month-on-month cooling from April 2008 was by
0.19 °C while May 2008 was more than 0.75 °C cooler than January 2007. The
average anomaly for the first five months of 2008 is negative. 1994 was the
last year whose average annual anomaly was negative,” Motl wrote on June 4.
(LINK
<http://motls.blogspot.com/2008/06/
uah-msu-may-2008-cooler-than-april-by.html> )
“The Sun has been spotless at least for 9 days. The
standardized May sunspot number was 2.9, equal to April, and the solar flux
was even slightly lower than in April, namely 68.4,” Motle wrote.
# #
Related Links:
'Global Warming Will Stop,' New Peer-Reviewed Study
Says – April 30, 2008 <http://epw.senate.gov/public/
index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs
&ContentRecord_id=A17DEFA8-802A
-23AD-4912-8AB7138A7C3F>
Global COOLING Currently Under Way – February 27, 2008
<http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?
FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id
=5CEAEDB7-802A-23AD-4BFE-9E32747616F9>
U.S Army Chief Scientist Says Sun, Not Man, Is Causing
Climate Change – June 3, 2008 <http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/06/army-vs-global.html>
National Post: Global Cooling! 'Spotless Sun' prompts
scientists to fear 'dramatic turn for the worse' – May 31, 2008 <http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/
fpcomment/archive/2008/05/30/
the-deniers-our-spotless-sun.aspx>
U.S. Senate Minority Report: “Over 400 Prominent
Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007” <http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport>
# # #
Marc Morano
Communications Director
Senate Environment and Public Works Committee (EPW)
Inhofe Staff
===========
250 trillion cu ft of gas found
Jerry,
As the price goes up, more and more oil and gas will
be found. The latest (in the newspapers 1 June)
Larry May
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/
business/industry_sectors/
natural_resources/article4036235.ece
The charge is centred on what Australia's Science
Agency estimates is 250 trillion cu ft of gas locked in vast Jurassic
coalfields largely under the sweeping agricultural plains of southern
Queensland. Proven reserves are a fraction of that but confirmation of the
full resource would make this tiny portion of the country the world's
fourth-largest source of natural gas - ahead of Saudi Arabia.
We do have alternatives to selling the country to
the Saudis
==========
Black Light Power (see
View)
Jerry,
Back in 1998 I was living in New Jersey, and looking
for work. I remember seeing the Black Light web site (they had some open
positions). I seem to recall that they had been in business for a couple of
years at that point. Mills had been pushing his theories on physics even
longer. Even at that time, the company had press releases indicating that
they were talking with curious Fortune 500 companies. I didn't apply because
my background didn't align with what they wanted. I also was concerned that
the company might be pushing technological snake oil, and that working for
them could eventually look bad on the resume.....
It has been 10 years now, which would seem long enough
to prove their technology, and start setting the world on fire. That it
hasn't happened makes me wonder if there is any substance to it. On the
other hand, they seem to have come up with enough money to stay in business
for over 10 years.
Craig
TOP
CURRENT
VIEW Thursday |
