Re: The case for AGW

On Fri, 8 Aug 2008 13:11:11 -0700 (PDT), Mel Rowing
<mel.rowing@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Aug 8, 2:05 pm, abelard <abela...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

i read an interesting, but sloppy document posted by mel....which
does a much better job....

http://brneurosci.org/co2.html

a major concern is feedbacks....not the way 'mel's' document attempts
to skirt around that problem...it also makes another common error of not realising
~40% of the agw is not co2...

Of course 40% of nowt is nowt! This article essentially addresses the
question of carbon dioxide which almost up to present has been the
predominant consideration both within and without the scientific
community. Is it not true that we are being increasingly urged to
consider our carbon (dioxide) footprint? Isn?t this why we are being
urged to use less fossil fuel?

as you will well know, my problem with filthy fossil fuels goes
much wider than co2

The term feedback has been shamelessly borrowed from the technology of
electronics and alludes to a phenomenon which either by accident or
design allows output to become input. Electronic feedback can run away
with itself as every careless user of a microphone knows too well.
Sound picked up from a loudspeaker is picked up by the microphone to
become input which is converted by the amplifier into output to be
picked up by the microphone again and so on creating a continuous
loop.

Taking the analogy to its limits, runaway environmental feedback could
be seen as disastrous except that:

The earth?s atmosphere is not an electronic circuit. An electronic
circuit has no dynamic physical properties as such. Thus the presence
or absence of feedback as just described does not change its nature in
any way whatsoever.

there is no call for feedback to be 'runaway'.....

meanwhile *most* of the expected/plausible agw/energy feedbacks
are positive....to cavalierly dismiss them systematically is
hardly convincing....
in a narrow context see
http://www.abelard.org/briefings/antarctica_melting_ice.php#glacier_melting

The atmosphere on the other hand is a dynamic fluid and the source of
the energy that drives this dynamism is essentially that solar energy
that is absorbed by the surface of the earth.

Our major concern is with that proportion of the energy carried away
from the surface as radiation. That which is transmitted at
frequencies that correspond to the infra red window described in the
first sentence of this article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared_window

will be transmitted directly into space.

Any radiation that is not transmitted at these appropriate frequencies
will be absorbed and eventually concerted to heat that will be added
to the dynamic thermal mix to be eventually carried to the higher
atmosphere where the rarefied nature of the atmosphere opens this
window wide. Any amount of CO2 will not alter the shape of this IR
window at surface levels.

there is an energy balance...it is exceedingly unlikely that balance
point isn't (and wont continue to) rise as long as the ghgs
increase...
what is far from certain is the level of that increased temperature
(energy balance)

That is the gist of what this article you disparage as if shown here:

the article has imv two weaknesses...
1)sloppy logic and presentation
2)heavy unsupportable slant...

i still think it's the best attempted layout of what you've been
on about for some months that i've seen....

?The net effect of all these processes is that doubling carbon dioxide
would not double the amount of global warming. In fact, the effect of
carbon dioxide is roughly logarithmic. Each time carbon dioxide (or
some other greenhouse gas) is doubled, the increase in temperature is
the same as the previous increase. The reason for this is that,
eventually, all the longwave radiation that can be absorbed has
already been absorbed. It would be analogous to closing more and more
shades over the windows of your house on a sunny day -- it soon
reaches the point where doubling the number of shades can't make it
any darker.

i don't think the analogy is useful....
but i've little problem with the argument....

repeat...co2 is only 60% of agw.....and feedbacks are not well
understood or established....

The analogy with a greenhouse would be that the glass in the roof
becomes slightly thicker. The effect of warming also depends on the
conditions inside the greenhouse. If the greenhouse were full of ice
at exactly -0.01 degrees Celsius, making the glass slightly thicker
just might be enough to melt all the ice and flood the greenhouse. But
if the greenhouse had some regions that were hot and some that were
very cold (as the planet Earth does), it would have a very small
overall effect.

i didn't see much point in that para...

As an aside, the term "greenhouse effect" is actually a misnomer. In
greenhouses, most of the warming that is observed is not caused by
carbon dioxide, or by absorption of infrared radiation by the glass as
many people think, but by reduction in convection. [The ?dynamic
thermal mix? I referred to earlier]

if it becomes relevant i'll worry about it...
meanwhile people know what is meant by it...

his 'psychology' is the usual psychobabble presently so favoured by
those who cannot make a cogent or coherent argument

Don?t presume to lecture anyone on ?cogent or coherent argument?

For you to take this man on is akin to the average pub footballer
taking on Ronaldo.

You would look just as silly. He has all the conceptual tools for
this. You have few if any!

If anyone is sloppy it?s not him!

i've corrected your poor logic on several occasions...
that you get tetchy is not convincing.....

there are errors of reasoning in the article....
i've already pointed to them...

that the article also contains facts is useful....
that it contains facts doesn't not stop it being sloppy
in logic and coherence....
the article is also heavily and foolishly slanted....

if he stuck to the argument and presented just that argument in
a clear manner without the rhetoric and skimming...
it would much improve the article..and make it more widely
useful...

He doesn?t need to skirt around that problem since, if you understand
the argument, it doesn?t exist. The only reason you get runaway
feedbacks on an amplifier/ loudspeaker is if the microphone is badly
placed or the input is set critically high.

you don't get 'runaway feedback'...there is no such thing....
something always breaks...

positive feedbacks just lead to a new equilibrium or 'state'

There is no analogous situation with respect to the atmospheric
system. You can add as much CO2 as you like and it makes little or no
difference. Hence no feedback mechanisms can be affected.

don't be silly....

regards

--
web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics
energy, education, politics, etc 1,552,396 document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
all that is necessary for [] walk quietly and carry
the triumph of evil is that [] a big stick.
good people do nothing [] trust actions not words
only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The case for AGW
    ... question of carbon dioxide which almost up to present has been the ... Electronic feedback can run away ... The earth’s atmosphere is not an electronic circuit. ... The analogy with a greenhouse would be that the glass in the roof ...
    (uk.politics.misc)
  • Re: Baggs Para-Acoustic DI question
    ... I was having problems with bass frequencies on the verge of feeding ... And it also cancels out some energy that is not a problem, ... IMO, you're both right, however, in acoustic guitar feedback situations, ...
    (rec.music.makers.guitar.acoustic)
  • Re: Baggs Para-Acoustic DI question
    ... I was having problems with bass frequencies on the verge of feeding ... And it also cancels out some energy that is not a problem, hence the change of tone, not always desirable. ... IMO, you're both right, however, in acoustic guitar feedback situations, often the energy contained in the acoustic pressure wave *at the guitar* will be much less than the energy imparted by the pick or picking fingers. ...
    (rec.music.makers.guitar.acoustic)
  • Re: Baggs Para-Acoustic DI question
    ... I was having problems with bass frequencies on the verge of feeding ... And it also cancels out some energy that is not a problem, ... Steve Hawkins ... IMO, you're both right, however, in acoustic guitar feedback ...
    (rec.music.makers.guitar.acoustic)
  • Re: allowed transitions
    ... give me a little feedback on this. ... The books I've read all ... indicate that atomic fine structure consists only of two energy ...
    (sci.physics)