Re: Proving Global Warming (Newsnight item)
- From: Maria <fallingdown@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2009 09:26:34 +0000
Hotblack Desiato wrote:
"Mel Rowing" <mel.rowing@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:dae87087-1383-4a89-8140-5669a9001e78@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxThe "proof" of AGW was as I anticipated so I sent off my already
prepared response.
Waste of time?
We'll see!
Of course, if the link between CO2 and global climate warming could be
demonstrated so easily and simply then there would be no controversy.
The Experiment.
I first came across a version of this demonstration whilst attending
the ASE Conference / Exhibition at Loughborough University sometime
during the late 1980s. I made representations as to its validity.
I next came across it being used in a BBC children’s TV programme 2 or
3 years AGO. I again made representations but received no reply.
The experiment/demonstration makes no contribution whatsoever to the
notion of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW).
The “Proof”
The results of the demonstration are explicable in terms of
calorimetry.
The containers are identical but differ in contents one being filled
with air and the other being filled with air heavily enhanced with CO2
in some way. They are arranged so that each will receive roughly
equivalent amounts of heating from a radiant heat source of some kind.
The temperature rise in each case is dependent upon the specific heat
capacity (sometimes called thermal capacity) of the container and its
contents and is the energy required to raise the temperature of each
container by 1 deg K. According to my reference the value of the
thermal capacity of CO2 at constant volume is lower than the same
quantity with respect to air (0.66 and 0.72 KJ/Kg/K) respectively.
This means that for the same amount of heat input the temperature of
the CO2 enhanced air will rise higher. Care must be taken not to
confuse heat with temperature.
Further
The notion of greenhouse gases involves absorption of longer
wavelength infra red radiation being transmitted from the surface of
the earth.
Contrary to what we are led to believe, CO2 does not absorb radiation
across the whole of the infra red spectrum. Reference to the infra red
absorption spectrum from any authoritative source will reveal
absorption occurs within two frequency bands at ~4 um and ~14um.
Outside and between these limits absorption does not occur at all.
Indications are that beyond a ceiling of a few tens of metres
transmittance (the reciprocal of absorption) reaches extinction point
even at present/natural levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. The effect of
adding more CO2 would simply be a reduction of this ceiling.
I don't think the basic principles of CO2 driven global warming are in dispute and that is all this experiment really demonstrates. Where we run in to problems is demonstrating the extent to which anthropogenic input is contributing to the apparent recent warming trend. Significant reductions in carbon usage is going to have a considerable impact on our way of life, as we really don't have any viable alternatives on the table to replace fossil fuel at the moment. If anthropogenic carbon output is responsible for 90% of the recent warming trend, you could argue that the inevitable hardship and deprivation of curtailing carbon usage is a necessary evil. However, if it only represents 5% of the effect, you've got a harder corner to fight from
As well as the Earth's biosphere representing a hellishly complex system to model, it appears that attempts have also been made from certain quarters to keep the model 'bent' in favour of the expected result. A lot of people of course are also looking at the power and resource grab going on in Copenhagen, and the background noise regarding carbon derivatives, 'cap and trade' and all the loud AGW voices who seem to have their mucky little oars dipping in that particular fish-pond. All potentially very profitable for those involved, whilst simultaneously doing nothing to address the problem anyway, and providing society with nothing tangible in return for the large amounts of productive wealth that are going to be skimmed from the top. Not surprisingly, for a lot of us, alarm bells are going off.
I think that what ever nugget of good intention existed in the arena of AGW theory, it's long since been snuffed out by personal interest groups who see just another opportunity to financially gain from the backs of the productive. I think in order to make any demonstrable headway, we probably have to start again
Very well said - unfortunately this particular bandwagon looks like it is pretty much unstoppable - they aren't going to ask our permission to implement green taxes or other carbon initiatives, and all parties speak with one voice on this as if is accepted fact.
.
- References:
- Proving Global Warming (Newsnight item)
- From: Mel Rowing
- Re: Proving Global Warming (Newsnight item)
- From: Hotblack Desiato
- Proving Global Warming (Newsnight item)
- Prev by Date: Re: Proving Global Warming (Newsnight item)
- Next by Date: Re: The bankers wrecked the economy and lined their pockets with our cash. But stealing our chequebooks is the final insult!
- Previous by thread: Re: Proving Global Warming (Newsnight item)
- Next by thread: Re: Proving Global Warming (Newsnight item)
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
