Measuring Climate Change: Data & Theory. >waltmail@flash.net: >Here I will endeavor to establish that (1) We cannot prove the existence >of or the precise cause of global warming with existing data, that (2) >Even if global warming is happening, it will be a good thing, and that >(3) Even if global warming is happening, there isn't a thing we can do >about it. Hi, I would agree with part of (1). But you forgot to add "ALONE" to "with existing data". If the fact that CO2 absorbs heat radiated by the earth is added to the fact that CO2 levels in the atmosphere are increasing, we have near certain knowledge that the increased CO2 WILL alter the heat balance of the planet and thus the weather patterns. The question then becomes "when will we be able to measure this effect against the background noise in the climate?" Or to say it your way: "If we did not KNOW that extra heat was being added to the system, when would people be able detect the effects of global warming using existing weather data ALONE?" I don't know, but see the lightbulb in the pool example below. Statement (2) is pure conjecture. Since the exact effects are unknown, they may well be "good" or "bad" overall, but more likely good for some locations and people, but bad for others. Statement (3) is almost certainly false. Since adding CO2 increases the heat absorbed by the lower atmosphere, withdrawing CO2 from the atmosphere would have the reverse effect. Humans are adding CO2 to the atmosphere; we could remove it and reduce the level. > EVEN IF the scientists are right, what in god's name makes them >think that (1) humans can cause such a thing by themselves, and that (2) >humans can possibly hope to change a global climatic shift? I'm not >sure many people realize the magnitude of what it takes to change the >global climate. If you don't think that us puny humans can change the world, you should fly over the US midwest in an airplane sometime and look down. The rectangular patterns you see are the result of the law that Congress passed in the 1800's dividing up the northwest territories into townships and sections. >.... They cited evidence stating that 40% >of all people who live in close proximity to power lines suffer from >cancerous problems (namely brain tumors). Sounds like solid evidence >doesn't it? > This is the same logical fallacy behind the 'global warming' >scare. Its called the six-shooter fallacy; its like a cowboy shooting >six shots at the side of a barn, and then drawing the bullseye. A >national report of all cancer related health problems resembling those >of the people living near power lines showed that only in less than 5% >of the total number of cancer cases did the patient live near a power >line. So, while 40% of people who lived near power lines had brain >cancer, only 5% of people with brain cancer lived near power lines. >Only _DEDUCTIVE_ reasoning is a form of scientifically accepted >analysis. Inductive logic(the bullseye fallacy) is not. > Applied to the global warming debate, the argument goes >something like this: How can you say that global warming is caused by >CO2 levels if you don't look at every other time the temperature has >risen(We're talking on a geologic time scale here) and measured CO2 >levels then? Your "power line/brain cancer" analogy is missing an important factor: power line radiation is not known from laboratory experiments to cause brain cancer. But CO2 IS known from laboratory experiments to absorb the infrared radiation (heat) that the earth emits. Change "power lines" to "a known source of ionizing radiation", and combine that with evidence that the people involved were exposed to that radiation, and then your analogy would be closer to the CO2 & global climate change situation. > If environmental scientists confirmed that >everything was A-OK with the planet, then they really wouldn't have >jobs, would they? How much federal grant money goes to private research >of the "greenhouse effect" and "global warming". Liberals give >scientists money so the scientists can have jobs and the liberals have >something to terrify the public with when the next election comes up. >Maybe I'm wrong. Just where is the financial interest here? Why do "liberals" want "global warming" and "conservatives" oppose it? I would expect that oil companies and coal miner unions would want to claim that it does not exist, and that the main "winner" when the problem is recognized will be the nuclear power industry. Steve Hemphill > For a better understanding of these go to the FAQ at: > http://faq.sph.umich.edu/faq/files/sci/climate-change/basics >... or visualize a swimming pool 2 meters deep, 50 >meters long, and 20 meters wide, with a 24 watt light bulb as a source >(as long as you don't let any light out. A watt is a watt. How >about that metric system, eh? Just like dollars). How long will it >take to increase the temperature of the water by 3 K, or about 5 >degrees F? I like that swimming pool analogy. But add these complications: (1)the room containing the pool has long term variations in its temperature, so the "baseline" temperature is not flat (corresponding to the historic pattern of climate variations--see my web page enviroment section for details). It warms up during the day but cools at night. It is warmer during the summer than during the winter. Also: (2) the placement of the thermometer(s) used to measure the pool "temperature". There is not one uniform pool temperature. Without a circulation pattern in the pool, the lightbulb will create an up flow of warmer water that will layer on the surface. What if the detector thermometers are located in the middle and bottom? If there is a very slow "natural circulation" in the pool (due to propellers?), that circulation will be altered by the heat of the bulb, and it would become very complicated to predict exactly where and when the heat from the bulb will show up in thermometer readings. About the only thing that is certain is that the water IS being "warmed up" by 25 watts or 6 calories/sec over what it would be if the light were turned off. Even if many newsgroup posters say the thermometer readings show no proof of "swimming pool warming", or (even worse), claim that the failure of their thermo- meter to jump a few minutes after the light is turned on is proof that the "theory" that heat from a lightbulb will warm water is thus disproven. In fact, consider this situation: the thermometer used to measure "the temperature" of the pool is located below the light bulb along one side of the pool. And the water in the pool is stratified due to low circulation: it is warmer on top and is colder on the bottom. Then when the light is turned ON, the thermometer reading will drop, as cold water from the bottom rises past the thermometer, and when the light is turned OFF, the thermometer will stop falling, and may even warm up as the cold water sinks back to the bottom. Repeat the experiment: light ON, thermometer falls, light OFF thermometer stabilizes or rises. Someone who knew nothing about physics might decide that the light- bulb was CAUSING the water to cool. Or at least that this experiment disproved the "theory" that adding heat to a swimming pool will cause "pool warming". ,,,,,,, _______________ooo___(_O O_)___ooo_______________ (_) jim blair (jeblair@facstaff.wisc.edu) Madison Wisconsin USA. This message was brought to you using biodegradable binary bits, and 100% recycled bandwidth.