|
ToyOfRhamnusia -> RE: So climate change is a Joke? (11/5/2012 3:23:45 PM)
|
Thanks for those references.
The first three contain absolutely no reference to any deviation of Lambert-Beer's law, though, so they are not relevant for this issue. But interesting. They also contain no quantitative calculations of the possible greenhouse gas effect from carbon dioxide, so we are still missing out on proof that carbon dioxide CAN contribute more than a minor effect.
The first one put some numbers up as estimates for the carbon dioxide concentrations being irreversible, but produces no proof of the numbers being even remotely accurate. And they are way out of tune with just about all other studies I have seen, including well-documented ones. I assume this one is based on computer modelling - which proves absolutely NOTHING. But it does make sense to assume that the changes we incur by creating carbon dioxide from sources that were not participating in the constant dynamics related to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will cause some irreversible shift towards a higher level. This particularly makes sense when we consider that we have destroyed more than half of the trees that are the main "destroyers" of carbon dioxide! But the effect of the deforestation is not even mentioned...
These concerns are not at all addressed by a carbon tax. But the article surely points out that even a small increase in carbon dioxide level can have serious consequences, which would NOT be the case if the effect was not proportional to the concentration...
The second one is more on target. It discusses MODELS for how concentrations of carbon dioxide can influence the Earth's temperature, and it is from back in 1986 where politics were not profoundly part of the discussion. However, the global warming effects it predicts are WAY higher than what we have observed!!!! So, in retrospect, when the author concludes, "it is recommended first that the contemporary GCM simulations be analyzed to determine the feedback processes responsible for their differences and second that the parameterization of these processes in the GCMs be validated against highly detailed models and observations" (note that he uses GCM for "general circulation model"), then we can certainly nod our heads in agreement.... By the way, this common scientific wording in a conclusion is science jargon meaning: "I have no idea how accurate this model is when compared to reality."
Funny enough, this article too assumes that the heat absorption is proportional to the carbon dioxide concentration, as I used in my calculation... It also introduces some "feedback effects" that likewise are proportional to that concentration - which basically supports my assumption that the overall effect is close to being proportional to the carbon dioxide concentration... So, where is the proof that the effect isn't linear? So far, all the proof here has assumed that it IS indeed linear...
The third source could have been valuable, had it not been because all the most important pages are "unavailable"... However, from what IS available, it is clear that
1) It is assumed that the currently observed temperature increase is all caused by increase in greenhouse gas concentration
2) It is assumed that their effect is LINEAR (="proportional to concentration")!
So, we are back at square one again, with a confirmation of Lambert-Beer's law that absorption of radiation is indeed linear for the concentrations we are interested in....
I appears that these people are calibrating their model on the basis of ASSUMING that the greenhouse gas effect is the sole cause of the global warming, but that is putting the wagon in front of then horse, as this is what we should have arrived at as a conclusion... But I can't say this with certainty, as the critical pages discussing this are not available. However, based on the fact that there is nothing in the abstract saying anything about the model showing HOW BIG A FRACTION of our observed warming can be caused by greenhouse gas effects, I will make the very likely conclusion that they did NOT try to estimate or calculate the quantitative effect of greenhouse gases on our climate from the basis, but simply use the general standard assumption, as everyone else... (And a general assumption does not become true because it is used often...)
The fourth source is the most interesting. On page 6, you can find exactly the simple the proof you need that Lambert-Beer's law for absorption of radiation most definitely IS observed for the greenhouse gases....
The scales on the illustrations contain concentration on the left and radiation effect on the right - and they are as neatly linearly related as they possibly can....
And, on page 10, the conclusion is stated like this: "In the light of new evidence and taking into account the remaining uncertainties, most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely(7) to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations."
That's a about as vague as a scientist possibly can make a statement!!!!! There is no PROOF in this. It is a statement based on BELIEF. And, when you check that reference (7), it is all about measuring increases of the greenhouse gas concentrations over the last century - not a single calculation to show that this can indeed explain ALL the temperature rise we have observed.
So, we are still left with no evidence that carbon dioxide CAN and indeed DOES cause all (or most of) the observed climate change - but with solid support (although also no proof of this) that my calculations based on Lambert-Beer's law about absorption being a linear function of concentration indeed hold tight - which makes it IMPOSSIBLE for carbon dioxide to be the main reason for the change. And this is in compliance with what I have seen many scientists conclude: the carbon dioxide increase is accountable for about 3-5% of the temperature increases we can measure.
Sure, all these sources make it clear that carbon dioxide DOES indeed have an effect on our climate - but that was not the point. The point is if that ALONE can cause ALL the global warming we can measure - and that still stands as a postulate that has impossible consequences - so logic will lead us to conclude that there must be other effects also at play here, since carbon dioxide is not likely the main culprit.
But all these people support my use of Lambert-Beer's law - and that makes THEIR use of logic inconsistent, as we CANNOT have such high effects of carbon dioxide UNLESS we have some very serious deviations from Lambert-Beer's law at hand....
Thanks for providing proof that my reasoning was correct. It certainly shows some character I want to admire.
But we are still left with the ugly question about what IS then the main cause, when carbon dioxide can't make more than a small contribution?
And the worse question yet: "Is it even worth it trying to reduce carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere, considering the famine that inevitably will result from doing that? (This question is actually also relevant, even if carbon dioxide WERE the main culprit...)
Finally, the worst of all questions (and the most important one to ask is this: What does a carbon tax, as proposed by Al Gore and his criminal gang, do to help us reduce carbon dioxide and develop those well-proven technologies that can make us independent of "Big Oil"?? (Mind you, Germany is currently covering about 40% of it total energy consumption through solar panels and windmills, so this is not at all an impossible objective...)
MY take (but I admit it is speculation) is that the powers-that-be do NOT want us to reduce our consumption of oil - it is their biggest money-maker ever! And they do not want us to look into alternative energy sources they can't control, particularly not the use of energy that can't be metered and thus regulated and taxed... They know well that oil won't last forever, and that particularly the last pockets available will cause huge environmental problems (as they already do!), but they want to make sure that they are in full control of our society BEFORE they have to let go of their grip on oil.
If this assumption were not correct, then it would be far more logical to put a huge tariff or tax on all use of petrochemical raw products, as a sales tax AT THE SOURCE. It would be MUCH simpler and more effective to control, and it would cost only a small fraction in administrative costs. And it would cause the manufacturers that USE oil to reconsider their investment in new technologies, so we would see a huge interest in getting those developed and used! Besides, a tax at the source is well know, globally, to seriously reduce the demand, but not kill the trade. Tobacco taxes, alcohol taxes, sugar taxes, and automobile taxes (as high as 280% in Denmark!!!) have all proven their serious effect on the demand.
The fact that we are now presented with "something entirely different", when we KNOW what would work, should call on serious suspicion of alternative motives... (I already explained what I believe those alternative motives to be). But this fact alone ought to call everybody''s attention to some seriously foul play - and nobody cares... Almost everybody falls into the trap of the Hegelian dialectics and accepts the proposed solution to the presented problems to actually BE a solution. But it isn't. It is a fake agenda for some entirely different solution!
|
|
|
|
