[ExI] The Climate Science Isn't Settled [was: Re: climategate again]

[Mirco Romanato]

Il 04/12/2009 0.17, Alfio Puglisi ha scritto:
>
>
> 2009/12/3 Mirco Romanato <painlord2k at libero.it
> <mailto:painlord2k at libero.it>>
>
>
> I'm not sure which units you are using.  0.03% of what? If it is in
> W/m^2, it seems way too small.
>
>
> Citing from the paper
>
> "It is obvious that a doubling of the concentration of the trace gas
> CO2, whose thermal conductivity is approximately one half than that
> of nitrogen and oxygen, does change the thermal conductivity at the
> most by 0.03% and the isochoric thermal diffusivity at the most by
> 0.07 %. These numbers lie within the range of the measuring
> inaccuracy and other uncertainties such as rounding errors and
> therefore have no significance at all."
>
>
> Ah, now I understand. G &T derive their number from the thermal
> capacity of CO2, which of course is a very small number because it
> has a very small mass compared to the rest of the atmosphere. That
> percentage ignores the radiation part of the equation, which is the
> basis of the CO2 greenhouse effect. Just confirming that it's a
> really, really poor paper.

You never red the paper, so judging it from a sentence is a bit
prejudiced, I think.

This is only in the first part of the paper, where they lay the
foundation of their case. This is needed to establish that conduction
and radiation are not how the heat is transmitted into the air.

> The ice age cores tell us that: 1) there are some positive feedbacks
> 2) they are not enough to trigger runaway effects under natural
> conditions. The ice cores also say there was first an heating and
> after a CO2 increase (some decades after).

> Sure, that's clear from the time series. They basically say that, if
> you increase temperature, CO2 will rise after a while. In our current
>  situation the order is reversed, because we started increasing CO2
> first.

You say so, but a scientific explanation of the former and the latter is
due. You can not reverse the cause and the effect and say the same
mechanics worked in the reverse.

The explanation of the first is raising temperature liberated CO2 from
their sinks. CO2 having no real greenhouse effect did nothing.
If CO2 would have a greenhouse effect so strong as you claim, would have
caused supplemental heating. But, IIRC, the CO2 continued to climb up
even after the temperatures started to go down, following them after a
delay.
So, or the greenhouse effect of the CO2 don't exist, or some natural
phenomenon is much stronger than the CO2. The Sun, maybe?


> Possibly, but it needs to be quantified. Actually I'm not sure where
> to start. Treat it as an insurance-like problem?

Wrong. You can not insure against a rainy day. Because all will feel the
effect of the rain. There is no sharing of different individual risks.
Only self-insurance would work, here.

> Or like when engineers design dams for 100 or 500 years floods?

I don't know many design that are done to last so much.
Usually this is a byproduct of designing for safety.
And, even the N.O. floods was more a byproduct of not enough maintenance
than not designing for safety enough.
Occur to me that the costs to build a dam system able to protect New
Orleans from a Cat. 5 Hurricane would cost so much to bankrupt the city
itself. So, wisely, it was not done.
What could be done, but was not done, was to use the buses used to bus
around schoolboys and schoolgirls to move out of the city, in safer
places, the people, until the storm end. There are [not so] pretty sat
photos (courtesy of Google Earth and the curious eyes of interested
people) showing all these buses underwater, in their parking lots. The
Major never gave the orders needed, and the Police preferred to join the
looters or flee than doing their jobs.

What is the point to give to corrupted people the money for gargantuan
projects, when the best they will do is steal it and waste it.

Already, in Denmark, UK and other places there are investigation about
frauds and organize crime involved with carbon trading.



> Current understanding says that there is some X % of serious
> consequences, so it's acceptable to devote Y% of resources to avoid
> the problem?

Where and when any problem was avoided paying more taxes that would be 
diverted to unrelated spending?
Mr. Gore will become billionaire with his investment if carbon trading. 
That, for what I can understand, is only a way to sell indulgences (as 
stated by a first hour, grandaddy, of the AGW theory.
The problem is the real goal of the greens/leftist.
They want destroy capitalism, because they don't like it, and any reason 
is good to justify this goal. And whatever the price others will pay is 
immaterial. For this, it is enough to see they dishonesty of their 
positions. They are against CO2 emission, but don't want nuclear energy. 
The talk much of wind power, but don't want it in their backyard or to 
save some pests. Not to talk about the fact they want others to subside 
their projects. If these projects are sustainable, what subsides are for?

> The Economist (not exactly a hotbed of environmentalism)

The Economist that tasked Tana de Zulueta to write about Italy politics?
After many passages in TV show where she was presented only as an 
impartial Economist journalist, she would be candidate and elected for 
the post communist party (PDS, now PD).
The same newspaper that back only the leftist governments of Italy and 
is fed practically only by leftist Italian journalists about the news 
and their interpretations?


> has a special report out, that report estimates of the cost at 1% of
> global GDP per year to limit CO2 at 500ppm.

 From 350 ppm?
So we devote 1% to obtain an increase anyway in 90 years.
If we devote the same money to adapt to the changes we would spend less.
We could devote much less and seed the seas so there is more carbon 
capturing.

Last time I checked, the Kyoto protocols would cause the globe to delay 
of three years over a century the same results. Killing the economies of 
the world in the meantime (with many billions starving).

I keep the CO2 and any warming predicted and I'm sure I and the rest of 
planet population will live fine anyway.

Mirco
-------------- next part --------------

Nessun virus nel messaggio in uscita.
Controllato da AVG - www.avg.com 
Versione: 9.0.709 / Database dei virus: 270.14.93/2544 -  Data di rilascio: 12/04/09 08:32:00