[ RadSafe ] Global Warming

[Brian Riely]

Andy

I do not know the answer to "Can such a seemingly small change (0.03 to
0.04% Carbon Dioxide) really provide the impetus for such temperature
changes"?  However, this could be a reasonable statement.

Let a = 0.999; then 1/(1-a) = 1,000.  Now if we increase a by 0.1% a =
0.999999 then 1/(1-a) = 1,000,000

So, a 0.1% change in a causes the answer to increase by 100,000%

Another phenomenon is the avalanche effect, which is quite common in device
physics.  That is 2 electrons create 4 electrons, which create 8 electrons,
etc.  A physical picture of this would be if you take a piece of copying
paper, which is 0.004 inches thick, and fold in half 50 times
mathematically it will be over 71 million miles thick.

I believe the problem with the models is that variables are coupled and if
the coupling is not correctly described, the model might be wrong.

For example, an increase in A, might cause a increase in B, which causes an
increase in C, which causes an Decrease in A.  So what is the net effect?

For example, if a increases by 0.1% a = 0.99999; but maybe the formula
changes from 1/(1-a) to 1/(2-a); then a 0.1% increase in a gives the
formula (1-(2-0.99999) which `is ~ 1.  In this case a 0.1% increase will
cause a 100,000% decrease.

There is also the problem of round off errors using computer.  For example,
if the matrix A is ill conditioned, then solving Ax = b on a computer will
total be different to solving the answer exactly.

For the reasons above and other reasons, I believe models are useless
unless they are verified by nature.




On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 1:26 PM, Thomas Papura <trpapura at gw.dec.state.ny.us>
wrote:

> I am with Andy on those points. And as a first time replier to any thread,
> with what I am about to say, I risk looking ignorant, or at best like a
> fool, but have to ask the following?
>
> As a pragmatic thinker, my biggest wonder in the Carbon Dioxide-Global
> Warming link is how an increase of say 300 to 400 ppm (I am approximating
> what I recall reading about increases) of the gas can be linked to such
> alleged dramatic changes in climate?
>
> Can such a seemingly small change (0.03 to 0.04% Carbon Dioxide) really
> provide the impetus for such temperature changes? What is the mechanism by
> which this is alleged to occur? Is there some cascade effect I don't see?
> Can an extra 100 or even 500 tiny molecules, floating in a sea of another
> 999,000+ really cause such a change?
>
> Tom
>
>
>
>
> Thomas Papura
> Environmental Radiation Specialist II
> Radiological Sites Section
> Contaminated Sites Group Leader
> NYSDEC
> 625 Broadway
> 12th Floor
> Albany, NY 12233
> (518) 402-8783
> FAX (518) 402-9024
>
> Equality always wins because the new order is always more just than what
> preceded it.
>
>
> >>> "KARAM, PHILIP" <PHILIP.KARAM at nypd.org> 5/30/2014 1:12 PM >>>
> To a large extent it really doesn't matter whether or not CO2 emissions
> from fossil fuels are - or are not - causing the climate to change. And for
> that matter, global temperatures are almost immaterial to the question as
> to what to do about fossil fuel consumption. There are other compelling
> reasons to stop burning fossil fuels that are just as compelling and with
> less scientific controversy.
>
> First - fossil fuels are a finite resource. At some point they will run
> out. When that point might be is subject to debate - but the Earth has a
> finite volume, there is a finite amount of fossil biomass that was
> available to form fossil fuels, etc. - there can be no controversy about
> whether or not fossil fuels will run out at some point in the future - the
> only controversy can be as to when they will run out.
>
> Second - fossil fuels are hydrocarbons that are valuable as a chemical
> resource. They are used as feedstock for fertilizers, plastics,
> pharmaceuticals, and much more. It makes little sense to burn them and to
> destroy their utility and value as chemicals.
>
> Third - there is no controversy over the fact that burning fossil fuels
> releases CO2 into the atmosphere, or over the fact that when CO2 dissolves
> into water it forms carbonic acid. There is some debate over how acidic the
> oceans need to be before it is harmful to marine life, but there is no
> debate over the fact that too much acidity is bad for the marine critters.
>
> So - three good reasons to move away from fossil fuel combustion, each of
> which should be relatively uncontroversial and each of which is unconnected
> to global climate change. What I can't fathom is why everybody hangs their
> hat on the most controversial rationale that has the greatest number of
> causal links to be proven - and that relies on controversial modeling as
> well. It seems the environmental/climate change lobby has chosen the most
> difficult argument for not using fossil fuels and, by so doing, has caused
> a huge split that need not have occurred.
>
> Andy
> _______________________________________________
> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
>
> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood
> the RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
> http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
>
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
> visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu
>
> _______________________________________________
> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
>
> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood
> the RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
> http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
>
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
> visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu
>
>