[ RadSafe ] Global Warming

Fri May 30 17:52:55 CDT 2014

Unsubscribe

On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 6:14 PM, Brian Riely <brian.riely at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>