Re: Global Warming & Dying Liberals

From: The Ghost In The Machine (ewill_at_sirius.athghost7038suus.net)
Date: 11/28/04 

Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2004 02:01:10 GMT

In sci.physics, Bob Schmall
<rschmall@wi.rr.com>
 wrote
on Sat, 27 Nov 2004 22:39:13 GMT
<lm7qd.96025$T02.12369@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com>:
>
> <jimp@specsol-spam-sux.com> wrote in message
> news:coaruj$9bg$1@mail.specsol.com...
>> In sci.physics Daniel Joseph Min <Real.Min@colorado.usa> wrote:
>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>
>>> ICE AND SNOW IS melting at *unprecedented* rates all around the
>>> planet from terrestrial pole to pole, especially in the heavily-
>>> populated northern hemisphere.
>>
>> The ski season here opened earlier than it has for several decades.
>>
>> Nature doesn't seem to care about your rant.
>
> Please learn the difference between weather and climate. Global warming is a
> proven scientific fact--only its cause has been debated. Informed people
> know that human emissions of carbon dioxide are mostly responsible.
> Conservatives don't.
>
> Bob
>

Dumb question. What are the absorption spectra for CO2 and H2O
in the relevant infrared region, which presumably is somewhere
in the peak of blackbody radiation of a body at about 283K or so?

I have a suspicion we're all looking at the wrong suspect, though
far greater minds than mine have chewed on the data.

As for early ski seasons, I should note here that hurricanes are
essentially gigantic heat engines (the heat source is the
warmed ocean waters), and I suspect milder winter storm systems
are, too; the hotter the water on average, the more inclement weather
one might expect in certain regions. There are also issues with
respect to an underwater current circumnavigating the globe;
disrupt that somehow (e.g., by melting ice) and one may very
well lose the Gulf Stream, which could do some interesting
things to the climate on the US East coast.

It's a complicated issue, this global warming.

The problem with reducing CO2 emissions is that there's no
good replacement, with the possible exception of breeder
reactor fission power [*], and that can't be placed into automobiles
for fairly obvious reasons. The C-C => C=O bond transformation
represents the bulk of our power output; check the enthalpy!
Hydrogen cars will simply not get the same fuel mileage, even
were we to take care of all of the other little problems hydrogen
cars face (brittleness of parts exposed to hydrogen,
gaseous nature of hydrogen at room temperature, efficient
conversion of H2 and O2 to H2O and motive power, etc.).

I'd say our best bet is to resurrect Carter's synfuel program,
if we can do so without it turning into another government
boondoggle. (Good luck. One reason it failed was because
of the oil slump in the 80's, but another is because the
program was very inefficiently run AIUI. It basically
fell down and broke.)

[*] AIUI there's not enough U-235 for standard reactor fission
    power to last for more than a few decades. 

-- 
#191, ewill3@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.