Re: Conclusive physical evidence for AWG?

On Feb 8, 10:18 am, Martin Brown <|||newspam...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
makol...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
What are the physical manifestations  of global warming that we can
actually MEASURE  and OBSERVE?

When it comes to making important policy decisions that effect all of
us, there needs to be a clear distinction between PREDICTIONS and
SIMULATIONS vs. physical MEASUREMENTS  and OBSERVATIONS.  To make an
analogy to electronics, are you going to make major decisions that
impact the economic health of your company based solely upon the
results of  PSPICE simulations or  are you going to build prototypes
and make real measurements?

We only have one Earth to play with. The analogy is closer to a
situation where SPICE says you are likely to burn out a very expensive
component with your proposed design. Do you go ahead, build it, pray and
switch on or redesign it to meet the chips safe operating parameters?

==========================
Martin
let's refine the analogy a little more. The circuit has been
operating fine for a long time and everyone on there are many people
using. If you make some sensitive measurements, we can detect the
bias point may be changing a little. Some people built a PSPICE
simulation of the circuit (but no one really knows the details of the
circuit, that is the KEY difference between climate simulations and
circuit simulations) and PSPICE says the bias point is going to drift
even more in the future over the period of many many years. What do
we do today?
=================================







 1) CO2 CONCENTRATION
The measured increase in CO2 concentration is well established.  The
CAUSE of the increase is not well established.  The measured increase
is within the same order of magnitude as the amount of CO2
civilization is putting into the atmosphere therefore theory that the
CO2 increase is anthropogenic is a reasonable possibility  but not a
100% certainty.  The CO2 concentration has varied widely well before
the use of fossil fuels.   The increase in CO2 concentration  is
conclusive but the cause of the increase is not conclusive.

The cause of the increase is also conclusive. We can measure the stable
isotope ration of the CO2 in the air and it is changing to reflect the
huge amounts of fossil fuel we are burning. This is also measured as a
part of the Hawaii time series data and is online at:

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/iadv/

Choose "Time Series" and "CO2C13" to see the SIRA data.

And in addition since about 2000 the paramagnetic oxygen measurements
have become accurate enough to measure the corresponding decreases in
the Earth's atmospheric oxygen content. See for example:

http://bluemoon.ucsd.edu/publications/ralph/29_Precise.pdf

There is no doubt at all that the CO2 increases in the atmosphere and in
the oceans is coming from our burning fossil fuels. The isotopic
signature is clear and definitive.


========================
OK, I'll give you that, but CO2 has been higher in the past before
fossil fuels as well.. so higher levels of CO2 in not irreversible.
=========================




2) GLOBAL TEMPERATURE INCREASE
The measured global temperature increase we measure today is very
small and is within the noise of normal weather variations.   There
are no conclusive measurements that can show  the cause of this small
temperature increase is due to CO2 or to sun spots or to anything
else.   Predictions that there will be dangerous climate  temperature
increases in the future are based on simulations.  The simulations

Actually it is possible to show that the recent trend cannot be due to
changes in the suns output. We have satellite monitoring of the sun at
multiple wavebands going back about 3 decades.

assume that the  temperature rise is caused by the C02 concentration
increase and that the CO2 increase is anthropogenic.  The cause of the
small measured global temperature increase is not conclusive.

Actually it works for all GHG CH4 and various CFCs are potent GHG too.

======================
And so is water vapor... so CO2 may not even be an issue.
=======================
3) SEA  LEVEL INCREASE
The measured global sea level rise today is very small also.  There
are no conclusive measurements that can show this small increase has
anything to do with CO2 or temperature or anything else.  Predictions

It has to do with ice melting on the land, and expansion of the oceans
as they warm up. Water expanding when heated is no in dispute.

that there will be dangerous increases in sea level in the future are
based on simulations. The cause of the small measured sea level rise
is not conclusive.

The dittoheads will still be saying this when parts of New York are
under water.

=========================
So far the sea has risen what? a few mm per decade...?
When one little part of one pier in New York is under water, I will
agree with you..
==========================



4) POLAR ICE
The measured decrease in Arctic polar ice is well established.  The
measured increase in Antarctic polar ice is also well established.
There are no conclusive measurements or physical evidence that
indicate a dangerous trend.

If we did not have sensitive scientific instruments,   we would not
even be aware of some of the small changes that have been measured.

So much better to remain ignorant.

These observations are interesting and worthy of further study.
However,  there is no conclusive  physical evidence  that anything
dangerous is actually  happening.

Doubtless there won't be until dangerous things actually occur. And for
the first few major bad events the denialists will still pipe up with
the standard refrain "you can't prove that AGW caused this disaster".
The same tactic still works beautifully for big tobacco. Using smart
lawyers and prostitute scientists it is possible to find a legal form of
words to make reassuring noises in a law court to the effect that
"smoking tobacco does not cause cancer" without committing pervury.



Does it make sense to base a national and world energy policy on
simulations without conclusive physical evidence?

How much more conclusive do you want? Another 2 or 3 US cities inundated
  or most of California dessicated and burnt up in heatwave wildfires?


====================
When you talk about cities being inundated, are you making a
reference to Katrina, I though even the AGW folks acknowledge that
Katrina has nothing to do with AGW, so what are you talking about?
=====================





Does it make sense to levy a carbon tax or establish a cap and trade
bureaucracy,  without conclusive physical evidence?

Cap and trade is a crazy system. It will just create a market in more
financial derivatives for traders to gamble with. A carbon tax makes
sense since it is the fastest way to encourage better fuel efficiency.



Does it make sense to use resources to build large carbon capture
facilities to sequester  CO2 underground without conclusive physical
evidence?

There is *conclusive* physical evidence that you choose to ignore. The
worlds scientists are convinced. In the UK most of the politcal parties
are reasonably convinced (apart from the extremes of left and right).



Does it make sense to forgo the use of our oil and coal resources
without conclusive physical evidence?

Hang on. It is more a case of being more energy efficient. We cannot
abandon coal and oil with our present tenchnologies, but we could slow
down the rate at which we are increasing CO2 in the atmosphere. That
will buy us more time and as such is worthwhile.

Regardless of the validity of AGW,  we do need to address the issue of
our energy supply.   We DO need to develop alternative energy
sources.  We do need to develop renewable energy sources.  We do need
to improve energy efficiency.  We do need to consider nuclear energy.
These are all forward moving productive steps for civilization to
progress and improve the quality of life.

At the very least you are forced to invest a huge amount in sea defences
if you are going for a business as usuall solution until the damage can
no longer be ignored.



However,  imposing taxes, building CO2 sequestration plants, creating
a cap and trade bureaucracy and demonizing oil and coal without
CONCLUSIVE physical evidence of a real problem just does not make any
sense.

There is conclusive physical evidence. Apart from a few politically
motivated dissidents mainly far right Americans there is no dispute in
the scientific community now about the evidence for AGW.

There is debate about what to do about AGW to mitigate its effects, but
that is a separate issue entirely.

Regards,
Martin Brown

=====================
OK now we get to the good part. I think I agree with you... the
important tissue is not if AGW is valid or not, but what is important
is what action we take.

OK we agree cap and trade is crazy. Good.

A carbon tax to promote efficiency, I agree that promoting efficiency
is good for reasons that have nothing to do with AGW. So the question
is how do you promote efficiency, if you use a carbon tax, WHO GETS
THE MONEY?

Clarify, are you for or against building sequestration plants?

Sea defenses? the sea is rising a few mm per decade.... yes I can
afford to wait awhile to see what happens...

Finally I want to thank you for actually addressing the points in my
post..

Mark




.

Quantcast