[baraka]

[q

[baraka]

Gerben42, on 2015-November-06, 16:02, said:

Okay, back to physics 101. The greenhouse effect works as follows:

* Sun irradiates Earth with its own black body radiation at approx. 6000 K, which corresponds mostly to visible light, with the maximum in yellow. Nitrogen and Oxygen are transparent at this temperature, as is CO2.
* Earth then radiates back with its own black body radiation at approx. 300 K, which corresponds to a 20 times longer wavelength (deep into the infra-red). Oxygen and Nitrogen are... transparent at this wavelength, but CO2 and H2O are opaque.

Therefore... Water vapor and Carbon dioxide absorb the radiation from the Earth and work like a blanket. Which is good since otherwise the average temperature of the earth would not be the current +15°C but well below zero.

Right to a certain point. Our atmosphere has, to the nearest 1/10th of a percent 0.0% CO2. You're telling me that that is what makes all the difference between the temperatures on earth and Mars ? How about oxygen and nitrogen absorbing heat from the ground like a pan on a stove ?

[Zelandakh]

baraka, on 2015-November-06, 21:30, said:

You're telling me that that is what makes all the difference between the temperatures on earth and Mars ?

Here is an article aimed at a level understandable by someone such as yourself explaining what is believed happened to the martian atmosphere and, therefore, why the big difference exists. If you pay attention you will note that carbon dioxide is not mentioned.

[kenberg]

Zelandakh, on 2015-November-07, 04:49, said:

Here is an article aimed at a level understandable by someone such as yourself explaining what is believed happened to the martian atmosphere and, therefore, why the big difference exists. If you pay attention you will note that carbon dioxide is not mentioned.

It's a nice article. but the headline about how what happened on Mars could happen here is a bit on the excitable side. Within the article we find:

Quote

However, he said if the Earth's magnetic field shut off if the core of our planet cooled down, then we would "become a bigger Mars."

Ok, if the Earth's magnetic field shut off I imagine there would be consequences, but this possibility is not keeping me awake at night.

That criticism aside, it is stunning what scientists can do these days.

[kenberg]

Al_U_Card, on 2015-November-06, 13:34, said:

Cui bono.

Natural water vapour far outweighs our contribution, so it can't be used to hold us responsible.
Methane is a minute presence that despite its being more potent is actually insignificant.
CO2 fit the bill as the culprit so it was adopted by the UNFCCC as the means to an end.

Alarmists don't care about the science or even science and the scientific method. Like CFCs and the ozone layer or any other "cause" that needs an effect. If you can use it to your advantage, then do so. The bureaucracy and gravy train associated with this particular one is pretty awe-inspiring. (and nauseating)

Look at the current jihad against Exxon (no worse a bad guy than most corporate entities). The approach reeks of the alarmist method. A closer look at its development is here

The + rating was an accidental click, so maybe I will comment.

My view of the Exxon matter:


Cigarette companies had scientific evidence that cigarettes are good for you, the NFL has a committee of scientists explaining that the brain damage found in autopsies of football players could not possibly have been caused by huge people running headlong into each other, and Exxon can explain why there is no problem with burning oil. And Ben Carson can explain the pyramids.

What to do? I doubt anything gets better by penalizing people or companies from putting forth their views, but a grain or two of salt, maybe coupled with a Margarita, is recommended.

[baraka]

Zelandakh, on 2015-November-07, 04:49, said:

Here is an article aimed at a level understandable by someone such as yourself explaining what is believed happened to the martian atmosphere and, therefore, why the big difference exists. If you pay attention you will note that carbon dioxide is not mentioned.

And some day the sun will become so big it will englobe Mercury, Venus and the Earth and then then explode ! I'm ready for it ! I'll be dead !

[Zelandakh]

kenberg, on 2015-November-07, 07:19, said:

Ok, if the Earth's magnetic field shut off I imagine there would be consequences, but this possibility is not keeping me awake at night.

Nor should it but it should at least open your mind to the idea that there are differences between Earth and Mars beyond CO₂ levels.

baraka, on 2015-November-07, 07:44, said:

And some day the sun will become so big it will englobe Mercury, Venus and the Earth and then then explode ! I'm ready for it ! I'll be dead !

Not that it is relevant to the discussion but around 8 years old I wrote a science fiction story referring to this future event. You are right about being dead though and even if the more sensitive models are accurate I daresay both of us will be dead before any effects would directly affect us. That does not necessarily mean it is right to ignore the possibility though - people tend to care about their children, nieces and nephews too!

[PassedOut]

baraka, on 2015-November-07, 07:44, said:

And some day the sun will become so big it will englobe Mercury, Venus and the Earth and then then explode ! I'm ready for it ! I'll be dead !

But you had asked about the difference between the temperatures on Mars and Earth as an attempt to downplay the effect of CO₂ on warming the Earth. Why change the subject now?

No doubt though, that your "I'll be dead!" argument plays a big role in convincing folks not to take action now to reduce mankind's spewing of CO₂.

[kenberg]

baraka, on 2015-November-07, 07:44, said:

And some day the sun will become so big it will englobe Mercury, Venus and the Earth and then then explode ! I'm ready for it ! I'll be dead !

That cannot be helped, and I imagine that any hypothetical shut down of the Earth's magnetic field is beyond our control. On the other hand, the plague that hit London some years back could have been avoided, or at least reduced, by better sanitation.


So we accept what we must, act where we can. As often observed, wisdom is knowing the difference. My inclinations run toward climate change being one of those things where action can make a difference..

To go from my earlier comments about other studies: Grinding up dead plants, rolling them in paper, setting it on fire, and inhaling the smoke sounds like a bad idea on the face of it. Same for having two 250 pound guys putting their heads down and running full tilt into each other, and get up and do it again, and again, until they cannot. Same for digging up all the oil and coal that we can find and burning it. Perhaps any or all of these activities are harmless, but they don't seem harmless.

So of course studying the matter makes sense, but I suspect the activities are not harmless.

[hrothgar]

baraka, on 2015-November-07, 07:44, said:

I'll be dead !

Too little, and far too late

[Daniel1960]

PassedOut, on 2015-November-07, 08:08, said:

But you had asked about the difference between the temperatures on Mars and Earth as an attempt to downplay the effect of CO₂ on warming the Earth. Why change the subject now?

No doubt though, that your "I'll be dead!" argument plays a big role in convincing folks not to take action now to reduce mankind's spewing of CO₂.

Many hypothesis exist as to what happened to the Martian atmosphere. Another is a giant collision destroyed an oxygen-rich atmosphere, possibly resulting in the formation of the Martian moons. The large depression, named Vastita Borealis, covering the northern hemisphere is thought to be the result of such collision, being much smoother than the crater-pocketed surface of the rest of the red planet. This is all conjecture, of course. But makes for interesting discussions.

The current carbon dioxide rich Martian atmosphere is so thin, that its heat trapping ability is quite small. This surface pressure on Mars is about two orders of magnitude less than on Earth, which is a similar two orders less than Venus. The lack of volume to the atmosphere is what makes life impossible on Mars, not its composition.

[Al_U_Card]

The adiabatic lapse rate explains both Mars and Venus surface temps. HERE, water in its 3 phases does most of the rest
Btw the earth's magnetic field is currently reversing (for the last 50 years and likely the next hundred or so) with attendant anomalies. Another natural and variable process that we cannot mitigate but that we must and will adapt to with some difficulty no doubt.

[hrothgar]

kenberg, on 2015-November-07, 08:21, said:

To go from my earlier comments about other studies: Grinding up dead plants, rolling them in paper, setting it on fire, and inhaling the smoke sounds like a bad idea on the face of it. Same for having two 250 pound guys putting their heads down and running full tilt into each other, and get up and do it again, and again, until they cannot. Same for digging up all the oil and coal that we can find and burning it. Perhaps any or all of these activities are harmless, but they don't seem harmless.

Hi Ken

I know that you don't follow these topics too closely. There is a reason why Al is suddenly commenting about Exxon.

The LA Times and Inside Climate News just published a very interesting series of articles that show the following

1. During the 1980s, Exxon conducted internal research that showing that C02 emissions are linked to climate change
2. The company determined that publishing this information would hurt its bottom line
3. The company consciously decided to launch a massive PR campaign designed to emphasize the uncertainty about climate change

There's a good op ed piece abut this in the NYT this morning

[Winstonm]

How quaint. Seems like Exxon and Reynolds Tobacco use similar tactics to try to protect profits.

The political problem as I see it is that Adam Smith's concept of free market competition applies only to small local enterprises - when you add Reaganomics' influence that any regulation is bad you end up with mega-corporations and little competition.

[kenberg]

hrothgar, on 2015-November-07, 11:35, said:

Hi Ken

I know that you don't follow these topics too closely. There is a reason why Al is suddenly commenting about Exxon.

The LA Times and Inside Climate News just published a very interesting series of articles that show the following

1. During the 1980s, Exxon conducted internal research that showing that C02 emissions are linked to climate change
2. The company determined that publishing this information would hurt its bottom line
3. The company consciously decided to launch a massive PR campaign designed to emphasize the uncertainty about climate change

There's a good op ed piece abut this in the NYT this morning

I'll take a look (well, I don't promise). I read that in NY they are investigating, perhaps with the intent of criminal filing. Not knowing the details I won't say anything too strong, but if we start arresting people for fudging the truth in their publicity, we had better build more prisons. The idea is that it is financial fraud on investors to withhold or skew the results of their investigation into the effects of carbon. . A stretch, I think.

Still, I grant it is a problem. If I lie, people can learn to ignore me. When a multi-billion dollar company sets out to stretch the facts, it's another thing entirely.

Still and still again, I recall one of my favorite movie lines as Bogart berates Mary Astor for her lies "That one doesn't count because we didn't believe you anyway". Quote is approximate, idea is right.

[hrothgar]

kenberg, on 2015-November-07, 14:31, said:

When a multi-billion dollar company sets out to stretch the facts, it's another thing entirely.

Agreed

And when Phillip Morris and a bunch of other multi-billion dollar companies decided to stretch the facts, they eventually were held liable for some massive settlements.

[y66]

kenberg, on 2015-November-07, 14:31, said:

I recall one of my favorite movie lines as Bogart berates Mary Astor for her lies "That one doesn't count because we didn't believe you anyway". Quote is approximate, idea is right.

The lead up to that line is also memorable:

Quote

Miss Wonderly: Mr. Spade, I've a terrible, terrible confession to make.

He makes a polite smile.

Miss Wonderly: That -- that story I told you yesterday was all -- a story.

Spade: Oh, that. (lightly) Well, we didn't exactly believe your story, Miss -- Miss -- Is your name Wonderly or LeBlanc?

Miss Wonderly: (working her fingers again) It's really O'Shaughnessy -- Brigid O'Shaughnessy.

Spade: We didn't exactly believe your story Miss O'Shaughnessy. We believed your two hundred dollars.

O'Shaughnessy: You mean...

Spade: I mean that you paid us more than if you'd been telling us the truth ... (blandly) ... and enough more to make it all right.

[kenberg]

y66, on 2015-November-07, 18:22, said:

The lead up to that line is also memorable:

It is such a fun script. I like the line in the form I put it above, but by now I realize that it wasn't that way exactly. Maybe it was that way in the book but, since it was very long ago that I read it, probably it is just my re-arrangement of reality.

Back to the climate.

Anyway, I would not go to Exxon for reliable info on the atmospheric impact of carbon.

[y66]

kenberg, on 2015-November-07, 19:17, said:

It is such a fun script. I like the line in the form I put it above, but by now I realize that it wasn't that way exactly. Maybe it was that way in the book but, since it was very long ago that I read it, probably it is just my re-arrangement of reality.

Back to the climate.

Anyway, I would not go to Exxon for reliable info on the atmospheric impact of carbon.

Your memory is correct. I posted the dialog which precedes the line you mentioned because "more than enough to make it right" seems particularly ironic in this context, as if Exxon could buy off the Bush administration, Congress and even the Water Cooler. O'Shaugnessy's lies didn't keep Sam Spade from figuring out what happened. Exxon's uncertainty campaign won't work either.

[Daniel1960]

y66, on 2015-November-07, 22:32, said:

Your memory is correct. I posted the dialog which precedes the line you mentioned because "more than enough to make it right" seems particularly ironic in this context, as if Exxon could buy off the Bush administration, Congress and even the Water Cooler. O'Shaugnessy's lies didn't keep Sam Spade from figuring out what happened. Exxon's uncertainty campaign won't work either.

Just like Sam Spade, no one believes Exxon. Does anyone really believe advertising? Companies are quick to promote the advantages of their products, but rather reluctant to point out any deficiencies. Similarly, politicians, like Gore and Inhofe, are quick to report on studies which promote their case, but dismiss those which do not. Climate change is an issue bigger than any corporation or politician. Too much information is readily available for someone to be completely fooled. However, there are those who want to believe one way or the other, who are readily taken in by one extremist side or the other, that they only believe that which supports their views, and dismiss that which does not as propaganda. Just as dyed-in-the-wool Democrats or Republicans will believe hook, line, and sinker whatever their respective party says, and completely dismiss the other's, those that believe that all changes to the climate are manmade or natural, will continue to believe so, whatever anyone else says.