Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: [Phys-l] Climate skeptic convinced by data. Was: Re: Mike Mann _The hockey

Very sorry about my mail. I don't know why I lose all my formattingwhen I send it. Fred Bucheit
Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2012 21:35:04 +0000
Subject: Re: [Phys-l] Climate skeptic convinced by data. Was: Re: Mike Mann _The hockey

What prompted my previous question on this list was this idea: Do we really know all the various mechanisms involved in heating the atmosphere? How much thermal energy comes out from the interior of the earth? Has it beenmeasured, and not just projected? How can we know the answer to that question considering that the oceans cover three quarters of the earth? I suppose (but I shouldn't) that we are well aware of ALL the radiated waves and particles that come at us from the sun. But do we know their energy content and the extent to which they can induce thermal energy in the earth and atmosphere? I assume (but probably should not) that the sun has the overwhelming effect on the earth as far as energy from outside. The sun obviously produces magnetic fields containing more energy than manhas ever produced from all energy sources (fossil, water, wind, etc.) in history.Can we and have we measured the interactions of those fields with the earth'smagnetic fie
ld? Is that possibly a source of thermal energy? Could that make the interior of the earth hotter? Or even the atmosphere? We are asking mankind to spend trillions of dollars to change our habits, but it wouldbe quite embarrassing and maybe even disastrous if we were trying to do somethingwe could not possibly do....when we should have been preparing all along to livewith the consequences. I realize that doubt can be used to delay and obfuscate an issue, but that is not my intention. We are forced by nature to make assumptions; we can not escape it. Butthose assumptions eventually become working assumptions and then finally becomeso comfortable that it is easier to defend them than to validate them. Fred Bucheit > Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2012 15:59:35 -0500
Subject: Re: [Phys-l] Climate skeptic convinced by data. Was: Re: Mike Mann _The hockey

Yes, we can't do anything about the Sun and its energy output. It affects
the Earth much more than anything humans have ever done or will ever do.

The timeline for global warming does correspond with the industrial age,
but there is no direct proof of causality. We'd have to wait hundreds of
years for more data. We do have core samples and tree rings which
correlate with sunspot numbers and show amounts of CO2, etc.

I brought in politics because this really has become a political debate
when governments put regulations on air quality, automobiles, etc. But
since the main cause of global warming is the Sun, then these laws are
really meaningless.

Forum for Physics Educators <> writes:
On Feb 18, 2012, at 10:10 AM, Anthony Lapinski wrote:

The main driver of climate on Earth -- over and above any human-made
carbon emissions -- is the Sun. The evidence is clear. By analyzing ice
core samples and tree rings, scientists know that the Earth has gone
through warming and cooling trends in the past. It's been in a warming
trend for the past 150 years or so.

All VERY clearly true.

There's really nothing that can be done about this.

Huh? What? Assuming that by "this" you mean the warming trend you
mentioned above and that coincides with the industrial age, what is the
evidence in support of for this stupendously general statement?

Of course, many politicians (and people, too) are scientifically
illiterate and can only deal with problems which are "human-made."

... and what is THAT supposed to mean in the context of the above?

I really don't get it.

John Mallinckrodt
Cal Poly Pomona

Forum for Physics Educators

Forum for Physics Educators

Forum for Physics Educators