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] just for fun?

Thanks for the link. When I was at the Desert Research Institute in Nevada (35 years ago) we built an almost identical cloud chamber to study cloud droplet size spectra. What goes around - comes around....

Bob at PC
________________________________________
From: Phys-l [phys-l-bounces@phys-l.org] on behalf of Ze'ev Wurman [zeev@ieee.org]
Sent: Friday, January 03, 2014 7:23 PM
To: Phys-L@Phys-L.org
Subject: Re: [Phys-L] just for fun?

On 1/3/2014 2:49 PM, John Denker wrote:
In the context of the Heartland Institute video
"Unstoppable Solar Cycles"
on 01/03/2014 02:23 PM, richard lindgren asked:

Where do I find the research that you refer to that refutes the
findngs on the video?
That's a reasonable question. There are several answers.

1) A good /indirect/ answer is to subscribe to phys-l. I say that
because on 01/03/2014 10:41 AM, Forinash III, Kyle wrote:

For those interested, here is a review that includes a discussion
of CO2 lagging longer term historical temperature changes.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/04/unlocking-the-secrets-to-ending-an-ice-age/
which is a reasonably up-to-date summary of the situation.


Reading this piece, it seems that it directly acknowledges the CO2 lag.
Quoting: "Shakun et al. fully support the notion that Antarctic
temperature change did in fact precede the CO2 increase."

It also has an interesting explanation of the lag. Very nice. From the
piece: "The ultimate trigger of the CO2 increase is still a topic of
interesting research."

Adding (A) and (B), doesn't is quite clearly imply that there is still a
significant uncertainty as to *whether* CO2 causes GW? Otherwise, one
needs to accept a priori that CO2 *does* cause GW and the "interesting
research" would be only about the *mechanism* of the warming. But that
would be religion rather than science, right?

So we return to the original question: If the science is still rather
uncertain, why do we already promote a major public policy change with
its attendant large economic damage?

Further, if slides #3 & #4 from CERN (here)
<http://indico.cern.ch/materialDisplay.py?materialId=slides&confId=52576> are
correct, the total anthropogenic component of GW per IPCC itself is
about 1.6 W/sq.m, while the cloud cover -- which we barely understand
and mostly do not model -- is responsible for about 30 W/sq.m cooling.
In other words, we don't understand and mostly ignore 95% of the
phenomenon, and based on modeling just the 5% that we think we
understand we declare a global emergency with major economic impacts.
Isn't it the case of looking for the key under the street light? Isn't
it the case of the tail wagging the dog?

I do not argue GW doesn't exist. I do not argue it has no anthropogenic
component if GW exists. I argue that we have little understanding of the
problem and that its science is still largely unsettled. In other words,
we don't know. Yet some are quick to label as "deniers" and "(religious)
ignorants" those who disagree with them on the issue. A newer CERN
presentation
<http://indico.cern.ch/getFile.py/access?contribId=42&sessionId=9&resId=0&materialId=slides&confId=197799>
says as much.

Ze'ev
_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@phys-l.org
http://www.phys-l.org/mailman/listinfo/phys-l