Richard:
> The "human induced" part is where the consensus does not exist.
Temperature
> records are just that.  The cause of the increases is much more difficult
to
> pinpoint.  Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have increased.  Yet, there
are
> enough potential variables that can impact global temperatures, that it is
> difficult to claim definitively that the primary or sole cause of
increased
> global temperatures is the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide.  Herein
> lies the uncertainty and the ongoing academic debate.  Humans may have
> induced all of the temperature changes, part of the temperatures changes,
or
> just a small fraction of the temperature changes by converting mineralized
> carbon into carbon dioxide and biological material.

Actually, the exact magnitude or proportion of the contribution is not
important. Human induced climate change is occurring, and there is
scientific consensus regarding that; however the amount of the human
contribution cannot be precisely determined. It may be quantified and
predictions can be made on how that contribution can be reduced or lessened.

There is one really crazy theory that the contrarian has put forth. It is
suggested that there is an optimum level of CO2 in the troposphere which
would benefit the earth and all ecosystems. Currently these theorists think
that the CO2 levels are too low, that they should be increased so as to
'prevent' a possible ice-age from re-occurring, etc. How could it be
possible to 'pre-determine' what the fixed and optimum level is?

This theory is so full of flaws that it hardly needs to be commented apon.
Basically the idea supporting this theory is that polar ice, et cetera is
bad, that continental ice sheets which vary in their extent are bad. This is
what Max Weber would not agree to as 'value free science'. What I am
pointing out is that in order to test the theory, one would have to put more
CO2 into the atmosphere, determine the optimum concentration, and then sit
back and wait to see what happens.

The central problem with this type of experimentation is that there is only
one test animal, Mother Earth, and there are no controls, so if the theory
does not result in an 'enhancement' equivalent to the 'golden optimum'
temperature, it could actually be worse than ever. So what if all the coral
reefs are killed off, so what if the forests in the boreal areas of Canada
and Russia are eaten up by insects which do not killed off in -40 celcius
weather any more, and so what if these insect attacked forests are consumed
by wildfires, further adding to the problem of climate change.

The problem with the contrarian viewpoints and pet theories is that they
appear to orginate at the 'beer parlour' through some idle sense of
curiousity, much like the atmospheric testing of nuclear bombs (we can do
it). After awhile the strontium 90 begins to concentrate in the bones and
teeth of animals all over the world, and it has to stop....because it makes
absolutely no sense any longer to do it at all, despite protests from the
angry war mongers.


> > In general empiricism does not itself generate laws or inferences
> > about the
> > phenomenon, but rather provides some grounds for making generalizations,
> > laws, about behaviour. To properly know, requires something else in
> > addition, which is where deductive science works. It is impossible to
make
> > any sense of facts, their meanings, without a 'non-empirical' and
> > 'a prior'
> > from of knowing. I might remind everyone, that symbolic intuition is the
>
> I thought that was called "induction."  Scientific method contains both
> deduction and induction.  Start with a hypothesis - typically developed
> based on an observation.  Conduct experiments that test the hypothesis.
> Modify the hypothesis based on the results of the experiment.  Keep a
going,
> until the hypothesis cannot be disproven (usually a long time).  Then it
> becomes a theory.  If fundamental enough to the formation of more
theories,
> then it becomes a law.
>
> There once was a time that whenever anyone sailed westward on the Atlantic
> several days past the Horizon line, they did not return.  The theory that
> described that observation was that the earth was flat and ships spilled
> over its edge if they ventured too far out.  Then some rather clever
people
> in Portugal rigged 2 and 3 masted ships with lateen as well as square
sales
> with sternpost rudders and navigated them with compasses and astrolabes
> (used to measure the angle of declension of the sun and stars).  This new
> technology disproved their theory that the earth was flat.
>
> What new technologies will upset our scietific paradigms?

Right! The thing is that science *can* be whatever is acceptable to a
soceity. If now the earth is seen, or appears to be flat, this does not mean
that the earth is flat in fact, but it does mean that as it appears to the
human observer, collectively, the earth is indeed flat ("The true is truth",
Max Weber, last words). This is what the senses report, but neither man nor
nature is simply a ratio of the five senses. There are other ways of
detecting events in the universe: radio waves, magnetics, et cetera, and
even indirectly using the behaviour of other animals, perhaps there are
infinite forms of distinct classes of phenomenon, who knows, but certainly
if the five sense were all there was available, and without imagination, we
would not make too much progress in discovering much about the physical
universe....The earth does not appear flat when seen from the moon, but it
is still the same sense organ which reports the figural features of the
earth as on the earth. It depends on perspective, spatial location, for many
determinations. Obviously 'remoteness' may enhance or detract from the
facts.

> > 'hallmark' of math, that is, there is no element of 'empiricism' in pure
> > mathematics, and there is certainly a general, rather absolute
> > consensus on
>
> What about infinite series, Bessell functions?

Sounds interesting. I thought an infinite series was what Betrand Russell
used to define 'infinite'...will look up that...
>
>
> > the very principles of mathematics, up to a point, but as soon as
> > mathematics ventures in the applied area, there are complications with
the
> > apodictic certainty of 'formal logic' which is the same as mathematics.
It
> > is interesting to note that Kant addressed the general classification of
> > knowledge by stating that there are two forms of knowing, which are (a)
> > sensibility and (b) understanding. Now what Kant also stated was that
the
> > 'power of imagination' (retention) which has the power to form images
> > (bilder) is the origin of the two forms of knowing. Neither is higher or
> > lower, therefore, it is thus a requisite part of knowing that
imagination
> > forms 'images' and retains them. The imagination acts
> > unconsciously, and has
> > the power of 'forming relations' within the 'understanding' but not
> > necessarily within the faculty of sensibility (excepting of
> > course the power
> > of conscious symboling). When some theory is made, the theory may be
valid
> > as such, however, if the theory is to be come law (a discovery of
reality)
> > it has to be tested out by rigorous and critical methods of
> > analysis. So now
> > if there is a law generated, then it must be 'consistent' with the
related
> > 'sciences' such that in climate science for instance, there has to be a
> > demonstration, empirically, that increased concentrations of CO2
> > gases in a
> > volume of atmosphere have more heat absorption capacity than a lower
> > concentration of CO2 gases within the same volume of atmosphere. Using
> > infrared photography CO2 therefore is determined empirically to have a
> > higher absorption capacity than say the existing concentrations of
> > trophopheric gases near the surface of the earth.
> >
> > This can be performed as a high school science project using a enclosed
> > glass window and camera with infrared film.
> >
>
> Heat absorption of a gas (heat capacity) is pretty well understood
> thermodynamic principle used extensively to model the behavior of gases in
> accordance with the 1st law of thermodynamics.  Extending the heat
> absorption of carbon dioxide to climate change requires many more
analyses,
> and some assumptions.  How many heat-absorbing gases are there in the
> troposphere?  How have their levels changed in the last 150 years?  CO2 is
> still at about 0.3 percent I believe.  How much does this impact the
dynamic
> atmospheric system?  What assumptions are in the models?  How sensitive
are
> the models to these assumptions?

The basic science you refer to is quite sound. As far as the other heat
trapping gases are concerned, there are many, some of these are actually man
made; however there are others such as methane which is much more heat
trapping (absorbing of sensible heat) than CO2. This means that it is
plausible that there will be a significant, undetermined positive feedback
in the northern hemisphere due to the melting of permaforests in the boreal
forests. Some estimates indicate that the amount of stored methane in these
soils (hydric or histosols) is immense, and may exceed any amount of  that
which  has previously been released from forests and bogs. It would be
practically impossible to predict the contribution of released methane from
boreal forests, which are losing their perma frosts.

I think the CO2 levels have increased at least 1/3rd since measurements were
first taken, and they are increasing each year. But CO2 is only one
important Greenhouse Gas.

I cannot answer your question about how much 'forcing' will be predicted.
Each year is a different year, and each year there are variable amounts of
fossil fuels emitted into the atmosphere. I think that there is a range of
possible and likely outcomes depending on circumstances, and antecedents.
The models are not important except for planning. Models are invented to
solve problems, not to create them. Obviously the Kyoto Protocol if ratified
by enough parties, and if it is made into a legally binding agreement, will
have some positive effects...we will have to see.
>
> > This observation is considered 'basic science' and it is necessary to
> > 'retain' this generalization long enough to thus make further progress
in
> > generating new knowledge about climate change. CO2 levels have increased
> > tremendously over the last 150 years, and this has been directly
> > associated
> > with deforestation and the combustion of fossil fuels (both sources) of
> > biotic forms of carbon. To test further the theory of climate change,
the
>
> The increase in CO2 has happened at the same time as deforestration and
> fossil fuel combustion.  The association is quite suspicious.  To directly
> associate the two (i.e. cause and effect) takes a bit more evidence.  Take
a
> look at the mass balance.  What is the error?  How is the error explained?

Not sure why you think they have any correlation or relationship. These are
the two largest contributions to greenhouse gas emissions caused by human
activity.

The use of wood accelerated in the last two centuries as a result of major
population growth and the construction of homes, and the use of fuel, and
the creation of farms to grow crops. The rise in the use of fossil fuels is
a seperate phenomenon associated with the ease, and reliability of the
readily portable fuels: gasoline, diesel, furnace oil, kerosene, coal,
natural gas, and other forms of fossil fuel.

The only real association of course is increasing population and
technological innovation. The use of fossil fuels perhaps has reduced the
rate of deforestation in the world, but did not stopped deforestation.

>
> Carbonate chemistry is rather interesting.  There has been some talk of
> oceanic sinks of CO2.  Give Stumm and Morgan. "Aquatic Chemistry" a read.
> Take a look at Schwarzenbach, Gschwend and Imboden "Environmental Organic
> Chemistry."  What is the relationship between gaseous CO2, and aqueous
HCO3-
> and CO3-- ?  How does CaCO3 precipitation impact CO2 concentrations?  What
> are the kinetics of CaCO3 precipitation?  How do biological vectors affect
> CaCO3 consumption?  Can this explain mass balance discrepancies?  Is it
> enough?

This is an interesting area, yes. This is how the balance is restored, and
the gaseous phase of CO2 which equilibrates with the concentration of CO2 in
the ocean is what makes the Carbon Cycle achieve homeostasis (bounded by
fluctuations, possibly diurnal to epochal). Carbonates are precipitated out
of sea water and concentrate on the sea bottom when the CO2 concentration in
the troposphere is increasing in relation to the CO2 concentration in the
sea water. Then the other phenomenon occurs, then CO2 is released from sea
water, and the carbonates begin to dissolve.

This feature is a 'fundamental' to basic climate science in fact. The sea
may be source or a sink of CO2 depending in concentration gradients.

Some of these are important questions that should be researched. Coral
colonies must act as both sources and sinks, but how would climate change
affect them, probably negatively? Mass dieoff in the Indian Ocean recently
would be a source. Flooding of the thousands of atoll islands in the South
Pacific will also be a source of CO2 because the coral reefs, which are
extensive will not uptake carbonates as much.

A lot of calcium carbonate may be stored in zooplankton which may be
exchangeable over a very short period of time (disolved shells of dead
zooplankton), but the implication that you may be able to make is that if
there are long periods of increases in atmospheric CO2 levels, that there
will be a biological shortage (limiting) over time of available calcium
since more and more CaCO3 will precipitate out from the sea water, thus
limiting growth and reproduction, and hence total biomass of primary food in
the ocean ecosystem leading to even further limits on such sea life  as cod,
whales, et cetera.

> > scientists then try to determine what concentrations existed in the
> > tropophere prior to industrial activity, and scientific work reveals
that
> > the latest increase has been unprecendented over the entire observation
> > period, extending as far back as perhaps 200 million years. This
> > testing is
> > done by determining the CO2 in continental ice, which may be that old,
or
> > older, or even deep sea water at the bottom of trenches, and an array of
> > other potential 'indicators'of change.....
>
> Have they measured CO2 each decade in continental ice for 200 million
years?
> Cite that reference.

I will look that up, a rough estimate, but I think it is about 170 million
years, the oldest ice is actually 400 million. but it is situated at the
bottom.
>
> >
> > Science itself is not always a result of consensus, but often is
> > the result
> > of what is the finding by a single investigator, however, where the
> > information of finding is then to be accepted as science, then the new
> > finding has to encorporated into science, which is a body of knowledge
> > involving other investigators; the finding has to be accepted as
> > valid based
> > on rules acceptable to the specific scientific or epistemic community
> > responsible.But it is the scientist(s) that first make the finding, but
it
> > is the epistemic community which verifies the science in the end through
> > repetition and demonstration.
>
> It's called peer review.  Experimental results don't become "real" until
> they can be reproduced by others.  Remember cold fusion?  A theory is not
> accepted until it is tested by many.  A law takes decades to be codified.


Yes, I agree. When results are published, they are subject to peer review.
I know a physicist who was working on cold fusion here in Canada. It sounds
odd: the sun is nearest fusion reactor but it is certainly not cold, and
neither is fission. How does energy be produced and transmitted without
thermal (sensible heat) energy being emitted? Need to have a perfect
conductor to transmit the energy. Is this possible? Even power line
transmission lines emitted heat. Microwave transmission creates heat if a
solid object is located in it's path....don't know.


>