On May 26, 8:40 am, email@example.com (Doug Miller) wrote:
As you know, we have always agreed on that point. Your implication
that we disagree on it, is simply dishonest. I had thought better of
You have a serious misunderstanding of the concept of causality
if indeed you believe that whenever one event follows another,
that proves the second was caused by the first. Mind you,
I don't really think that you do, but your refusal to discuss the
issue is unfortunate. It implies that you know that if you do
engage in an honest discussion, you will inevitably have to
awknowledge truths that you prefer to deny,.
Actually, we *don't* agree on that point. You claim we do, but you keep on
ignoring that fact, and insisting that the effect indeed precedes the cause.
You have a serious inability to comprehend written English if you can
entertain even for a moment the notion that I believe that -- I've explicitly
said, several times, that I don't believe that.
Why are you having so much trouble understanding that the point is that when
one event follows another, that proves that the *first* was NOT caused by the
<Puts on striped shirt and blows whistle loudly>
Please place a "yes" or "no" below the following propositions:
1) "A follows B" - in and of itself - says nothing one way or the other
as to whether B *causes* A:
2) "A follows B" is sufficient to demonstrate that A *cannot* have caused B:
3) "A and B" happen at the same time - in and of itself - says nothing
about whether or not they had a *common* or *related* cause:
4) "A, B, and many other things exist and demonstrate complexity. This
clearly demonstrates a complete lack of first cause and can be
sufficiently explained by the "magic" of self-organization,
evolution, and punctuated equilibrium:
This is the "logic" of the modern so-called rational atheist.
I threw it in to remind you guys that all reasoning systems
proceed from premises. You're trying to argue fine points of
logic in which you are largely in agreement and are avoiding
the 1000 lb elephant in the room: Your premises are different.
Tim Daneliuk firstname.lastname@example.org
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP /
On May 26, 2:23 pm, email@example.com (Doug Miller) wrote:
I think that with a modicum of effort you can justify the statements I
have asked you to justify. Your reticence is the result of a growing
realization on your part that I can use a similar justification for
statements you'd rather not have considered. I'm going to make
On May 24, 7:07 am, firstname.lastname@example.org (Doug Miller) wrote:
What do you consider to be necessary and sufficient to establish
which is cause and which is effect?
As you will recall you wrote: " ...: increasing CO2 level
is the RESULT of increasing temperature, not the CAUSE."
and "increasing CO2 levels are the result of increasing
temperatures, not the cause."
You do seem to be pretty convinced on that point.
I would like to know how you established that.
No. Since greenhouse gases *can* affect temperature,
the question of whether or not carbon dioxide is a greenhouse
gas is relevant to both the question of cause and effect
and to Han's remark to the effect that sound science has
established that rising carbon dioxide concentrations
cause temperatures to rise.
So, with that context in mind, is carbon dioxide a
No, you made a general statement cause and effect
based on a particular data set from the past,and argue
that it disproves what Han said was true, in general,
about carbon dioxide and temperature changes.
It is not clear how you apply those observations from the
past to disprove Han's remarks about the general case.
No. However, rather than assume I understand the relevance
of your suggestion I do need you to explain the relevance in
the context of the data from ~1940 to ~1980, during which time
carbon dioxide rose while the temperature did not.
We disagree. But discussion of the Seuss effect
Let's explain those scientific principles-- the
law of conservation of energy, and spectroscopy.
All heat transfer is driven by a temperature
difference. Heat transfers from the sun to
the surface of the Earth because the surface
of the earth is cooler than the sun. Heat transfers
from the Sun to the atmosphere fo the earth
because the atmosphere of the Earth is
cooler than the Sun. Heat transfers from the
surface of the Earth to space because the
temperature of the surface of the Earth is
greater than space. Heat transfers from the
atmosphere of the earth to space because the
temperature of the atmosphere is greater than
that of space. Heat transfers from the atmosphere
of the earth to the surface of the earth, or vice
versa, depending on which is cooler, typically
this transfer is from the Earth's surface to the
The net rate at which a body radiates energy is
proportionate to the fourth power of its temperature.
The frequency distribution is governed by the Stefan
-Boltzman relationship, the peak frequency of that
distribution rises with temperature.
Conservation of energy requires that for any
system in which heat is exchanged only by radiation,
emissivity will equal absorptivity for any body
that is in thermal equilibrium.
If the emissivity is greater than the absorptivity
the body will lose energy until equilibrium is restored.
If the emissivity is less than the absorptivity the
temperature of the body will rise until equilibrium
(For a body in thermal equilibrium the difference
between unity and the absorptivity is therefore
equal to the difference between unity and the
emissivity and is called reflectivity, and the ratio
of reflected energy to incidental energy is called
A the temperature of the solar photosphere, the peak
of the emitted spectrum is in visible light. The gases
that comprise the Earth's atmosphere are mostly
transparent to visible light so most of that gets
to the surface where it is absorbed, and converted
to heat, a process called themalization. Some is
thermalized in the atmosphere and some is
reflected form both.
At the temperature of the Earth's surface the emission
peaks in the infrared range. Carbon dioxide has strong
infrared absorption bands. Thus it strongly absorbs some
of the infrared emission from the Earth's surface. This
energy is thermalized in the atmosphere, reducing
the temperature gradient between the Earth's surface
and the atmosphere. All gases that behave that way
are called greenhouse gases. They all have the effect
of raising the temperature of the Earth above what it
would be if there were no greenhouse gases in the
Now, how much do the greenhouse gases raise the
temperature? While the above relationship is clear
from theory, quantifying the effect is a bit tougher.
What would be cool is if we had a control, that is a
planet the same average distance from the Sun,
but without an atmosphere. And, we're in luck,
we do. So we can get a handle on how effective
the greenhouse effect is by comparing the temperature
of the earth's surface with the moon. The temperature
at the surface of both varies on a daily annual and on
a geographical basis. But it averages out to be about
298 k for the Earth and 238 K for the moon. The
Moon is about 50 degrees (K) cooler than the Earth.
The moon also has a lower albedo, if they were the
same that difference should be greater.
Thus, all other things being equal, adding more
greenhouse gas, like Carbon dioxide to the atmosphere
will make the planet wrmer while removing it will
make the planet cooler.
And THOSE are the scientific principles behind
CO2 causing our planet to heat up There are,
and have always been, other scientific principles
causing our planet to heat up and cool off which
is why no one can prove or disprove a causal
relationship between any of them and the temperature
of the Earth using climate data alone.
Note, we did NOT compare the Earth to the Moon
to determine if there was a causal relationship
between atmosphere and surface temperature.
That determination was made using physical
theory. Determination of causality requires
The comparison was done to get a handle on
the MAGNITUDE of the effect tha tis predicted
from the underlying theories--the law of conservation
of energy and spectroscopy.
Short term it's "considerable" which is why high-level waste stays at
the power plant until it's decayed enough for shipment. By the time
it gets to a long-term storage facility the heat generated is
Whatever word you use, it still has to be kept forever.
Will those voids be sufficient, considering that what you're putting
in them has had two atoms of oxygen added to each atom of carbon that
was taken out? And will those voids be sufficiently secure to keep it
segregated _forever_? If so then why not put nuclear waste there?
And where do we put it? Now you're increasing the volume even more.
This whole notion of capturing the output of chemical power plants and
warehousing it is IMO just, well, _nuts_.
At least with nuclear the volume is manageable.
CO2(aq) +H2O -----> H2CO3 (1 mole of co2 makes 1 mole of carbonic acid)
H2CO3 + NaOH -----> NaHCO3 + H2O (1 mole of carbonic acid reacts with 1
mole of sodium hydroxide and yields 1 mole of sodium carbonate)
NaHCO3 + NaOH -----> Na2CO3 + H2O (1 mole of sodium hydroxide reacts with
1 mole of NaOH and yields 1 mole of sodium carbonate)
A mole of Na2CO3(s) takes up more volume than a mole of CO2(g) ?? Show me
the math here.
You want to permanently freeze all of the CO2(g) as CO2(s) to safe space
instead of converting the CO2(g) into Na2CO3 and selling/giving it away?
Boy. That would be cost effective. Have you ran any numbers on that one
Actually, converting CO2 to carbonates *reduces* the volume by nearly three
orders of magnitude.
One metric ton of CO2 gas occupies a volume of a bit over five hundred cubic
meters at room temperature and normal atmospheric pressure.
Calcium carbonate, CaCO3, is 44% CO2 by mass. Thus 2.27 metric tons of CaCO3
represents one metric ton of CO2 -- and occupies a volume of only eight-tenths
of a cubic meter.
It's been a bunch of years since my Modern Physics course, but I recall
the fact that the highest-level wastes that generate such heat also have
the shortest half-lives.
Back before Hanoi Jane and others got the the nuclear industry effectively
shut down, there was significant research on means to deal with nuclear
waste. One of the means involved vitrification (basically encapsulating
in, or turning to, glass) and then launching the waste into space
(destinations varied, from solar incineration to out of the solar system).
The vitrified product would be recoverable and not pose significant danger
in the event of a launch malfunction. There were other approaches under
consideration as well.
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.