SERVING THE QUANTITATIVE FINANCE COMMUNITY

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 48
 
User avatar
TraderJoe
Topic Author
Posts: 11048
Joined: February 1st, 2005, 11:21 pm

Global Warming - Scientific Aspects

June 29th, 2005, 1:01 am

for farmer: Thin Ice .
Last edited by TraderJoe on July 20th, 2005, 10:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
ppauper
Posts: 70239
Joined: November 15th, 2001, 1:29 pm

Global Warming - Scientific Aspects

June 30th, 2005, 12:23 pm

EU won't meet it's targets and its emissions rose last year:QuoteEU 'must cut emissions by 40%'and that's 40% from 1990 levelsain't going to happenQuoteThe European Union needs to reduce greenhouse gases by 40 percent by 2030 to reach its long-term goal of curbing global warming, the European Environment Agency said.To reach that level, the EU must shift its energy production to non-carbon fuels and trade emissions rights with non-European countries, the agency said.The report came one week after the agency stated that greenhouse gas emissions in the EU rose 1.3 percent in 2003, in a setback to efforts to fight global warming.EU leaders have endorsed a commitment to ensure that global temperatures do not rise more than 2 Celsius (3.6 Fahrenheit) above preindustrial levels.To reach that goal, the EU would have to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 40 percent by 2030, from 1990 levels, the EEA said.The agency, whose members include the 25 EU countries and six other European nations, said that reduction efforts within the EU most likely would be able to lower emissions by only 16 to 25 percent by 2030.The bulk of that reduction would stem from the shifting to low- or non-carbon fuels in the power generation sector, the agency said.The remaining emission cuts would then have to be accomplished through an international emissions trading scheme. "As it is now, the trading of greenhouse gas emission allowances is still not up and running smoothly on a market basis, but in the report we assume that it will be by 2030," said Andre Jol, one of the authors of the report.EEA executive director Jacqueline McGlade said climate change was at the top of the international agenda, and many people are aware of the Kyoto Protocol, which commits industrialized nations to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 2012."But the protocol is only a first step and the discussions have started as to what we do after 2012 to ensure that we do not exceed the 2-degree (Celcius) limit," she said.
 
User avatar
TraderJoe
Topic Author
Posts: 11048
Joined: February 1st, 2005, 11:21 pm

Global Warming - Scientific Aspects

July 1st, 2005, 5:30 pm

Yeah, but at least the EU is acknowledging that there is a problem caused by MAN MADE pollutants and are trying to do something about combatting it. Next up, our oceans are becoming more and more acidic. This could prove disasterous for the food chain starting with the plankton. No one knows. I think we should err on the side of caution. Is pride and superpower the real issue preventing US action here? After all US GDP will decrease by only around 0.5% in ten years time or something equally negligible if carbon trading is implemnted ...I'm currently moving flats (apartments) - gotta love this upward mobility. I'll have broadband back on by Wednesday .
Last edited by TraderJoe on July 4th, 2005, 10:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
nyabinghi
Posts: 59
Joined: May 15th, 2005, 10:07 am

Global Warming - Scientific Aspects

July 1st, 2005, 10:20 pm

can't wait to see farmer's tirade on this one!
 
User avatar
DominicConnor
Posts: 11684
Joined: July 14th, 2002, 3:00 am

Global Warming - Scientific Aspects

July 2nd, 2005, 11:46 am

and that's 40% from 1990 levelsain't going to happenAgree 100% it is not going to happen voluntarilyMy model of future Europe is like the bad old days in Britain. We have a good record in CO2 not because we are virtuous peple, but becausewe screwed up our industry so badly, the main source of industrial Co2 is coal used to power bankers PCs.As oil prices rise, and central EU economies try to re-enact the malicious incompetence of 1960's British inudstrial and social polices, they will not be able to afford to burn so much oil.France will do better than Germany because it has nuclear, and the Germans are foolish enough to let Greens into government.
 
User avatar
farmer
Posts: 13477
Joined: December 16th, 2002, 7:09 am

Global Warming - Scientific Aspects

July 2nd, 2005, 12:11 pm

QuoteOriginally posted by: nyabinghican't wait to see farmer's tirade on this one!Bob Marley was a Colonialist. His father was a Captain in the British Royal Navy.Therefore, when he said "jump nyabinghi," he expected the nyabinghi to respond "How high?"
 
User avatar
nyabinghi
Posts: 59
Joined: May 15th, 2005, 10:07 am

Global Warming - Scientific Aspects

July 4th, 2005, 3:25 am

What? What does this have to do with global warming? Come on... I was expecting a furious post about how all the ice in a the world could disappear before you send a dime to those commie greenpeacers, and how the Europeans could return to living in shanties and burning cow manure for heat and how a hotter planet won't change anything because everybody can just move 50 miles north of where they are. But you let me down... resorting to baiting me instead... but okay... I'll bite...After all, this is why you're awesome farmer. You like to just throw things out there and compensate for their lack of verity with assertiveness and if that doesn't work, follow it up with personal insults.hmm... bob marley was a colonialist? Because his father was an English captain? The father who, at 50-some, married his 18-year old mother and then left her alone with child? His father who brought him to Kingston at the age of 5 and then left him to fend for himself?I don't know what Bob Marley really thought about his father... but I'm pretty sure he didn't really care to associate himself with his father or with being English! I'm sure he didn't start his days off with tea and scrumpets, planning the expansion of the British Empire.... here come the insults!!!
Last edited by nyabinghi on July 3rd, 2005, 10:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
JWD
Posts: 1310
Joined: March 2nd, 2005, 12:51 pm
Contact:

Global Warming - Scientific Aspects

July 5th, 2005, 11:05 am

I recently studied global warming intensively full-time for about a month, including documents, research papers, and putative counter-arguments. Here is a presentation I gave for a local chapter of an environmental group called Clearwater. Although I am not an expert in climate modeling, I believe that the presentation reports the current scientific consensus reasonably accurately. Any errors in the presentation are of course my responsibility.Global Warming and What We Can Do About ItJan W. Dash, PhDMay 1, 2005V 1.1 Outline•Evidence of Global Warming Now•Greenhouse Gases (CO2 and all that)•Climate Modeling and Supercomputers•Natural Causes vs. Human Causes•Mainstream Science vs “Naysayers” •Consequences of Global Warming•What Can We Do?References•IPCC 2001 report (new report is underway)–http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/reports.htm–Most complete report from mainstream science•Published papers and documents–Voluminous; many laboratories, universities•Websites – Excellent starting point is–http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/index.htmlEvidence of Global Warming•Temperature measurements–Reasonably complete over last 150 years–Ice cores … back 1,000 years, some back much further•Anomalous 1 degree F average global rise in Temperature over last 30 yrs is unprecedented in its rate of increase– Temperature has gone up this much before, but not this quickly•Glaciers melting, droughts, anomalous animal/insect migration patterns, many othersGreenhouse Gases•Gases trap heat from earth, acts like “greenhouse” •Biggest problem is CO2–Water vapor, other gases also•Huge recent CO2 increase, unprecedented–Directly related to fossil fuel burning•Fingerprints of CO2 causing global warming: –Night Temperature rises faster than day (CO2 prevents heat loss)–Artic warms up faster (ice melting, reflects less)Climate Modeling and Supercomputers•Centers for climate modeling–US, worldwide; laboratories, universities–Supercomputers used (some of fastest, biggest in the world)•Climate Modeling Codes:–Model earth’s climate by taking into account ALL factors, Natural and Human by scientific experts–Earth discretized, realistic to the extent possible (land, oceans, atmosphere, vegetation, volcanos …). Better as faster computers come on line (improved clouds, finer mesh)•Science never “proves”, instead weaves tight web of data evidence and convincing theoretical frameworkClimate Modeling Aspects•Not as refined spatially as weather models–Weather codes are OK for (e.g. New Jersey) only for few days•Climate codes only ask general questions–Why has the earth heated up in the recent past?–How much will Temperature rise on global average?•Do not ask yet for high spatial resolution (e.g. NJ)–Normalization: over data for last 150 years•Extrapolation into the future 100 years same amountClimate Modeling “Experiments” •Role: Computer “experiments” can figure out “Who dun it”•Computer “Experiments”–Expt. 1: Only put in natural causes (sunlight fluctuations, volcanos…), but no human causes–Expt. 2: Only put in human causes (fossil fuel burning), but no natural causes–Expt. 3: Put in all effects, natural and humanNatural vs Human Causes: Results of Computer Expts1.Recent temperature rise (last 30 years) CANNOT be explained by natural causes 2.Recent temperature rise CAN be explained by human causes3.Get excellent description of data over last 150 yrs if both human and natural causes included–This constitutes convincing evidence demonstrating the validity of the supercomputer climate models•Complicated offsets first half of 20th century–Human-caused rise in temperature was masked by some natural effects that tended to decrease temperature. Insert: Graphs from IPCC report with my titles:GLOBAL WARMING, NATURAL CAUSES, AND HUMAN CAUSESFACT: The Global World Average Temperature Has Increased Markedly During the Last 30 Years. This observed increase in such a short time is unprecedented in at least the last 1,000 years. The recent data CANNOT be explained by Natural Causes (Fig. 1). The recent data CAN be explained by Human Causes (Fig. 2). NOTE that Human and Natural Causes Together provide an excellent description of the data over last 150 years (Fig. 3). Source: The most authoritative report to date, by Mainstream Science: IPCC (2001), Synthesis Report, URL http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/reports.htm.Mainstream Science•Scientists Qualified to Do Research:–Hold positions at universities, laboratories–In the field and currently working–Have peer-reviewed publications in the field–Run supercomputer climate models•Scientists Qualified to Evaluate Research–PhD in hard science + enough time reading (1 month)•Mainstream scientists worldwide are convinced of global warming and its causes as described above–Evidence consistent and robust, persuades almost all “Naysayers/Contrarians” + Who Funds Them•In many/most cases, the “naysayers” who criticize the above picture of global warming:–Do not hold positions in universities/labs or are not in the field, do not publish peer-reviewed articles, do not have supercomputer climate models, present outdated or incorrect or nitpicking arguments, sow confusion.–Tend to be funded by oil (Exxon), right-wing think tanks (Cato)–Now drive Republican + US governmental policy, and are used politically (Senator Imhofe: “Global warming is a hoax”)•Essentially act the same way as “tobacco scientists” acted for the tobacco companiesThere are NOT two sides to Global Warming•Satellite data misuse by naysayers/contrarians–Incorrect analysis, incorrectly claimed to disprove global warming•Lindzen–One of handful of qualified in-field scientists who doesn’t believe computer models. His “Iris Effect” is not accepted by mainstream science•Soon and Baliunas criticize global warming–Not in field, incorrect work, criticized/disproved by in-field scientists in published work•Secondary naysayer books, websites, politicians–Quote above flawed arguments, turn science on its headClimate Models: Predictions•21st Century: Predict Average Global Temperature will rise–All supercomputer climate models agree temperature will rise –Amount (3 – 10 degrees F) depends on what humans do; also some code variability depending on assumptions–Lag effect (oceans take a long time to heat up)•Regional Climate Prediction–Not yet reliable (can’t predict regional New Jersey climate)–Some regions heat up, some cool down (but global average temperature will go up)•Extreme weather events (hurricanes, droughts …)–More energy due to warming => more severe events possibleWhat Will Be the Consequences•The Biggest Potential Problems (there are many others)–Potential big disruptions in crop/food, water supplies –Resulting increased military conflicts (national security issue)–Severe disruptions in world economy possible–Poor countries affected most; US will also be affected•Human populations cannot adjust quickly => bad–There are billions of people on the planet now; people cannot simply “move”•Naysayer “global warming is good” argument–Increased T, more rain => better crops is their argument, possibly true locally, but:–Naïve: Increased T => more evaporation, more insect pests, disease, … => worse crops. Dead forests in Artic = good counterexample.Wildcard: The “Conveyor Belt” Thermohaline Current (THC) •THC warms Europe, upper NE North America•Due to Artic warming, glaciers melting, cold fresh water can form a barrier to the THC•If THC moves significantly, paradoxically may get “little ice age” in Europe [maybe N.E. part of US, …]•Brutal effect on Europe, US, world economy•This is an example of a nonlinearity that might be triggered by a relatively small effect acting over an appropriately short timeWhat Can We Do Now? •Understand that there is a potential big problem–Read, get facts. There is a lot of disinformation–Talk to others about global warming (leverage)•Use political process - write your senator etc–Support protocols like Kyoto, McCain-Lieberman•“70’s issues”: Support and talk about mass transit, alternative energy sources (solar, wind, fusion, batteries, geothermal …), energy conservation–Fission back on the table?•Yes, there is cost (but wide variation in estimates)–Prudent risk management vs “party time now”What Can We Do Now (2) ? •Transportation–Next car: buy a small car, not a truck/SUV, drive it less•Housing–Solar for electricity/water, better insulation, etc•Industry–Let the board of directors of ABC know you are worried about global warming with stockholder resolutions. They will listen.Conclusions•Global warming is real, and it will get worse–Humans are and will be responsible to a large extent–Consequences will occur. These are generally assessed to be bad, not good. Severity is scenario dependent.• We need to act now–Moral responsibility for our grandchildren (“We knew and did nothing?”)–It will cost something now, but it may cost far greater later economically and in terms of human suffering•WE CAN AFFECT THE OUTCOME!------------
Last edited by JWD on July 25th, 2005, 10:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Jan Dash, PhD

Editor, World Scientific Encyclopedia of Climate Change:
https://www.worldscientific.com/page/en ... ate-change

Book:
http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/ ... 71241_0053
 
User avatar
htmlballsup
Posts: 615
Joined: February 9th, 2004, 10:23 am

Global Warming - Scientific Aspects

July 5th, 2005, 11:33 am

Heres a question for you Jan.CO2 and Methane are coolants in the earths atmospheres.How does pumping more collant into the atmosphere actually lead to less cooling?This is not a trick question.
 
User avatar
farmer
Posts: 13477
Joined: December 16th, 2002, 7:09 am

Global Warming - Scientific Aspects

July 5th, 2005, 11:46 am

QuoteOriginally posted by: htmlballsupCO2 and Methane are coolants in the earths atmospheres.How does pumping more collant into the atmosphere actually lead to less cooling?Radiatior fluid, shot out of a cannon, would be a "coolant in the atmosphere." Since when is CO2 a "coolant?"I can only guess you mean that the atmosphere acts as a medium radiating heat away from the Earth's surface, and that part of the atmosphere is CO2. And you would like to point out that CO2 shortens the wavelength of energy and traps it. But the way you think you can throw around terms like "coolant" show how sophomoric all this so-called "science" is.A coolant is something used to cool a machine by circulation. This enables the machine to be adjacent to more of the fluid than the surface area of contact at any moment would dictate, and to be adjacent to a new cool spot, while a previously warmed spot is cooling. But the planet is not a machine, CO2 was not put into the atmosphere with this purpose, and it is not clear that the planet wouldn't be cooler if the so-called "coolant" were removed by stripping away the atmosphere. If a person adds something to make it harder to radiate heat, that is insulation. If you wish to explain something by comparing to insulation, you could say it "acts like insulation."The fact that you use these terms expecting some "insider" will know what you are talking about, makes it look like you are all just parrots.
 
User avatar
htmlballsup
Posts: 615
Joined: February 9th, 2004, 10:23 am

Global Warming - Scientific Aspects

July 5th, 2005, 12:08 pm

QuoteOriginally posted by: farmerQuoteOriginally posted by: htmlballsupCO2 and Methane are coolants in the earths atmospheres.How does pumping more collant into the atmosphere actually lead to less cooling?Radiatior fluid, shot out of a cannon, would be a "coolant in the atmosphere." Since when is CO2 a "coolant?" Commonly used in Nuclear reactors and in its liquid form to cool electronics.QuoteI can only guess you mean that the atmosphere acts as a medium radiating heat away from the Earth's surface, and that part of the atmosphere is CO2. And you would like to point out that CO2 shortens the wavelength of energy and traps it. Actually CO2 emits in the infrared which is a LONG wavelength. QuoteBut the way you think you can throw around terms like "coolant" show how sophomoric all this so-called "science" is.Did you ever study since past high school???QuoteA coolant is something used to cool a machine by circulation. This enables the machine to be adjacent to more of the fluid than the surface area of contact at any moment would dictate, and to be adjacent to a new cool spot, while a previously warmed spot is cooling. But the planet is not a machine, CO2 was not put into the atmosphere with this purpose, and it is not clear that the planet wouldn't be cooler if the so-called "coolant" were removed by stripping away the atmosphere. The planet would be both much hotter and much colder - the atmosphere dampens the extremes in temperature.QuoteIf a person adds something to make it harder to radiate heat, that is insulation. If you wish to explain something by comparing to insulation, you could say it "acts like insulation."CO2 radiates IR radiation into space. How does adding more of it into the atmosphere actually lead to less IR being radiated??QuoteThe fact that you use these terms expecting some "insider" will know what you are talking about, makes it look like you are all just parrots.Whos a pretty boy then?
 
User avatar
DominicConnor
Posts: 11684
Joined: July 14th, 2002, 3:00 am

Global Warming - Scientific Aspects

July 5th, 2005, 12:21 pm

Reordering slightly•WE CAN AFFECT THE OUTCOME!Yes, but how ?What is the right outcome ?–Reasonably complete over last 150 yearsYeah, but look at the mini ice age in Europe 150 years before that.Anomalous 1 degree F average global rise in Temperature over last 30 yrs is unprecedented in its rate of increaseBut we know that the termperature has varied much more from geological records.Temperature has gone up this much before, but not this quicklyOnly with respect to the last 1,000 years or so. We simply don't know about 30 year periods from deeper in history.Glaciers melting, droughts, anomalous animal/insect migration patterns, many othersThey've been melting since before humans worked out fire.Gases trap heat from earth, acts like “greenhouse”Indeed, without the greenhouse effect the black-body temperature of the earth would be well below zero celsius.Biggest problem is CO2–Water vapor, other gases alsoIt may be that water is worse. There is no feedback from CO2, but a warmer planet means more water vapour, possibly vicious circle.Huge recent CO2 increase, unprecedentedRare, but probably not unprecedented.Directly related to fossil fuel burningChooping down forests doesn't help.Climate Modeling and SupercomputersAlthough few of us have done much atmospheric modelling we are all aware of the limitiations and issues here.Play with few parameters to most models, and you profoundly affect the results. Also it's all very well to talkof the Teraflops these things have, but the climatologists I've spoken to regard the compute power they have as pathetically inadequate.Also we have huge holes in our measurements. We measure little of the atmosphere above ground level, and a lot of the see hardly gets touched.–Model earth’s climate by taking into account ALL factors, Natural and Human by scientific expertsBut they interact, and many interactions are'nt well mapped. Even stuff you think ought to be well mapped like how much faster plants will grow if the'yre less starved of CO2, is far short of the level we need for prediction.Earth discretized, realistic to the extent possible (land, oceans, atmosphere, vegetation, volcanos …). As a pathetically bad analogy, we need Shrek level resolution, but actually have 1980s game console resolution.Better as faster computers come on line (improved clouds, finer mesh)Yes, sort of. However computers are a doubling at 18 months. That sounds a lot but we're orders of magnitude short.•Science never “proves”, instead weaves tight web of data evidence and convincing theoretical frameworkScientific proof goes badly when only data points that fit the political structure are accepted.–How much will Temperature rise on global average?We can do a little better than that in terms of precision, but not even as well as that in accuracy.Western Europe /Scandanavia may well get colder, Africa may get colder but with much higher diurnal variation.1.Recent temperature rise (last 30 years) CANNOT be explained by natural causesDon't think anyone really doubts that humans are a factor. However we do know that significant natural effects are occuring.I get itchy when people say "cannot" that loudly. All sorts of stuff we don't know very well. You could, if you really wanted to make a case that itwas due to a decrease in vulcanism, which dumps SO2, which can cause really quite steep temperature drops in the atmosphere.Also we have pathetically poor measurements of solar heat, some scientists have been driven to looking at old paintings to try and guess what might have happened.2.Recent temperature rise CAN be explained by human causesBut not all of it.–Have peer-reviewed publications in the fieldI take it you've seen what happens when scientists point out anything other than the prevailing political correctness ?–PhD in hard science + enough time reading (1 month)Which hard science ?•Mainstream scientists worldwide are convinced of global warming and its causes as described aboveThey're probably right.Evidence consistent and robust, persuades almost allExcept americans.–Do not hold positions in universities/labs Try holding a job with a contrary poistion, see how far you get.or are not in the field, do not publish peer-reviewed articles, do not have supercomputer climate models, present outdated or incorrect or nitpicking arguments, sow confusion.With all due respect, you're not in the field either. I will freely admit to gaping ignorance on this topic, and I suppose I'm guilty of nitpicking. but I get wary of people who say "you're only nitpicking". That's how one finds holes (or nits).The data ain't good enough, but it's all we're going to get.–Tend to be funded by oil (Exxon), right-wing think tanks (Cato)Actually the Cato guys are quite good, usually.–Now drive Republican + US governmental policy, and are used politically (Senator Imhofe: “Global warming is a hoax”)American vote for politicians on religious and pork barrle reasons, what do you expect ?Don't blame the Republicans though, you've fallen right into the "Bush is dumb" folly.Yeah, Bush is dumb, but what did highly educated Rhodes Scholar Clinto do ?What do Democrat senators do ?Correlate oil-industry states with party of representation, not really 100% Republican is it ?Yeah,. the Republicans are dumb apoligists for child rapists, but the Democrats aren't much smarterHint : Jeb Bartlett the Nobel prize winning Democrat President, is fictional. Trust me on this.•Essentially act the same way as “tobacco scientists” acted for the tobacco companiesGlad you brough that up. For well over a century doctors actually prescribed tobacco because it seemed to do good, indeed it can relieve stress. Well beforeany sponsorship. They were wrong, not dishonest. It was only after proof was avaialble that you can reasonably criticize them. Yes, the world is getting warmer, but how fast ? Where ? What can we do ?There are NOT two sides to Global WarmingGet very worried by anyone who says stuff like this.•Satellite data misuse by naysayers/contrariansSatellite data tells you about the surface of the Earth. Very little about the seas, especially at depth, and even the bulk of the atmosphere gives up few data points.Also, you ought to be aware that satellites are new things. We don't have satellite data from the mini Ice age, or even 1920. What do we compare it with ?–Incorrect analysis, incorrectly claimed to disprove global warmingWhat, every single bit is wrong.Every single piece ?You know that do you ?Or have you read people taking apart inidividual cases ?Surely you're smarter than that. Fact is that even if 100% of GW is human based, and is following the worst case curves, even a basic knowledge of this stuff will tell you that some temperatures will go down, and that normal variation will cause some misleading results.So you only read the stuff where they could shout them down ? His “Iris Effect” is not accepted by mainstream scienceGloblal warming wasn't accepted by the mainstream for many years, were they wrong.–All supercomputer climate models agree temperature will riseVery very suspicious that, isn't it ?All of them ?What if the Gulf Stream does collapse as many predict ? What if the heat goes up a lot, triggering high cloud cover ?Loads of other What-Ifs. Most are low probability, some are silly, but they make the cliam of "all" look rather dishonest.–More energy due to warming => more severe events possibleThat's the scary one.And of course if some of them happened, the temperature would drop quite hard.–Resulting increased military conflicts (national security issue)Never quite seen this one. Countries who can't feed people can't do war. You need a surplus to feed your army.•Brutal effect on Europe, US, world economy•This is an example of a nonlinearity that might be triggered by a relatively small effect acting over an appropriately short time–Read, get facts. There is a lot of disinformationOn both sides....What can America do ?Imagine it converted every care to solar power tomorrow.That's 5% of world oil consumption, that buys the world 18 months tops.–Next car: buy a small car, not a truck/SUV, drive it lesstoo late for 1970s political tokenism.Lots of good reasons to buy a smaller car, climate change is not one of them. We need to build nuclear reactors, and work out how to get through the shit that's coming.It's too late.Forget Kyoto, even if America reduced it's oil consumption by 10% per year, it wouldn't even compensate for the rate of increase of the rest of the planet.You might get the EU/USA/Japan to stop increasing consumption, but what about China & India ?
 
User avatar
farmer
Posts: 13477
Joined: December 16th, 2002, 7:09 am

Global Warming - Scientific Aspects

July 5th, 2005, 12:22 pm

QuoteOriginally posted by: htmlballsupActually CO2 emits in the infrared which is a LONG wavelength.Yeah, I meant to type "lengthens," but I type the word "shorten" so much more frequently it just came out. I even had to think about it - infrared, ultraviolet...QuoteOriginally posted by: htmlballsupDid you ever study since past high school???Didn't "study" past first grade, dropped out of high school.QuoteOriginally posted by: htmlballsupThe planet would be both much hotter and much colder - the atmosphere dampens the extremes in temperature.I thought you could tell "the" temperature just by sticking a thermometer in Central Park. Is it possible the temperature is more complex than any description possible from current measurements?QuoteOriginally posted by: htmlballsupCO2 radiates IR radiation into space. How does adding more of it into the atmosphere actually lead to less IR being radiated??With a true "coolant" one can presume that what one is replacing is ambient air, or mechanical structure. When something is merely being claimed to function like a coolant(?), you have to specify what it will be replaced with when removed, why it is called a coolant when other gases are not called coolants, why it is being treated as separated from the atmosphere which it exists as a part of, and so on.
 
User avatar
farmer
Posts: 13477
Joined: December 16th, 2002, 7:09 am

Global Warming - Scientific Aspects

July 5th, 2005, 12:29 pm

QuoteOriginally posted by: DCFCChooping down forests doesn't help.If it could be measured, I would bet you that diversion of rivers by human beings for the purposes of irrigation has increased plant activity.The following is a photograph of the University of Wyoming at Laramie. You can see where the human habitation begins.Neither those trees, nor most farms, were there 200 years ago. And certainly the harvest rate has accelerated.
 
User avatar
farmer
Posts: 13477
Joined: December 16th, 2002, 7:09 am

Global Warming - Scientific Aspects

July 5th, 2005, 12:41 pm

QuoteOriginally posted by: htmlballsupCommonly used in Nuclear reactors and in its liquid form to cool electronics.That's pressurized and in liquid form, not as we find it in the atmosphere. If we pumped CO2 from the atmosphere at atmospheric pressure into a reactor, it would melt down. Or if someone cracked the reactor so the CO2 escaped, people would think you mad if you noted that nearby plants are thriving on "coolant." And of course, that still leaves "methane" which you also claimed is a "coolant."QuoteThe remaining gaseous coolant choices included nitrogen, helium and CO2. Nitrogen had the advantage of being cheap and readily available, but its slight affinity for neutrons limits its usefulness in a pressurized, natural uranium reactor. (Modern British gas cooled reactors have systems that inject nitrogen into the coolant system as a means of reducing core activity in case the normal shutdown mechanisms do not function.)Helium would have been an excellent coolant choice, but it was not available. As a policy artifact from World War I, the U. S. - which has high quality, low cost sources of helium from natural gas wells in Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas - still maintained national control over the material in case it was needed for lighter than air ships in a time of war. In Europe, helium was a laboratory quantity material, painstakingly distilled from the atmosphere.Thus, by a process of elimination, both Great Britain and France - acting independently - arrived at the same basic coolant/moderator selection of graphite moderated reactors cooled by pressurized carbon dioxide. This choice was not perfect; temperatures above a few hundred degrees Celsius, CO2 reacts in several different ways with graphite, an effect that is enhanced under pressure. Until their owners learned more about the chemical behavior of CO2 at high temperature, CO2 cooled reactors were forced to operate at gas temperatures of less than 350 C. This limited total thermal efficiency of only 20 percent, which did not compare favorably with the 30 - 40 percent efficiency available from conventional power plants. A lot of room remained for improvements.
Last edited by farmer on July 4th, 2005, 10:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
ABOUT WILMOTT

PW by JB

Wilmott.com has been "Serving the Quantitative Finance Community" since 2001. Continued...


Twitter LinkedIn Instagram

JOBS BOARD

JOBS BOARD

Looking for a quant job, risk, algo trading,...? Browse jobs here...


GZIP: On