My analysis of climate science is to ascertain whether there is:-
(i) observational evidence that carbon-dioxide is a
major driver for Catastrophic Global Warming
(ii) other theoretical mechanisms that could contribute to
Global Warming.
As far as carbon-dioxide is concerned, I find:-
· (a) no observational evidence for (i)
· (b) CO2 will react to the Earth's
Infra-Red energy, probably passing it on to surrounding molecules &
possibly using it as kinetic, thermal or latent energy. I haven't found any Statistical Mechanics
work that looks into this.
So, some warming is
expected from increased carbon-dioxide.
It is certainly a Greenhouse Gas answering the question of "Why
doesn't Earth lose all it's heat overnight like the other planets
do". The Greenhouse Effect also has
a contribution from the pressure of the atmosphere. It's not either /or, but
both.
Our planet is the only one watery planet in the Solar
System, so I suspect water is heavily involved in both the Greenhouse Effect
and Climate Changes.
Nature is basically chaotic – deterministic and
unpredictable. As with animal and bird
populations I would expect to find surface temperatures abruptly swinging from
small to large. And I would also expect
the effects of more or less carbon-dioxide to vary, depending on the rest of
the climate. In other words, I don't
think it is possible to do simple calculations to say e.g. "doubling co2
will give n degrees of warming".
Also, I wonder about possible influences from the sun, or maybe gravity.
Some sceptics reject the idea of Greenhouse Gases. They are muddling up the macro
(Thermodynamics) and micro (Radiative Transfer) physics incorrectly. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is about flows
of aggregates of molecules. Whereas radiative
transfer is about individual molecules. An
individual cold molecule has been shown to transfer infra-red radiation to a
warm one while the aggregate always goes from cold to hot.
I always think that putting physics into words is difficult.
Both Statistical Mechanics and Quantum Mechanics – along with Chaos Theory –
have an approach which allows for the fact that, at micro-levels, we can never
be certain of anything because we are unable to measure sufficiently small
enough without disturbing what we’re measuring viz,:-
(a) can’t measure both velocity and and position of a sub-atomic particle – probability measures were added to Quantum Mechanics to compensate. This has the side effect of losing the ability to describe what it is we’re talking about in English – is it a billiard-ball type of thing or like a ray of light or wave in the sea?
(b) can’t measure heat transfer of individual nano-particles – statistical methods were created for Fluid Flow which gives Statistical Mechanics.
There doesn't seem to be way that Thermodynamics Laws and Molecular Properties can be discussed together in English.
No comments:
Post a Comment