[Terrapreta] A New Theory of Climate Change

[Sean K. Barry]

Hi Jeff,

I have seen and heard these critics of this theory ...

    "Global Climate Change (including Global Warming) has Anthropomorphic Causes"

I think you need to be very careful about the statistics used in the analysis these people make.  They are overly-complex and focus on to many angles looking at too many variables.  The Earth's atmosphere and it's interaction with the "living" biome are undeniably complex.  But, there are certain mathematically very simple things that are visible in the climatology data without complex statistical rangling to see them.  

There is a term called "radiative forcing".  You could study this.  In climate<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate> science, radiative forcing is (loosely) defined as the difference between the incoming radiation energy and the outgoing radiation energy in a given climate system.  It is like filling a bath tub, with the drain open, and trying to determine how much water is in the tub.  Both what comes in from the spigot and what goes out the drain can be measured.  But, even without measuring either, and looking only at the level of the tub over time, you can say certain things about the input and output amounts.

Both inputs and outputs of GHG are measure and estimated to some degree.  If, on balance, though, the concentrations of GHGs are measured as going up, then it is clear by a simple mathematical difference (balance = inputs - outputs, not a complex statistical presentation to get to the number, just a single subtraction), that inputs ARE exceeding outputs.  If they were not, then the concentrations would drop, rather than going up as they are.  Ergo, inputs (by humans or something) are increasing, exceeding or ouytpcaing the changes in outouts, and GHG concentrations in the atmosphere are consequently increasing.  Does this make sense?  It seems quite simple and obvious to me.  Each time concentrations go up, it is further evidence that inputs to the atmosphere are exceeding outputs.  This will always be true, until subtraction does not work the way it does.

Good science tries to use the simplest and most experimentally repeatable, obvious kinds of data to make theories.   For this reason, any argument for the "true science of things", with lots and lots of complicated graphs and statistics in the presentation, just is not "Good Science".  The more graphs and statistics there are, then the further the argument is away from one which is based on a pure, simple, mathematical or logical rule.  "Good Science" is also usually backed up by a significant amount of separate experimental verification, done by separate scientists, rather than a lot of information from one source.  There should be more discussion on how many times an experiment was repeated.  There should be new experiments, developed to test predictions made by the theory.  And more repeats of those.  Statistical meandering is not the logical way that theories are developed.
Statistical analysis, by definition, has margins of error, uncertainties.  Statistical inferences, which are based on probability, do not have the power, or the repeatability of simple mathematical or simple logical inferences.

Where you are reading from is also very important.  Unless you read from a "peer-reviewed" scientific journal, then anybody can say just about anything they want, and make it sound all full of science, even if there is not one bit of "good science" in the whole article.  The "peer-reviewed" aspect of scientific journals is the key to the quality of the information in the journal articles.  If the science of the thing, the experimentation, the methods for taking measurements, the methods for statistical analysis and presentation, and any theoretical underpinnings of that which is stated in the articles are not completely approved by the large "peer" review committees, then the article is not published.  The "peers" are other scientists, even some competing in the same fields, and they solely are the ones who have final say on whether an article gets published.

You might wonder where is the simple and obvious, experimentally verified theory, that just because GHG concentrations are going up, then why will Global Warming occur?  You may also wonder if its possible that humans are not the source for the large increases in inputs of GHGs to the atmosphere (bathtub in the sky)?  Well, rest assured, these two supporting theories do exist, are simple, and have been experimentally verified.  Get yourself a membership to the Journal of Science - AAAS and do a topic search on both.  I'm positive you will find articles showing experimental verification of the predictable results of changes in GHG concentration on its "green house" effect.  I am positive you will find articles on observational verification that humans are the greatest contributors of GHGs to the environment (and of the increases in GHG concentrations).

The "Petition Project" is absolutely not a "peer-reviewed" scientific journal.  It looks like a "right-wing" rag out of some conservative ghetto in California.  Consider the (objectives of that) source.


Regards,

SKB


----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Jeff Davis<mailto:jeff0124 at velocity.net> 
  To: terrapreta<mailto:terrapreta at bioenergylists.org> 
  Sent: Sunday, September 02, 2007 7:56 PM
  Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] A New Theory of Climate Change


  Dear David,

  I also based my belief in GW by my own observations but when subjected to 
  multi-dimensional discussions on the subeject I though it would be best to do 
  some research with an open mind. Tunnel vision is not science. Pure emotion 
  driven is simply going on a witch hunt.

  For example: What if GW is real but what is killing your mountain top trees is 
  something else. By ignoring that something else, even by curing GW, you end 
  up with dead trees.


  Cheers,

  Jeff



  On Sunday 02 September 2007 12:50 am, David Yarrow wrote:
  > i think this quote below is utter and complete nonsense by hardheads still
  > stuck in denial, who are willynilly willing to fabricate data to support
  > their unwillingness to admit how massively human industrial abuse of nature
  > is dismantling the ecosystems that are our planetary life support systems.

  _______________________________________________
  Terrapreta mailing list
  Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org<mailto:Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>
  http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/<http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/>
  http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org<http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org/>
  http://info.bioenergylists.org<http://info.bioenergylists.org/>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/terrapreta_bioenergylists.org/attachments/20070903/26701e21/attachment-0001.html