Isotopes Redux

Earlier I posted about how the ratios of certain CO2 isotopes could show the amount of CO2 that was released as the result of fossil fuel use. This apparently is actual settled science. I’d asked what these ratios were; i.e. what percentage is fossil fuel? Second, I’d wondered about FILO (first in last out) meaning that CO2 most recently absorbed by the oceans is the first to be released. Third, I’d wondered how long CO2 hangs about the atmosphere. The answers ought to tell us how much of a threat fossil fuel use actually is.

And yet curiously, although some claimants will mention the CO2 isotope stuff as a proof, they back down upon further inquiry (I’m not claiming dishonesty; rather, details are probably not well known) and there is little mention of this by the big AGW sites. Seems to me that this would in fact be the smoking gun. Why so shy?

Finally, some answers seem to be appearing. One place reluctant to answer had a discussion on their site where they were discussing a paper related to the above questions. Buried in the paper was one answer: 2.75%. That’s how much of the atmospheric CO2 can be attributed to fossil fuels. Doesn’t sound like much. After a dozen inquiries to the experts at climate expert sites, we can also conclude that nobody knows how long CO2 stays aloft, and the estimates range from 25 to 200+ years. It’s widely asserted that the correct answer is 100 years, but this appears to be a guess back in the 90’s that’s been simply re-asserted. I also reviewed the IPCC-AR4 report… and after a lot of hand waving and super-secret tech babble, the bottom line remains the same: nobody knows. That’s curious; there’s a great deal of claim regarding global warming, and one of the fundamental data points is unknown? So how do the models work? (Or better yet — do they work at all?)

And nobody has an answer to FILO either. If there were answers, they’d be trumpted.

So here’s where we are — it appears that the sum total of all fossil fuel emissions by man since 1800 or so are reasonably accounted for and comprise less than 3% of the CO2 that exists in the atmosphere. I’m going to stick to this figure until I see some proof otherwise.

My guess is that this figure is correct. Why? Because if the number was 30%, does anyone think this wouldn’t be all over the news? Does anyone think that the AGW crowd wouldn’t whip out the big gun every possible chance?

We Own The Night

That’s what the military says. In fact they prefer to fight at night these days.

Back in the 80’s while building measurement instruments based on CCD’s, it was apparent from looking at the spec sheets of the devices used that although all attempts to tune them were to have them peak at say 500 nm, these things were quite sensitive to near infrared. Military thermal imaging sensors are the same type of things: sensitive to IR. At night, the temps cool down. It becomes a lot easier to detect vehicle engines and people. Anything that generates heat. An enemy that doesn’t have the same technology can’t see you, but you can see them. Tactics are created to maximize the technology you have at your disposal. The military has a lot of that.

It’s no great wonder then that the military prefers to launch attacks at say 1 AM. Not only is this disruptive to the enemy sleep patterns, it’s also easier to target the enemy, and harder for them to target you. It’s also no great surprise to learn that the Iraqi attacks that seemed most effective were in foul sandstorm weather in the daylight.

So… “We Own The Night” is a function of the technology used.

Computer Models Redux

Being a software engineer, I think I’m somewhat qualified to talk about computer models, at least moreso than my other musings about science in general.

In a converation on a climate site, I replied to someone inquiring about modeling. I said –

“Climate science is very difficult. Climate scientists don’t have a planet sitting nearby that they can use to run experiments with, so they’re limited to simulating things with computer models. I’m not going to argue GIGO (garbage in garbage out) because it’s not accurate. But say you are looking for a specific thing, like trying to guess how much CO2 it takes for the climate to do something wierd. Your model looks at that, but that’s because the model is made to look at that. It’s not made to discover new physical processes or climate influences. It can only use the influences assumed at the start.

You can therefore trust that scientists are working diligently and reporting to the best of their abilities. Nor are they misguided; they don’t know what they don’t know, so they are telling you what they DO know to the best of their ability.”

Now, to put this in some perspective, a recent paper from an astrophysicist (Svensmark) postulates that changes in the sun’s geomagnetic flux changes the amount of cosmic rays bombarding earth, and these rays play a fairly big role in cloud formation. Cloud formation changes the temperature. From what I can tell from reading the paper, this looks to be correct in essence, although the significance of the role is unknown until experiments are run (and they are scheduled to run soon at the CERN facility.)

Now, back to models. As I’d said, models do what models do and can’t discover processes; they have to have known processes as inputs so that they can simulate. Thus we have a case where ALL current models are ignoring a previously unknown physical process and one that a model can’t guess at; this reinforces the point that models don’t discover processes. More importantly, it says that models can only be trusted as far as how well the science of the inputs are understood.

Models are evolving. In the late 80’s models used by James hansen at NASA treated the oceans in a fairly primitive matter because the assumption was that this explained things well enough to model for CO2. Ahhh, but later it was discovered that this was inadequate, so more recent models do a better job of handling oceans and currents. The question is whether this is adequate now or merely “somewhat less inadequate” because important physical processes are being downplayed, aren’t known, or perhaps even wrong. (This happens.)

Overall the point is that models used by the climate guys are designed solely to simulate the effects of CO2, so when the conclusion reached of the interpreted data has something to do with CO2, are we supposed to be surprised?