Taylor: I guess it does, although I’m not a big fan of the way that term has been used. You know, Richard Feynman, one of the greatest American physicists, once said that the finest scientists were always trying to prove themselves wrong.
In science, we should all be skeptics, especially of our own work. I’ve been wrong enough in the past to know I might be wrong now.
SL: Do you believe Gov. Kulongoski purged you for your views?
Taylor: I don’t believe the governor purged me. I decided to retire, and it was a personal decision.
SL: But did anyone ever tell you to back off or you might lose your job?
Taylor: I’m not prepared to comment on that.
h/t Icecap.
Ron, where did I cite the glorious David Suzuki?
I guess this time I am guilty of “cherry picking”. The reason I gave for Singer not being a credible source is one of too many to list. You would be hard pressed to find a scientist who takes Singer seriously at this point. He’s a hack. Feel free to look into his research yourself.
John Cross; you’re right about the mathematical errors (sloppy work on my part). As far as anthropogenic CO2 emissions, I found an internet reference to roughly 1×10(exp 10) tons; assuming that pure carbon is being burned would give 38.3 Gt of CO2 (I don’t know where you got the 3.67). So human CO2 production would be 1.22% of total CO2 (assuming 3.15 x10(exp15) kg CO2 using 608 ppm CO2 as a weight percentage.
With regard to the Smith paper, why are the mean temperature and calculated temperature for Mars identical? Mars has an atmosphere comprised almost entirely of CO2 and one would expect some warming from this.
While looking up stuff on planetary atmospheres, came across an interesting paper on “Keeping Mars warm with new super greenhouse gases” (http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/98/5/21540)
An interesting terraforming idea which would provide a direct means of testing the greenhouse effect (unfortunately not in my lifetime though). The CFC’s proposed would be effective at ppb concentrations. The calculations the authors perform suggest that “the current terrestrial warming scare or controversy may be too fixated on the likelihood of CO2 doubling, when the greater danger may be from newe trace gases with strong absorption bands in the window such as SF5CF3, which is observed in the earths atmosphere” If this method works in practice, it would also be a way of countering the next ice age as the quantities of chlorofluorocarbons needed are within the range of current industrial production capacity.
Hey, didn’t Singer and Roger Revelle have a gig together at one time?
Loki: The 3.67 number comes from the ratio of the atomic mass of carbon dioxide to that of carbon. The masses are: C = 12.01 and O = 16.00. So the ratio of the mass of CO2 to C is (12.01 + 2*16.00)/12.01 = 3.66.
In regards to Mars, I think that it is the CO2 concentration that is keeping it warmer that it would otherwise be.
Thanks for the link to the interesting article. I agree that it won’t happen in our lifetimes, but who knows. They had an interesting point at the end of the article where they say “Therefore, searches for extraterrestrial intelligence, which now mainly seek radio waves, should perhaps include looking for spectra of manufacturable molecules such as those mentioned here.” I don’t know that I would agree, but it is interesting to think about.
Regards,
John