october 2009 issue
|
|
Readers’ Forum
Science Tour Pops Lids, Explains the Heavens
We welcome Readers’ Forum letters of interest to the professions. Send them to George Lee, glee@apega.ca. Keep them to 300 words or less — longer letters published at the editor’s discretion. Letters represent the opinions and not necessarily the expertise of writers. The PEGG reserves the right to edit or reject any letter.
Editor’s Note: The Science in Motion program of the TELUS World of Science delivered 838 science presentations to 66 Alberta communities in 2008/2009. APEGGA is a proud sponsor of the program — a fact that did not go unnoticed by the young participants. In fact, the Association received a number of letters, two of which are published here.
Using the Alberta science curriculum as a guide, Science in Motion brings high-energy programming to schools. Qualifying schools must be in Alberta and more than 100 kilometres from Edmonton.
Visit www.edmontonscience.com for more information.
Thank you for bringing Science in Motion to our school. I appreciate your help in sponsoring it. My favourite part was the elephant toothpaste. I liked it when Bernadette got Skyler to put together two millilitres of water, dish soap and a red liquid.
My second favourite part was the pop. First we heard a story about calling the Coke and Pepsi companies for their recipes. They just hung up.
After the story, we started making the pop. Robyn read the ingredients and Bernadette added lots of sugar then packs of juice, and then came the most exciting part — Bernadette added dry ice. The lids were popping into the air and one hit Robyn in the face.
I really enjoyed Science in Motion. It teaches you so much about science. [The presenters] are like the geniuses of science and I love science. So what if I don’t know a lot about it? I still like it.
Trinity Orenchuk
Grade 5
Medicine Hat
Thank you so much for sponsoring the Heavenly Bodies presentation from Science in Motion.
My favourite part was when the lady told us that the Greek myths had to do with the stars. It was fascinating when someone on the other side of the dome said something and it was as if he was behind me.
I hope you will continue your sponsorship so that other students can have this experience.
Jaira Westwell
Grade 6
Rycroft
UAH Scientist
Responds to Writer
Re: Moore’s Points Don’t Stand Up, by Dr. Alex De Visscher, P.Eng., Readers’ Forum, The PEGG, September 2009.
Any claim that the University of Alabama in Huntsville data are not reliable is simply unsubstantiated. The UAH data consistently prove themselves as the most reliable and robust of the datasets when comparisons are made with independent data in the peer-reviewed literature.
I suspect someone making such a claim is repeating stories of early errors that have long since been dealt with.
The UAH data demonstrate the smallest error characteristics of any of the satellite (or radiosonde due to geographic coverage) datasets. Further work is now in the process of being published by other scientists, adding to the body of evidence that the UAH data are reliable.
John Christy
Director
National Space Science and Technology Centre
Huntsville, Ala.
Cooling Trend
Evidence Exists
Dr. Visscher states there is no evidence for cooling. Yet the Met Office in Britain clearly demonstrates the average temperature data has experienced cooling. The information can be readily accessed through the Internet.
I understand the Leibniz climate modeling group has acknowledged this and has recently acknowledged prior climate model deficiencies. Further, a recent Financial Post article reports that a potential 20-to-30-year cooling cycle may be happening, based on modeling updates.
Much debate should occur. This information continues to pose considerable questions on the magnitude of climate warming ascribed in prior modeling to anthropomorphic carbon dioxide emissions.
Glen Schmidt, P.Eng.
Calgary
What About
Water Vapour?
Dr. De Visscher refers to the absorption bands for carbon dioxide, but he doesn’t list them. According to Perry’s Chemical Engineer’s Handbook, carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation (in micrometres) from 2.64 to 2.84, 4.13 to 4.5, and 13 to 17, for a total bandwidth of 4.57 micrometres.
Water vapour absorbs infrared radiation from 2.55 to 2.84, 5.6 to 7.6, and 12 to 25, for a total bandwidth of 15.29 micrometres. Note that water vapour overlaps more than 90 per cent of the carbon dioxide bandwidth.
Water vapour is the greenhouse gas in the highest concentration in the atmosphere, yet it is continually ignored. I have read that water vapour is dismissed as a factor because its concentration is mostly close to the surface. It is true that as water vapour rises, it cools to its dew point and starts to condense, but only to an equilibrium concentration. The portion that condenses releases heat to the atmosphere, which increases the equilibrium concentration.
Even at one mile above the ocean surface, an increase of 0.5 C will increase the equilibrium concentration by 400 p.p.m. volume per volume, which is more than the total current atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide.
I believe that overlooking water vapour as a major radiative gas is leading us to take counterproductive actions. The carbon capture and sequestration initiative, for example, will result in more energy released, more water evaporated, more radiant energy absorbed and recycled, and more climate warming.
Bill Middagh, P.Eng.
Edmonton
Emissions Don’t Correlate
With Temperature Trends
The physical measurements of global temperature started in 1856 with the Hadley dataset. This is coupled with the MBH98 temperature proxy to produce the “hockey stick” graph presented in the 2001 Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
A close examination of the actual temperature data shows that there was overall slight warming up to 1880, slight cooling to 1910, and then rapid warming up to 1942, which ended with a low-rate cooling trend extending until 1975.
When these time frames are examined in reference to the CO2 emissions record, they tell a very different story than the one portrayed by the IPCC. The warming that occurred up to 1880 was accompanied by only a slight increase in overall CO2 emissions, but when the cooling started emissions grew at a more rapid pace until the cooling ended and the rapid warming started in 1910.
In the 30 years up to 1910 emissions grew from under on gigatonne of CO2 per year to over 3.5 Gt/y as the Earth cooled, but in the following 32 years — during which the Earth warmed rapidly — emissions only increased to about four Gt/y. This rapid warming came to an end around 1942 with the well-documented cooling trend that lasted until 1975.
This cooling trend closely matched the rapid increase in post-war industrialization that initiated the rapid increase in CO2 emissions from fossil fuels. During these 33 years of global cooling, the emissions went from four Gt/y in 1942 to over 20 by 1975 when the global cooling ended and warming took over.
From 1856 to 1975, there were 24 years of warming with minor CO2 emissions increases, 30 years of cooling with more rapid CO2 increases, 32 years of warming with a reduced rate of emissions increases, and 33 years of global cooling with unprecedented rapid increases in global CO2 emissions from fossil fuels.
Over this 119-year period there was not even a single episode of rapid increases in CO2 emissions concurrent with rapid increases in global temperature. The only time that this occurred was after 1975 and after just 13 years of contemporaneous global warming with increasing CO2 emissions.
When the oil price skyrocketed in the late 1970s as a result of Middle East turmoil, there was such a large cutback in oil consumption that global CO2 emissions decreased for three consecutive years from 1979 to 1982. This is the only time in the emissions record that there was a reversal in the trend.
An IPCC stated claim is that the observed increase in atmospheric CO2 is the direct result of CO2 emissions from fossil fuels. If this were valid, when this three-year decrease occurred there should have been some change to the rate of growth in atmospheric CO2 concentration. But there was absolutely no change visible and the atmospheric concentration curve is virtually a perfectly straight line through the five years preceding and following this reversal in CO2 emissions. This proves conclusively that emissions from fossil fuels are at best only an insignificant contributor to the observed increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration.
No matter how strong public opinion is in support of anthropogenic global warming, it is an obviously false hypothesis.
Norm Kalmanovitch, P.Geoph.
Calgary
Let’s Not
Stifle Debate
Re: President Discusses Letters Practice On Climate Change, by APEGGA President Jim Beckett, P.Eng., Readers’ Forum, The PEGG, September 2009.
I have been following with great interest the debate in The PEGG about greenhouse gases since it began in 2002. Readers’ Forum is the first place I turn to when The PEGG arrives. I have been very appreciative of the comments and responses on both sides, since I do not have the professional experience nor the free time that would allow me to be as knowledgeable and informed on this important subject as I could wish.
I applaud the comments by interested “non-experts,” since I am one myself. If the theories presented cannot stand up to criticism from science-educated professionals such as engineers and geoscientists, then can I really have much faith in them?
A comment in the letter by Mr. Beckett in his capacity as chair of APEGGA’s Public Interest Issues Committee causes me concern. As professionals, we can have no objection this statement by our President: “We encourage the give-and-take of opinion, but would like to see it occur in a courteous and respectful manner.”
This debate is the only one I know of that actually allows people to present both sides of the argument, and I am afraid that it too may be stifled. Another of President Beckett’s statements is: “Members who wish to share the results of their scientific research or conclusions on a topic such as climate change are encouraged to seek a properly peer-reviewed or refereed publication to publish their work.” This could be seen as potentially limiting free expression of differing viewpoints — especially in light of accusations that some peer-reviewed journals may be biased.
I also note that The PEGG is being replaced by a magazine in the near future. I certainly hope that the Readers’ Forum will continue to be a part of any changes that are planned.
Ron Ackroyd, P.Eng.
Lethbridge