lunedì, giugno 25, 2007

Ding-dong; c'è nessuno in casa?

Sul forum "energyresources" segnalano oggi un articolo di un sig. Bloom a proposito del riscaldamento globale.

Se masticate l'inglese vi consiglio di leggerlo. Una simile serie di fesserie una dietro l'altra non l'avevo mai sentita, nemmeno dai peggiori negazionisti italiani. Questo Bloom è veramente di fuori come le campane a festa. Sarebbe una cosa divertente se non fosse tragica; purtroppo ci sarà sicuramente chi gli da retta.

Questo Bloom, fra le altre cose, ha scritto un romanzo intitolato "Beyond Neanderthal" dove mi sembra di capire sostenga (ahimè) la tesi che i combustibili fossili sono in esaurimento e che si deve fare qualcosa che lui chiama una "rivoluzione morale" per risolvere il problema.

Su "energyresources" concludono che se questo è il livello di intelligenza degli umani, allora è meglio che ci estinguiamo. Direi che è vero.


Why (Really) is Our Planet Warming?

Brian Bloom
June 23, 2007

Warning: The article that follows cuts across conventional wisdom.

The reader is entreated to leave his/her prejudices at the door and
to approach this Global Warming boat-rocking article with an open
mind. There is too much at stake to not rock the Global Warming boat.

By way of introduction, it will probably be constructive to focus on
the well accepted principle that "No man is an island". Individual's
have a need to belong. It's called a social need. We all have it in
varying degrees. Thus, when society as a whole embraces a particular
idea it is very difficult for a normal individual to embrace any
contrary idea which might be seen to be undermining that which has
become generally accepted. Such behaviour would be viewed by the
group as disloyal, and would have the effect of marginalising that
individual from the society to which he belongs. Such marginalisation
can be very traumatic - particularly when society as a whole is under
stress and people feel a heightened need to band together.

There are many examples to illustrate the point, one of which was in
respect of Copernicus. He was the guy who argued that the Earth
revolved around the sun when Church policy was that the Earth was the
centre of the Universe. The hard fact is that ancient civilizations
dating as far back as 3,500 BCE already knew for a certainty that
which Copernicus was putting forward as a so-called radical new idea
in 1,530CE; 5,000 years later. So, if Copernicus' idea wasn't
particularly radical, why did he wait until he was on his deathbed in
1543CE before publishing? Answer: It would not have been Politically
Correct to rock the boat. Life was stressful in Copernicus' days. The
world was midway through a mini Ice Age at the time. In addition, the
Catholic Church - which had solidified its power during the Crusades,
was under threat from Martin Luther's reformists. (Luther and
Copernicus lived at the same time).

As a starting point, it's important to bear in mind that a given
volume of water requires 30-50 times as much energy to warm it as
will be required to warm the same volume of air. Both our oceans
(which cover two thirds of the surface of our planet) and our air
(which extends as high as the mesosphere) have been warming. The
question is: Have our warming oceans warmed our atmosphere, or has
our warming atmosphere warmed our oceans?

This is not a frivolous question: Which has been cause, and which has
been effect?

Let's look at the Greenhouse Gas argument, which suggests that whilst
the albedo coefficient of any particular surface on Earth quantifies
the proportion of the sun's heat energy which is reflected from that
surface, in the case of the planet Earth as a whole, this overall
reflected infra-red heat is now being absorbed by the elevated levels
of CO2.; thereby causing a warming of our atmosphere. i.e. By this
argument, the warming atmosphere has warmed our oceans. That, in
layman's language, is one theory.

I have heard another theory - to the effect that all the heat being
given off by the coal fired power plants, and exhaust fumes of motor
cars, and people sweating in gyms all over the planet, is being
absorbed by the CO2 blanket.

There is yet a third theory: Because CO2 being emitted into the
atmosphere is heavier than air it has been sinking into our oceans,
where it has been absorbed. The oceans now no longer have the
capacity to absorb any more, and the chemical reaction of the gas
dissolving in the oceans has been warming them.

The reality is that the idea of a linkage between CO2 emissions and
global warming has been "bought" by the public, notwithstanding the
fact that very few people understand the precise mechanism by which
the warming is supposed to be occurring. Unfortunately, when you stop
to think about it, none of these arguments passes the commons sense
Read the whole set of idiocies at:


2 commenti:

Paolo Marani ha detto...

Mi piacerebbe leggere una tua analisi critica rispetto a quanto ha scritto questo signor Bloom. A prescindere che quanto scrive sembra proprio una accozzaglia di fesserie suggestive, sarebbe interessante leggere le tue argomentazioni punto su punto, soprattutto rispetto al principio base di correlazione che bloom critica. Se quando A cresce, si verifica che B cresce, è sufficiente per dire che A fa crescere B ? Quando due eventi si può dire che sono realmente correlati ? Faccio un esempio, una ricerca americana (non mi ricordo la fonte, vado a memoria) mostra come fra i praticanti dello yoga e della meditazione orientale ci sia una minore incidenza di malattie come il cancro, da cui se ne deduce che lo yoga è protettivo contro il cancro, è una vera correlazioni ? Lo yoga ha davvero un effetto così diretto ? Mi sono chiesto lo stesso riguardo la CO2. Vorrei sapere il tuo parere, grazie!

Ugo Bardi ha detto...

Vedi il blog del 26 Giugno