high=20
Only in seeming on the IPCC time reversed graphs. Which when read correctly shows CO2 follows temperature!!
When=20
is=20
rise,=20
You need to study both the IPCC graph and the time orientation corrected graphs (thanks Jeff) a lot more then. The raw data in the IPCC graph is increasing depth in the ice core, and thus farther back in time. Do read the labels carefully. Temperture generally precedes CO2 rather consistently (both increases and decreases).
:-))
You can't have it both ways. Either warming causes a CO2 increase, or CO2 causes a warming increase. Since they track each other, it's presumed that there's a cause and effect mechanism in operation. If your claim of mutual causality were true, where an increase in either factor causes an increase in the other, then that's positive feedback. Temperature and CO2 would simply increase without any limit, causing the planet to look like Venus. We've survived 5 temperature cycles in the last 500,000 years which demonstrates that it's NOT postive feedback.
Assuming the five temperature maximums are related to the 1st Order 100,000 year Milankovitch cycles, CO2 had little effect is maintaining the high temperatures. As seen in Cycle 4, even though CO2 levels were at maximum 299 ppmv CO2, temperature did not continue to increase, but actually made a abrupt reversal. Therefore it appears that the mechanical temperature rise & fall associated with 1st order Milankovitch cycles appear to overwhelm any warming effect associated with CO2, for CO2 levels below 299 ppmv;
-- Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
**Of course you can. High CO2 levels lead to rising temperatures. High temperatures drive CO2 out of solution from the oceans. When one rises, the other follows.
Either warming causes a CO2 increase, or
**Of both.Since they track each other, it's
**Well, we KNOW that CO2 acts as a GHG. That has been shown experimentally many times.If
**Correct. **Not necessarily. We don't have as much CO2 available as there is on Venus, for instance. We also don't know precisely what caused prior warmings or high CO2 levels. We are also much further out from the Sun than Venus is. Make no mistake: The Sun is the major driver of temperatures on this planet. CO2 is a relatively small driver. It is NOT an insignificant driver.We've survived 5 temperature cycles in
**Not quite. The prior warming periods occured over many thousands of years. This present warming is occuring within a few hundred. It is occuring MUCH faster that at any time in the past few hundred million years. It is the extreme rapidity of the present warming that is causing considerable concern. **Except that CO2 levels are presently around 385ppm and rising. As is average temperature.-- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au
**I suggest you examine the graphs VERY carefully. **I've been doing so for many years. I suggest you do likewise. It is important that you understand the process, rather than just quickly looking at the graphs. Incorrect assumptions can easily be made.
The raw data in the
**Your words are almost correct. Temperature SOMETIMES precedes CO2 level rise and SOMETIMES it lags.-- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au
No, this is:
the
experimentally
Venus,
is.=20
planet.=20
years.
MUCH
Bottom line. The direct line causal connections are just not there. Moreover, all of your recent stuff points to at least one well known = input which can produce both increases. Your case is breaking down.
?-)
**Not quite. Absolute cause and effect cannot be proven for past events. What we do have, however, is solid science that CO2 acts as a GHG. We also have compelling evidence that rising CO2 levels and temperatures are solidly linked. When one rises, the other follows. **You think? You need to supply some science to show that rising CO2 levels are not the cause of the present warming. Thus far, you've supplied nothing.
-- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au
Maybe. If each factor causes an increase in the other, then their respective values will increase until some other limit is reached. If I randomly assume a 1% increase per year in each factor will cause a corresponding 1% increase in the other, we would hit a 100% increase in a few years. In order to prevent such an out of control increase in the model, there would need to be a moderating outside influence, that prevents such uncontrolled increases. So far, the various mechanisms for absorbing CO2 (vegetation and ocean absorption) have been demonstrated to be inadequate. What keeps CO2 and temperature from increasing each other without limits?
We have plenty of frozen methane hydrate, might should suffice as a suitable substitute. Not all planets are created equal.
Agreed. The problem is in the numbers, or rather the models. My confidence level in the models that demonstrate causality and significance are not quite a certain as yours.
Incidentally, in your cited graphs at:
the Description under the above image reinforces my point if you present the URL in a different form:
Digging under the raw data at:
I find:
"Antarctic ice cores show that carbon dioxide concentrations increased by 80 to 100 parts per million by volume 600 +/- 400 years after the warming of the last three deglaciations. Despite strongly decreasing temperatures, high carbon dioxide concentrations can be sustained for thousands of years during glaciations; the size of this phase lag is probably connected to the duration of the preceding warm period, which controls the change in land ice coverage and the buildup of the terrestrial biosphere." Other articles, some by the original collectors of the data, show the same conclusion.
The problem here is that the entire IPCC house of cards is based on the single premise, that CO2 concentration causes global warming, and not the other way around. Were this to be properly substantiated, a large number of the various CO2 reduction schemes could be considered futile.
If CO2 concentration were an important determining factor in producing global warming, then the historical high temperatures at high temperatures should have been maintained. In other words, when CO2 stayed high, temperature should also have stayed high. That didn't happen, as CO2 stayed high for thousands of years while the temperatures dropped.
-- Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
**Maybe. Maybe not. We are entering uncharted territory. This giant experiment has no definitively known outcome.
If
**No idea. And THAT is precisely the problem. Both may end up increasing until CO2 levels and temperatures are so high that several catastrophic phenomena occur. CO2 levels could reach (say) 5% or so. Return to 'normal' levels would likely take several million years. **Indeed. It is unlikely that this planet's atmosphere could reach the 94% CO2 saturation that exists on Venus. **Fair enough. However, I should rmind you at this point that neither of us is a climatologist. I place my faith in the climatologists to tell me about the climate. **Clearly, you have not read IPCC AR4. The IPCC very clearly states that rising CO2 levels increase temperature and that increasing temperatures causes higher levels of CO2. **Not necessarily. You are ignoring the possibility of some other influence on the system. Massive volcanoes, asteriod strikes, etc. These events can cause massive climate shifts.In other words, when CO2
**In SOME cases, yes.-- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au
"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message news: snipped-for-privacy@mid.individual.net...
Yeah, I know. I'm getting dragged in again here ... So, if that is the case, why do all the doom-mongers seek to convince us otherwise ?
But as there is "no idea" and that is "precisely the problem", then the alternative could just as easily be true, except it doesn't carry quite the gravity of the "catastrophic" proposal ...
But as was pointed out to you the other day, with good reference material from Jeff L , there is a groundswell of increasing opinion now from other climatologists, that what the first ones are telling us, is not quite so clear cut and unchallengeable, as they would have us believe. Why should what these alternative theorists are saying, be any less valid ? Why should anyone who listens to them with a degree of credibility, automatically be denounced as 'deniers', stupid, or fools, as you are so fond of calling them ? As you rightly point out, none of us on here is a qualified climatologist, so we have to rely on what others tell us, and like everything in life, a degree of judgment has to be applied, as to how reliable the information that is being given, is. The main thing that causes me a problem on this front, is the evangelical fervour with which the doom-mongers state their case. You will recall that I threw in a tongue-in-cheek reference to JWs last week. They are exactly the same as the green mist brigade. A distant relation of mine and her husband were both JWs for many years. It was impossible to have any kind of meaningful debate with them on the subject, because no matter what angle you approached from, they had a pat counter-argument, backed up by red-underlined passages in their bibles. Worst of all, they were smug about the fact that you *could not* debate with them, because they were always right, and no matter what differing view you had, it only made you someone to be pitied, and converted to the faith.
And that's the way the proponents of man-made global warming come across, which is precisely what makes me doubt their case. I know that you feel that you are right, but it's the way that you preach the subject that wins you no friends. Do you not wonder why, when there are many intelligent people on here, there doesn't seem to be a single one that backs you on it ? Does that make us all stupid or fools ? I guess from your point of view, it does ...
You see, here we go again. The case is proven beyond all reasonable doubt (what is it now, 3% ?) except that when there's a bit of a fly in the ointment, suddenly it's not, and we can apparently fling in another random statement that makes it all ok again ...
Ah, so that's ok then. Case re-proven. Status quo restored.
Arfa
**They're not. They are saying precisely that. They are saying (to paraphrase):
There is a high probability (95%) that temperatures will rise to catastophically high levels in the future.
**Indeed. There is a chance that CO2 levels may not reach catastrophic levels. Just as I could drive from Sydney to Melbourne at 200kph and, maybe, I might not be involved in an accident, or be picked up by the police along the way. Anything is possible. I would estimate that there is a 95% probability that I would be either involved in an accident, or picked up by the police. **No, there is not any kind of "groundswell" that you speak of. There are a handful of people who are, like Spencer, religious nutters and/or are employed by the fossil fuel lobby, that dispute the vast majority of climatologists data.that what the first ones are telling
**I have ALWAYS been quite clear in stating that science tells us that AGW is the most likely explanation for the warming we are experiencing and that the confidence level is around 95%. That tells us that there is a 5% uncertainty in the facts. Therefore, it is open to challenge.Why should what these alternative theorists are saying,
**Because none have been able to explain the warming and the rapidity of that warming. None have been able to discredit the IPCC AR4. PARTS of AR4 (around 4 pages out of 1,600-odd) have been open to criticism. That's it. And, to the enormous credit of the IPCC, faults have been rectified when found.Why should anyone who listens to them with a
**People who have failed to read the IPCC AR4 and want to become involved in the discussion, deserve to be called whatever is deemed appropriate. It is intellectually bankrupt to argue against a theory, without first understanding that theory. THAT is just logical.As you rightly
**Precisely. The guys at the IPCC are the best climatologists on the planet. They are not influenced by religion or the fossil fuel industry. They are independent.The main thing that causes me a
**Incorrect. It is quite easy to point out the logical inconsistencies with their belief system. I've done so many times.Worst of all, they were
**Again, not in my experience. Most go away, whimpering. One went away, promising to think about my words. ALL lack a decent education. And that is no different to AGW theory. Without an education (IOW: without first reading IPCC AR4) then it is pointless trying to discuss things. **What makes you doubt the case, is the fact that you have not taken the time to educate yourself in the facts.I know
**No. The IPCC is within 95% of being right.but it's the way that you preach
**I don't give a shit. This is serious. I have argued with friends about AGW. Some share my viewpoint and others do not. NONE of those that do not share my view have taken the time to read AR4. Most parrot the usual bunch of scurrilous and nonsensical claims made by the deniers.Do you not wonder why, when
**That means nothing. And you know it.Does that make us all stupid or
**No. What mystifies me is how people who are clearly intelligent, refuse to read the most important document relating to AGW theory and yet argue against the very thing they have failed to read. Weird. **95%.except that when there's a bit of a fly
**Taking words out of context is rather shabby. However, I will take the time to explain the issue. We are discussing why CO2 levels (and temperatures) did not skyrocket during past warming events. The reasons may or may not be related to today. **Take the time to read AR4.-- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au
I do wish you would cease trivializing this point. It's not uncharted territory, the great unknown, or magic. It's simple logic. If either factor causes the other to increase, then both will increase until some other limit is reached. From the historical data, it appears that both temperature and CO2 are cyclic rather than constantly increasing. Therefore, something is causing both CO2 and temperature to drop. Since nobody seems to know what might be causing this decrease, Occam's Razor suggests that it might be far simpler to assume that bother factors do NOT cause each other to increase endlessly, and that temperature and CO2 are not as tightly coupled as you suggest. Even better, the Vostok-Petit graphs clearly show CO2 following temperature, not the other way around.
I don't place my faith in experts. I've been screwed by alleged experts and have seen from the inside how they operate in a different industry. In this case, the problem is funding. It's almost impossible to get funding for AGW research intended to disprove the IPCC consensus. Well, not impossible if you don't mind taking money from big oil. If someone does manage to produce an unfavorable report, their funding magically goes away.
How soon we forget Global Cooling:
Incidentally, experts are often wrong. "Vindicated: Ridiculed Israeli scientist wins Nobel"
As I indicated previously, I read one part out of four. The physical science basis report is what I found interesting. The rest are summaries, guesswork, conclusions, extrapolations, predictions, and some politics. I wasn't interested.
Ummm... reading the report doesn't mean that I'm instantly converted. I tend to be very suspicious of methodology. For example, ice cores older than about 150,000 years are dated largely by guesswork. The glacial creep that far back causes the distinctive annual ice layers to blurr into mush. They also tend to form angular layers, which are difficult to see on a vertical ice core sample. The best they can do is correlate volcanic dust events with corresponding land based dating.
Lasting how long? Looking at the graphs, it appears that CO2 and temperature were decoupled at least 1-2 million years. I can see such isolated events causing climate changes, but not for extended periods. Also, the Vostok-Petit graph shows atmospheric dust concentration, which should be an indication of volcanism and asteroid hits. No connection with temperature or CO2.
Reminder, others agree with me. Read the comments:
It was true in 3 out of 4 peaks as shown on the Vostok-Petit graph. The 4th was admittedly difficult to determine because the temperature did not drop as rapidly as the other peaks.
-- Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
I've just lost the will to live ...
Arfa
Take two kill filters and call me in the morning. :)
-- You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense.
OK Michael, will do !
I just can't quite understand how 1000+ dissenting voices (links to government papers citing this previously supplied by Jeff L) from the same scientific world as the scientists advocating that the problem is man-made in the first place, can possibly represent "a handful of people" that are "religious nutters" (!!) or "employed by the fossil fuel lobby". If that many of them really represent just a handful, there must then be millions of climatologists in the world, and they must all be speaking somehow with the same voice. Even the sacred IPCC hasn't got that many climatologists on its panel, and still fewer among its peer reviewers that Trevor is so fond of quoting, as apparently, there is no actual requirement to be qualified in that discipline, and the main criteria for acceptance onto the peer review panel, is to be invited by some (like-minded) person already on it.
Arfa
**Because a 1000+ dissenting scientists is a MINISCULE proportion of all those who hold degrees in science. Utterly insignificant, in fact. Think MILLIONS. In any case, the only opinions of interest are those who are those who are credentialled in the area of climatology. I see no reference to the credentials of these alleged "1,000 scientists" BTW. They could, like Spencer, be 'Creation Scientists'. Will you throw your weight behind Spencer and his odd-ball ideas?
If that many of them really represent just a handful,
**There isn't. There are not very many climatologists.and they
**97% are. 3% dispute the science. Spencer (the religious nutter that denies Darwin's seminal work) is one of the most vocal. That should tell you all you need to know.Even the sacred
**So?and still
**I'm reasonably certain that religious fruit looks, like Spencer, have automatically disqualified themselves, due to their insistence that the fact of evolution is bunk and that the only form of acceptable funding comes from Exxon.-- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au
Don't take him seriously, he has that effect on some, but in reality he is full of it.
Even if the AGW was actually true, there are far more dangerous things in the real world to be wary of.
Yawn. Grow a brain, and get a life.
-- You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense.
He's a small minded loser who latches onto something, then refuses to look at the issue. He searches for others like him to 'prove' that he's right. He ignores anything may may even remotely prove him wrong, because his whole world would collapse. Even though it's been shown that his beloved IPCC is composed of liars who cook data and thieves who knowingly publish bad data to keep their funding, he keeps drinking the 'Jonestown Kool-Aid' and demanding more poison.
-- You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense.
Point of order, Jonetwon used Flavoraid, not Koolaid.
Minor nit. ;-)
Jeff-1.0 wa6fwi
-- "Everything from Crackers to Coffins"
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.