josephkk wrote:
On Sat, 1 Oct 2011 17:30:35 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:
Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 07:24:52 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:
Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Wed, 28 Sep 2011 14:24:35 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:
* Clear, unequivocal evidence that the planet is warming at a
faster rate at any time in the last 600,000 years.
Ahem...
http://junksciencearchive.com/MSU_Temps/All_Comp.png
**Er, 1978 ~ 2010 is not 600,000 years. Not even close. However,
this graph may provide a little more information:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok_Petit_data.svg
Not quite 600,000 years, but considerably more than 30.
I don't have a huge amount of time to take apart the graphs. So, I
selected just the one above. The first thing I noticed is that
there are no vertical grid lines, making it difficult to determine
whether a CO2 peak caused warming, or whether it was the other way
around. So, dragging out GIMP photo editor, I added vertical grid
lines. I also reversed the graph so that time goes from left to
right. Today is on the right.
http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/crud/Vostok_Petit_data_03.jpg
Note the circled peaks. Note that the temperature peak precedes the
CO2 rise in all 3 visible peaks. I'm not quite sure what to do
about the most recent peak. If I get ambitious, I'll grab the raw
data and expand just that section. It kinda looks like temp rise
precedes CO2 again, but I can't be sure on such a wide scale.
**I've studied the graphs in some considerable detail over the years
and have noted that CO2 rise sometimes precedes temperature rise and
sometimes it lags. This fits in well with current theory on how
temperature changes have occured in the past. Not all have been
caused by CO2 rise. The most important factor to note, however, is
that CO2 levels and temperature levels track each other very
closely. When one goes up, the other does too.
Except for two very important things: 1) correlation is NOT
causation.
**I never suggested otherwise. Read my words more carefully in future.
2)
effect cannot precede cause.
**Duh. I suggest you study up on the sequence of events during times of high
CO2 levels.
The graph is very clear on temperature
change preceding CO2 levels generally.
**Incorrect. The graphs span several hundred thousand years. The graph
clearly shows that CO2 rise precedes temperature rise several times. When
CO2 levels rise, temperature rise follows. When temperatures rise, CO2 is
outgassed from the oceans, causing rising CO2 levels. When CO2 levels rise,
temperature rise follows. And so on.
(skipping down....)
Fundamentally, the way I see it is like this:
* If we spend a few Bucks today to mitigate CO2 emissions, we may
be able to avert the 95% probability of disaster.
According to the trend lines, we should now be heading into another
ice age.
**We SHOULD have entered an ice age quite a long time ago. But we
didn't. The temperature of the planet is rising. Our production of
CO2 has prevented the ice age from occuring.
If true and we reduce CO2 emissions, my guess is that we'll
create our own disaster.
**There's the rub: If we reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere
(by some means, not specified), then we may precipitate an ice age.
However, reducing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is an
extremely unlikely possibility. The VERY BEST we can hope for is to
reduce emissions to zero. If we do that, then CO2 levels would
stabilise at the present level. That ain't gonna happen. The most
likely scenario is that CO2 levels will continue rising at a faster
rate than at any time in the last several hundred thousand years.
Temperatures are likely to follow (with 95% certainty).
* If we don't spend the money today, then it is highly probable
(95% certainty) that the cost will escalate with each passing
year, to a point where we will be unable to fund mitigation.
True. By limiting the shrinking list of acceptable solutions, only
the most expensive CO2 reduction schemes will be left. For example,
extensive expansion of nuclear power is becoming increasingly
expensive due primarily to government oversight.
**That is a political issue. I'm discussing science.
No, you are not.
**_I_ am.
Effect does not precede cause.
**Duh.
You are an
indoctrinated
political follower.
**If you mean to say:
I regard science as the arbiter of this present situation and have no regard
for those who reject science and embrace the supernatural, then you'd be
correct.
* If the scientists are wrong and we spend a few Bucks now, then
it's cost us some money.
"Few" bucks?
**Yeah. A few Bucks. Here is a reasonably comprehensive analysis of
the costs of action and the potential costs of inaction.
I can't think of any C02 reduction scheme that is cheap.
Switching to CFL and LED lighting might be cost effective because
the cost is spread over maybe 50 years. Same with hybrid vehicles.
However, large scale reductions in CO2 reduction, such as
eliminating coal generated electricity, has huge associated costs.
**That would depend on what you consider to be "huge". I consider
that a temperature rise of (say) 6 degrees C (which is possible
under some of the more pessimistic estimates) is of far more concern
than a (say) doubling of electricity costs today.
And i see it quite the reverse.
**Good for you. Cite your peer-reviewed science that proves the IPCC AR4
incorrect.
Nor do i believe that the Greenland
ice
sheet will all melt away and cause a calamitous ocean level rise (as
depicted is some apocalyptic projections).
**You may believe in all the supernatural mumbo-jumbo you wish. I'll stick
with the scientists on this one. You may care to note that the Greenland ice
melt has accelerated in the past few years. Why do you think that is? You
may also care to note that Greenland's arable land has increased in recent
years. Why do you think that is? Given these two effects, what do you think
will cause them to cease?
* If the scientists are right and we don't spend the money, our
civilisation will not likely survive.
Apocalyptic predictions of the demise of civilization have
traditionally accompanied such changes. I recall reading one from
the ancient Greeks. While the risks of inaction are high, the
probability of disaster is quite low. Like the predictions of a
Y2K disaster, the modern alarmists have their limitation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eschatology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocalypse
**You're mixing up religion with science. The science that has been
presented is just that - science. It is based on many thousands of
man-hours of investigation and a great many of measurements. It is
not wild speculation. I leave that to guys like Roy Spencer.
Effect does not precede cause.
**Strawman. Spencer is a religious nutter.
Make no mistake: I did not say that humans will be wiped out. Many
will survive. Anarchy is loking like a real probability.
Well, since we're doing a disaster movie here, I suggest you do a
back of the envelope calculation. If we assume that the energy
consumption and greenhouse gas production per person remains
constant at today's western world levels, what would the population
of the planet need to be in order to produce a greenhouse gas
stable environment? I think you might be amused by the result.
**Not at all. 500 million is my best guess. I've said it in the past
and that is the figure I'll stick with.
I don't actually find that number unreasonable. Though i am looking
a lot
more factors.
Incidentally, I just bought an EcoSmart LED lamp for $10 at Home
Depot. 40 watt equivalent, 9 watts consumption, 429 lumens, 3000K,
46 year life. Works with my light dimmer. The color accuracy 85
is not very good.
http://www.homedepot.com/buy/lighting-fans/light-bulbs/ecosmart/led-a19-40-watt-equivalent-light-bulb-39632.html
Prices seem to be getting down to reasonable. One nice feature is
that the plastic "bulb" and aluminum base look sufficiently strong
to survive being dropped, something that CFL bulbs can't do.
**I'll post some pics of my latest find a bit later. They are
amongst the most impressive LED arrays I've ever used:
http://www.dealextreme.com/p/12w-350...p-12-14v-80310
Almost double the light output, compared to an 11 Watt, T5 fluoro.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au