On Tue, 4 Oct 2011 07:33:23 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:
Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sat, 1 Oct 2011 17:30:35 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:
http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/crud/Vostok_Petit_data_03.jpg
**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.
You can't have it both ways.
**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.
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?
Temperature and CO2 would simply increase without any limit, causing
the planet to look like Venus.
**Not necessarily. We don't have as much CO2 available as there is on Venus,
for instance.
We have plenty of frozen methane hydrate, might should suffice as a
suitable substitute. Not all planets are created equal.
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.
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:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok_Petit_data.svg
the Description under the above image reinforces my point if you
present the URL in a different form:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok_Petit_data.svg
Digging under the raw data at:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/antarctica/vostok/vostok_data.html
I find:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/vostokco2.html
"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
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060
http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558