"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...
Jeff Liebermann wrote:
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.
**Maybe. Maybe not. We are entering uncharted territory. This giant
experiment has no definitively known outcome.
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 ?
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?
**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.
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 ...
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.
**Indeed. It is unlikely that this planet's atmosphere could reach the 94%
CO2 saturation that exists on Venus.
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.
**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.
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 ...
snip
If CO2 concentration were an important determining factor in producing
global warming, then the historical high temperatures at high
temperatures should have been maintained.
**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.
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 ...
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.
**In SOME cases, yes.
Ah, so that's ok then. Case re-proven. Status quo restored.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Arfa