Arfa Daily wrote:
"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 ?
**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.
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 ...
**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.
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,
**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
us, is not quite so clear cut and unchallengeable, as they would have
us believe.
**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,
be any less valid ?
**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
degree of credibility, automatically be denounced as 'deniers',
stupid, or fools, as you are so fond of calling them ?
**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
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.
**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
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.
**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
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.
**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.
And that's the way the proponents of man-made global warming come
across, which is precisely what makes me doubt their case.
**What makes you doubt the case, is the fact that you have not taken the
time to educate yourself in the facts.
I know
that you feel that you are right,
**No. The IPCC is within 95% of being right.
but it's the way that you preach
the subject that wins you no friends.
**I don't give a ****. 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
there are many intelligent people on here, there doesn't seem to be a
single one that backs you on it ?
**That means nothing. And you know it.
Does that make us all stupid or
fools ? I guess from your point of view, it does ...
**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.
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% ?)
**95%.
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 ...
**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.
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.
**Take the time to read AR4.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au