In article , "George" wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
et...
OK, I'll spell it out, since you're having a hard time following it.

Big trees sequester more carbon than little trees.
It takes a long time for a little tree to become a big tree.

Seventeen rapidly-growing saplings live where one modestly mature tree
stood. Fully mature trees add relatively little new wood versus young,
vigorous ones. It's a wash.

I disagree. Mature trees don't stop growing; they still add a growth ring
every year. That ring may be only 2mm thick, but when the circumference of the
tree is two meters, that's a liter of new wood for every 250mm of height.
Obviously that won't hold true over the entire height of the tree, due to the
taper of the trunk, but if you assume a uniform taper (yielding a one-meter
average circumference) you still get a liter of new wood for every 500mm of
height. And that's just in the trunk, not even considering the branches.

Now consider a sapling with a trunk 3 meters tall. The circumference is only
1/10 as much. Now young trees add wood at a much faster rate than old ones;
you can see that in the growth rings. So suppose the growth rings are twice as
wide. It's still adding wood at only 1/5 the rate, per unit of height, as the
mature tree. And the mature tree is ten times as tall, too.

So considering the trunks alone, you'd need somewhere around fifty saplings to
add the same amount of wood in a year as one mature tree.

Add in the branches, too, and I suspect the ratio probably approaches 100:1.

You also haven't considered the leaves...

Still think it's a wash? "Back of the envelope" calculations suggest
otherwise.


--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

In article ,
says...
Mike Hartigan writes:

In article ,
says...
Mike Hartigan writes:

In article ,
says...
Mike Hartigan writes:

In article ,
says...
[...] Kyoto only calls for reductions, not elimination.

Kyoto is what turned this into a blatantly political issue. Kyoto
calls for neither a reduction nor an elimination of global CO2
emissions. It simply prescribes a redistribution of these emissions.
It virtually guarantees that manufacturing would shift largely from
the US to so-called 'developing countries' (China, India, et al) -
countries that are on track to surpass the US in oil consumption
during the next decade, even without Kyoto. It's just one more
incentive to outsource.

...and that is the incentive to get Kyoto done, make every effort to
meet the targets, and then at the next stage of negotiations get more
countries involved, eventually getting ALL countries on side. The
exclusion of developing countries from targets should be considered
temporary, and that was the plan with Kyoto.

If that was the plan, then why wasn't it part of the treaty?

A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.

Have you ever watched what goes on in even a simple contract
negotation between two parties? Sometimes you just decide to leave things
until later.

So let me get this straight - You let the two countries that account
for approx. half the world's population, one of which is poised to
pass the US in terms of fossil fuel consumption, completely off the
hook so that they'll sign on to the agreement (although, what exactly
they're agreeing to is a mystery to me). Then, at some indeterminate
time in the future, they'll go along with it because you just feel it
in your bones that they will? Is that how you go about saving the
world?


That's what the next stages of negotiation are for. I don't know if
they will. I can hope that they will. There is no guarantee that they
will, but I think that it is less likely that they will if we ignore the
promises we make.

What planet are you posting from? They refused to sign on to the
treaty unless it was specifically spelled out that it didn't apply to
them. That sounds a lot like they don't want to meet the targets
that they 'agree' to expect from everybody else.

WRT your 'simple contract', neither party is held to anything that is
not explicitly spelled out in the contract.

Agreed.


Even getting a majority of countries to agree to something
like Kyoto is a major accomplishment.

Which of the major industrialized nations would that be? (China and
India don't count because they didn't agree to anything). What
percentage of the industrialized world's population do these
countries represent?

I haven't bothered checking populations, but Europe is on board. I
think the appropriate measures are the percentage of current
high-per-capita CO2 producers and total CO2 users, rather than just
population, though.

Would you agree that perhaps the targets should be relative to
industrial activity? (no, that would reduce the pressure on the US
-- we can't have that!)

(answer: because that wan't the plan) Why do you suppose that the
Democrats in the Senate (yes, even Al Gore) voted *unanimously* to
reject Kyoto? That's an 'inconvenient truth' that I think most
Democrats would prefer to disregard.

I don't know. You'd have to ask them. I'm not even an American, and
have never lived there. I live in a country that ratified Kyoto (and then
decided to not meet our targets.)

Is that any more or less noble than not having ratified it in the
first place?

Probably less noble.

On Mar 1, 4:35 pm, "George" wrote:
"Doug Miller" wrote in message

t...

OK, I'll spell it out, since you're having a hard time following it.

Big trees sequester more carbon than little trees.
It takes a long time for a little tree to become a big tree.

Seventeen rapidly-growing saplings live where one modestly mature tree
stood. Fully mature trees add relatively little new wood versus young,
vigorous ones. It's a wash.


That's true if by "fully mature" you mean a tree that has
stopped growing. Such trees are DEAD.

Trees are solar powered, the more leaf are they have
the more carbon they fix. The giant Sequoias are the
among the fasted growing organisms on Earth in
terms of mass added per year.

The larger a tree is, the faster it grows in
terms of how much additional weight is added.

--

FF

On Mar 1, 4:37 pm, wrote:
On Mar 1, 12:52 pm, wrote:



...

So, what is missing in your comments above is that you assume an
open-loop system. Earth is not open-loop. Additional CO2 improves plant
health, increased plant health and density uses up more CO2, causing CO2 to
decrease in a closed-loop system that is far from understood.

Agriculture, silviculture and deforestation more than offset any
increase in growth rate of the surviving plants.

The impact
of the bodies of water covering over 3/4 of the earth's surface are also
not understood.

Increased turbidity decreases the ocean life that fixes carbon in the
oceans.

Are you suggesting that increased turbidity is caused by increased CO2
in the atmosphere?

No. It is caused by development. The same
development that reduces habitat available for
plant growth.


So, what we have is pure conjecture, whipped up into near hysteria over
predictions of cataclysmic events with little true evidence to back up
even the basic conjecture.

The law of conservation of energy is far from conjecture.

How, exactly, does that apply?

If the energy absorbed by a body, plus the energy
produced internally, equals the amount of energy
lost by that body, the temperature of that body remains
constant. Otherwise, it changes.

--

FF

On Feb 27, 7:14 pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article , Chris Friesen wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:

The problem with that notion is the assumption that we *can* do something
about it. Suppose, for example, that global warming is real and is due
*entirely* to increased solar output. What are we going to do, install a
dimmer switch on the sun?

Actually, it's not totally out of the question. Theoretically you could
put one or more large mirrors between the earth and the sun and maybe
even use the reflected light for a power-generation plant.

Yes, I'm familiar with the idea. But if it was practical... it woulda been
done already.


While it is not practical to put a giant venetian blind
in orbit to block sunlight before it reaches the atmosphere
it IS possible to put particulates into the upper atmosphere
to reflect sunlight away. Indeed we have been doing exactly
that with jetliner contrails.

The contrails are formed of ice crystals which, unlike
water vapor, contribute little to the greenhouse effect,
but do add significantly to albedo. The estimate is
that in the last 50 years energy reaching the surface
of the Earth has decreased by a net 2%. That is
way more than enough to offset the effect of any
increase in the solar constant even if we assume
the highest credible estimate of 0.1 W/sqm.

The reality of global dimming is obvious if you look
at a satellite photo of a 'clear' sky. Over much of
the world today, the sky is NEVER clear.

Were global dimming the only factor affecting climate
change we should have noticed a drop in temperature
over the last 50 years. That we have not, is particularly
ominous.

--

FF

On Thu, 1 Mar 2007 15:38:05 -0600, "Swingman" wrote:


"Robatoy" wrote in message

I'd enjoy the temp, the pinot, certainly your company,...but the
skeeters I'm not big on.

They're not bad, yet ... but we've had a wet winter and with the warming it
is indeed looking like a banner year for 'skeeters.

Being a coonass, they don't bother me too much. The one's I was raised
around in S. Louisiana could stand flatfooted and screw a buzzard.


So, are you like the guy in the Tabasco commercial? [I always got a
chuckle out of that one]. For those what haven't seen it:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=R62Vzp4bXmA

SWMBO, like you, is allergic to them ... must be a "Northerner" thing, as
she's from way up there in Arkansas.


+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
t...
So considering the trunks alone, you'd need somewhere around fifty
saplings to
add the same amount of wood in a year as one mature tree.

Add in the branches, too, and I suspect the ratio probably approaches
100:1.

You also haven't considered the leaves...

Still think it's a wash? "Back of the envelope" calculations suggest
otherwise.

Guess you should talk to the foresters. They're deluded.

BTW, leaves are recycled fast, they're also a wash.

In article , "George" wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
et...
So considering the trunks alone, you'd need somewhere around fifty
saplings to
add the same amount of wood in a year as one mature tree.

Add in the branches, too, and I suspect the ratio probably approaches
100:1.

You also haven't considered the leaves...

Still think it's a wash? "Back of the envelope" calculations suggest
otherwise.

Guess you should talk to the foresters. They're deluded.

If you have some actual figures to show that I'm wrong, post them.

BTW, leaves are recycled fast, they're also a wash.

Wrong again. They break down, sure, but a lot of the carbon they contain
enters the soil, not the atmosphere.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

On Mar 1, 7:05 pm, wrote:
On Mar 1, 4:37 pm, wrote:



On Mar 1, 12:52 pm, wrote:

...

So, what is missing in your comments above is that you assume an
open-loop system. Earth is not open-loop. Additional CO2 improves plant
health, increased plant health and density uses up more CO2, causing CO2 to
decrease in a closed-loop system that is far from understood.

Agriculture, silviculture and deforestation more than offset any
increase in growth rate of the surviving plants.

The impact
of the bodies of water covering over 3/4 of the earth's surface are also
not understood.

Increased turbidity decreases the ocean life that fixes carbon in the
oceans.

Are you suggesting that increased turbidity is caused by increased CO2
in the atmosphere?

No. It is caused by development. The same
development that reduces habitat available for
plant growth.



So, what we have is pure conjecture, whipped up into near hysteria over
predictions of cataclysmic events with little true evidence to back up
even the basic conjecture.

The law of conservation of energy is far from conjecture.

How, exactly, does that apply?

If the energy absorbed by a body, plus the energy
produced internally, equals the amount of energy
lost by that body, the temperature of that body remains
constant. Otherwise, it changes.

okaaaaaaaaaay... what does that tell us about the causes or the widely
predicted cataclysmic effects of global warming?

On Mar 2, 7:58 am, (Doug Miller) wrote:


Wrong again.

*LOL*

"Robatoy" wrote in message
ps.com...
On Mar 2, 7:58 am, (Doug Miller) wrote:


Wrong again.

*LOL*



Me too.

Trouble is, managing for greatest increase in biomass conflicts with
managing for greatest yield of high-grade sawlogs. The compromise currently
in force obliges the jobber to make the sawlogs pay for the thinning
operations which produce little valuable product. For sawlogs we want
trees to be close and growth slowly as a consequence. If you've ever
harvested hardwood, you know how little foliage on few branches a mature
forest tree really has. A tree with a 14" MBH trunk diameter has the about
the same amount of carbon-fixing foliage as a 2" MBH of the same species
occupying the same ground area. The upper branches shade and cause the loss
of lower, which increases the grade of the subsequent lumber, but not the
quantity of wood mass produced per acre.

The lesson for carbon fixation is obvious when observing that as mature
trees are harvested, they release the stunted saplings of the same species,
as well as enable the growth of shade-intolerant varieties which are more
efficient at carbon fixing.

If we grow trees in a monoculture environment, as is currently done with
softwoods here, and with hardwoods elsewhere, we can carefully balance the
desire for timber with the need for light in thinning and harvesting. In a
more diverse forest we have to be more selective, harvesting by species and
not just by size.

Here's a good one:

http://www.standeyo.com/NEWS/07_Spac...s.melting.html

On Mar 2, 11:45 am, "George" wrote:
"Doug Miller" wrote in message

t...

So considering the trunks alone, you'd need somewhere around fifty
saplings to
add the same amount of wood in a year as one mature tree.

Add in the branches, too, and I suspect the ratio probably approaches
100:1.

You also haven't considered the leaves...

Still think it's a wash? "Back of the envelope" calculations suggest
otherwise.

Guess you should talk to the foresters. They're deluded.

BTW, leaves are recycled fast, they're also a wash.

Next time you talk to some, how about if you get back to
us with some numbers?

You already mentioned that 17 young trees will grow where
a mature tree grows. Now we just need to know how many
pounds per year of wood each of those adds.

The NPS has figures for the Sequoias, but we want to look
at something like a 70 year old red oak vs 17 five year
olds I would guess.

--

FF


--

FF

On Mar 2, 1:39 pm, wrote:
On Mar 1, 7:05 pm, wrote:

...

The law of conservation of energy is far from conjecture.

How, exactly, does that apply?

If the energy absorbed by a body, plus the energy
produced internally, equals the amount of energy
lost by that body, the temperature of that body remains
constant. Otherwise, it changes.

okaaaaaaaaaay... what does that tell us about the causes or the widely
predicted cataclysmic effects of global warming?

Have you never heard this explained before?

Basicaly, certain gases block IR radiation from the
surface to space better than others. Water vapor,
carbon dioxide and methane among them.

Of those, Water vapor readily condenses and evaporates
so its concentration in the atmosphere is driven by
temperature gradients. So it is the others that 'force'
the green house effect up or down. Water responds
to that forcing and amplifies the effect.

So, if the concentration of greenhouse gases in
the atmosphere increases, the temperature will
increase until the Earth again is radiating as much
heat as is absorbed from the sun and produced
by radioactive decay and tidal friction.

--

FF

So, if the concentration of greenhouse gases in
the atmosphere increases, the temperature will
increase until the Earth again is radiating as much
heat as is absorbed from the sun and produced
by radioactive decay and tidal friction.

Again, looking at much of the research the temperature increase _preceeds_
the CO2 increase.
http://www.brighton73.freeserve.co.u...00000yrfig.htm
You claim the opposite, based on what?



--

FF

On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 08:00:40 -0700, Bruce wrote:



So, if the concentration of greenhouse gases in
the atmosphere increases, the temperature will
increase until the Earth again is radiating as much
heat as is absorbed from the sun and produced
by radioactive decay and tidal friction.

Again, looking at much of the research the temperature increase _preceeds_
the CO2 increase.
http://www.brighton73.freeserve.co.u...00000yrfig.htm
You claim the opposite, based on what?



While the data you reference is interesting, I still question the
ability of *anybody* to be able to measure either the global average
temperature or ppm atmospheric CO2 before current measurement capabilities
were developed to anywhere near the precision that these findings indicate.



--

FF





+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

On Mar 3, 3:00 pm, Bruce wrote:
So, if the concentration of greenhouse gases in
the atmosphere increases, the temperature will
increase until the Earth again is radiating as much
heat as is absorbed from the sun and produced
by radioactive decay and tidal friction.

Again, looking at much of the research the temperature increase _preceeds_
the CO2 increase.http://www.brighton73.freeserve.co.u...00000yrfig.htm
You claim the opposite, based on what?


Causality.

Your argument would appear to be based on correlation.
Relying on correlation without an understanding of causality
is always perilous. It is particularly inappropriate to rely
on past correlations to extrapolate from present conditions
as the present conditions are unprecedented.

--

FF

On 3 Mar 2007 17:28:00 -0800, wrote:

On Mar 3, 3:00 pm, Bruce wrote:
So, if the concentration of greenhouse gases in
the atmosphere increases, the temperature will
increase until the Earth again is radiating as much
heat as is absorbed from the sun and produced
by radioactive decay and tidal friction.

Again, looking at much of the research the temperature increase _preceeds_
the CO2 increase.http://www.brighton73.freeserve.co.u...00000yrfig.htm
You claim the opposite, based on what?


Causality.

Um, FF, you *do* know what causality is, right? If so, then you
recognize that Bruce is correct in this assessment regarding past data
invalidating the idea that rise in CO2 is the causal agent for temperature
increase.


Your argument would appear to be based on correlation.

Um, no, correlation would be different.

Relying on correlation without an understanding of causality
is always perilous. It is particularly inappropriate to rely
on past correlations to extrapolate from present conditions
as the present conditions are unprecedented.

Ah, so in the past, global warming preceeded increased global temperature
[given that one can extrapolate data to the degree of precision being
indicated, but I digress]. However, now, since that wouldn't work for the
GW theorists, things are different.

Man, I love this theory, no matter what happens, it is true, past data is
no indication of future results. Colder than average temperatures are
indications of the truth of global warming, more snowstorms ... Where do
*I* sign up for a theory such that no matter what happens, it's right?



+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

On Sat, 03 Mar 2007 20:43:10 -0700, Mark & Juanita
wrote:

On 3 Mar 2007 17:28:00 -0800, wrote:

On Mar 3, 3:00 pm, Bruce wrote:
So, if the concentration of greenhouse gases in
the atmosphere increases, the temperature will
increase until the Earth again is radiating as much
heat as is absorbed from the sun and produced
by radioactive decay and tidal friction.

Again, looking at much of the research the temperature increase _preceeds_
the CO2 increase.http://www.brighton73.freeserve.co.u...00000yrfig.htm
You claim the opposite, based on what?


Causality.

Um, FF, you *do* know what causality is, right? If so, then you
recognize that Bruce is correct in this assessment regarding past data
invalidating the idea that rise in CO2 is the causal agent for temperature
increase.


Your argument would appear to be based on correlation.

Um, no, correlation would be different.

Relying on correlation without an understanding of causality
is always perilous. It is particularly inappropriate to rely
on past correlations to extrapolate from present conditions
as the present conditions are unprecedented.

Ah, so in the past, global warming preceeded increased global temperature
should have said, "global warming preceeded increased CO2 concentrations.

[given that one can extrapolate data to the degree of precision being
indicated, but I digress]. However, now, since that wouldn't work for the
GW theorists, things are different.

Man, I love this theory, no matter what happens, it is true, past data is
no indication of future results. Colder than average temperatures are
indications of the truth of global warming, more snowstorms ... Where do
*I* sign up for a theory such that no matter what happens, it's right?



+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+


+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

While the data you reference is interesting, I still question the
ability of *anybody* to be able to measure either the global average
temperature or ppm atmospheric CO2 before current measurement capabilities
were developed to anywhere near the precision that these findings indicate.



I've spent a fair amount of time sifting through papers based on the Vostok
ice core data. Basically the original research authors showed that it was
likely the temperature increase was out of phase (preceded) the CO2 increases
by about 4000 years +/- 6000 or so. Sorting through the statistics really
impresses me with two things. Statistics are a very powerful tool when
applied to well behaved processes and statistics are very useful to both
prove and disprove processes that are not well behaved.

Most interesting was the accuracy of the CO2 measurements.
The accuracy of the CO2 measurements was about 2ppm base on the equipment
used and calibration methodology.
These accurate measurements then needed to be correlated with the actual year
of entrapment in the ice as well as calibrated to the currently understood
conditions at the time (i.e. temperature, ice formation rates, etc.). The
accuracy of the CO2 measurements are fine, the accuracy of the information
derived from those measurements is very dependent on preconceived notions and
assumptions.
Watch for the original data and results to "evolve" as more is learned about
the calibration models and parameters used.

On Mar 3, 10:43 pm, Mark & Juanita wrote:
On 3 Mar 2007 17:28:00 -0800, wrote:

On Mar 3, 3:00 pm, Bruce wrote:
So, if the concentration of greenhouse gases in
the atmosphere increases, the temperature will
increase until the Earth again is radiating as much
heat as is absorbed from the sun and produced
by radioactive decay and tidal friction.

Again, looking at much of the research the temperature increase _preceeds_
the CO2 increase.http://www.brighton73.freeserve.co.u...00000yrfig.htm
You claim the opposite, based on what?

Causality.

Um, FF, you *do* know what causality is, right?

Yes. The greenhouse effect is caused by the earth's atmosphere,
the effect is a surface temperature higher than it would have, absent
those gases. If you change the composition of the atmosphere,
that equilibrium temperature will change.

If so, then you
recognize that Bruce is correct in this assessment regarding past data
invalidating the idea that rise in CO2 is the causal agent for temperature
increase.

What casual process does the data he presents demonstrate? How
does it contradict the theory that the Greenhouse effect is caused by
the Earth's atmosphere, and that the dominant Greenhouse gases
are water, methane, and carbon dioxide?




Your argument would appear to be based on correlation.

Um, no, correlation would be different.

How so?


Relying on correlation without an understanding of causality
is always perilous. It is particularly inappropriate to rely
on past correlations to extrapolate from present conditions
as the present conditions are unprecedented.

Ah, so in the past, global warming preceeded increased global temperature
[OP meant global warming preceeded increased CO2]
[given that one can extrapolate data to the degree of precision being
indicated, but I digress]. However, now, since that wouldn't work for the
GW theorists, things are different.

Man, I love this theory, no matter what happens, it is true, past data is
no indication of future results.

Can you point to any time in the Earth's past when CO2 levels in the
atmosphere have risen at the presently observed rate, while at the
same time plant life has decreased at the present dramatic rate?

_Rate_ is the operant word here.

Colder than average temperatures are
indications of the truth of global warming, more snowstorms ... Where do
*I* sign up for a theory such that no matter what happens, it's right?

Just tune in to the 700 Club.

--

FF

On Mar 4, 9:19 am, Bruce wrote:

...

I've spent a fair amount of time sifting through papers based on the Vostok
ice core data.
...

Thanks.

Is there, at present, any theoretical explanation for the observed
relationship?

--

FF

On Mar 2, 7:03 pm, "Robatoy" wrote:
Here's a good one:

http://www.standeyo.com/NEWS/07_Spac...s.melting.html

I'm not sure how good it is. The statements attributed to
Abdussamatov seem to contradict each other suggesting
that he has been mistranslated or misquoted.

--

FF

Bruce wrote:

I've spent a fair amount of time sifting through papers based on the
Vostok ice core data. Basically the original research authors showed
that it was likely the temperature increase was out of phase
(preceded) the CO2 increases by about 4000 years +/- 6000 or so.

If I'm reading that correctly and my math is right, temperature precedes
the CO2 increase by 10,000 years, or follows it by 2,000 years. Or so.

On Sun, 4 Mar 2007 07:19:55 -0700, Bruce wrote:



While the data you reference is interesting, I still question the
ability of *anybody* to be able to measure either the global average
temperature or ppm atmospheric CO2 before current measurement capabilities
were developed to anywhere near the precision that these findings indicate.



I've spent a fair amount of time sifting through papers based on the Vostok
ice core data. Basically the original research authors showed that it was
likely the temperature increase was out of phase (preceded) the CO2 increases
by about 4000 years +/- 6000 or so. Sorting through the statistics really
impresses me with two things. Statistics are a very powerful tool when
applied to well behaved processes and statistics are very useful to both
prove and disprove processes that are not well behaved.

Most interesting was the accuracy of the CO2 measurements.
The accuracy of the CO2 measurements was about 2ppm base on the equipment
used and calibration methodology.

I have no doubt about that.

These accurate measurements then needed to be correlated with the actual year
of entrapment in the ice as well as calibrated to the currently understood
conditions at the time (i.e. temperature, ice formation rates, etc.). The
accuracy of the CO2 measurements are fine, the accuracy of the information
derived from those measurements is very dependent on preconceived notions and
assumptions.

That is the part that I am more concerned about. Various assumptions
have to be made that may be totally incorrect since it is not possible to
experimentally verify how stable CO2 in ice remains for 10's of thousands
of years.

However, it seems that the CO2 data is easier to believe than the
estimates of global temperature. There are just too many confounding
factors for the various methodologies (tree rings, ice depth, etc) to be
able to arrive at an average temperature measurement that can be accurate
to degrees, let alone tenths of a degree.



Watch for the original data and results to "evolve" as more is learned about
the calibration models and parameters used.



+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

On 4 Mar 2007 07:21:30 -0800, wrote:

.... snip

Again, looking at much of the research the temperature increase _preceeds_
the CO2 increase.http://www.brighton73.freeserve.co.u...00000yrfig.htm
You claim the opposite, based on what?

Causality.

Um, FF, you *do* know what causality is, right?

Yes. The greenhouse effect is caused by the earth's atmosphere,
the effect is a surface temperature higher than it would have, absent
those gases. If you change the composition of the atmosphere,
that equilibrium temperature will change.

If so, then you
recognize that Bruce is correct in this assessment regarding past data
invalidating the idea that rise in CO2 is the causal agent for temperature
increase.

What casual process does the data he presents demonstrate? How
does it contradict the theory that the Greenhouse effect is caused by
the Earth's atmosphere, and that the dominant Greenhouse gases
are water, methane, and carbon dioxide?


What the data is showing is that rise in CO2 concentration is NOT the
causal effect of global warming since the data shows that global warming
preceded the rise in CO2 concentration. Thus, for CO2 to have been the
causative effect of global temperature effect would be a non-causal event
(in the mathematical sense of the word -- i.e present result being
dependent upon a future event).




Your argument would appear to be based on correlation.

Um, no, correlation would be different.

How so?


Correlation shows simply that, how related two things are in a
statistical sense. Correlation does not imply cause (i.e. the infamous
"small dogs cause cancer" statistical correlation).

Now, given that GW theorists are insisting that the increase in CO2 will
cause global warming when the data cited above shows that CO2 increases are
preceded by global warming indicates that the premise, based upon past
data, is incorrect.

.... snip


+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

On Mar 4, 10:34 pm, Mark & Juanita wrote:
On 4 Mar 2007 07:21:30 -0800, wrote:

... snip





Again, looking at much of the research the temperature increase _preceeds_
the CO2 increase.http://www.brighton73.freeserve.co.u...00000yrfig.htm
You claim the opposite, based on what?

Causality.

Um, FF, you *do* know what causality is, right?

Yes. The greenhouse effect is caused by the earth's atmosphere,
the effect is a surface temperature higher than it would have, absent
those gases. If you change the composition of the atmosphere,
that equilibrium temperature will change.

If so, then you
recognize that Bruce is correct in this assessment regarding past data
invalidating the idea that rise in CO2 is the causal agent for temperature
increase.

What casual process does the data he presents demonstrate? How
does it contradict the theory that the Greenhouse effect is caused by
the Earth's atmosphere, and that the dominant Greenhouse gases
are water, methane, and carbon dioxide?

What the data is showing is that rise in CO2 concentration is NOT the
causal effect of global warming since the data shows that global warming
preceded the rise in CO2 concentration.

False.

Even if the temperatures and CO2 levels are being correctly inferred
from
the ice core data, they tell us little or nothing about other
parameters.
How do they relate to variation in the solar constant or Milankovitch
cycles?
So even if the observation that warming preceded a rise in CO2, is
correct, it does not justify a conclusion that a rise in CO2 cannot
cause a global temperature rise.

Thus, for CO2 to have been the
causative effect of global temperature effect would be a non-causal event
(in the mathematical sense of the word -- i.e present result being
dependent upon a future event).

I'm not clear on your opinion. Do you deny the Greenhouse effect
altogether, or do you merely contend that the equlibrium temperature
established by the Greenhouse effect is independent of the
composition
of the atmosphere?

I also do not see that you have explained to us the causative effect
you said was demonstrated by the Vostok data

The causative relationship between global temperature and the
concentrations of water vapor, methane and carbon dioxide in
the Earth's atmosphere is firmly established by the spectral
characteristics of those gases.


Your argument would appear to be based on correlation.

Um, no, correlation would be different.

How so?

Correlation shows simply that, how related two things are in a
statistical sense. Correlation does not imply cause (i.e. the infamous
"small dogs cause cancer" statistical correlation).


I am familiar with the definition of correlation. I was asking how
the Vostok ice core data would be different if there was a
correlation between CO2 and global temperature.

Now, given that GW theorists are insisting that the increase in CO2 will
cause global warming when the data cited above shows that CO2 increases are
preceded by global warming indicates that the premise, based upon past
data, is incorrect.

Like I said before, relying on correlation without regard to causality
is
perilous.

--

FF

On Mar 4, 5:25 pm, Mark & Juanita wrote:
On Sun, 4 Mar 2007 07:19:55 -0700, Bruce wrote:

...

These accurate measurements then needed to be correlated with the actual year
of entrapment in the ice as well as calibrated to the currently understood
conditions at the time (i.e. temperature, ice formation rates, etc.). The
accuracy of the CO2 measurements are fine, the accuracy of the information
derived from those measurements is very dependent on preconceived notions and
assumptions.

That is the part that I am more concerned about. Various assumptions
have to be made that may be totally incorrect since it is not possible to
experimentally verify how stable CO2 in ice remains for 10's of thousands
of years.

And yet those concerns don't seem to matter to you
when you want to use the data to 'disprove' the relationship
between atmospheric CO2 and global temperature that is
predicted by spectroscopy and the law of conservation of
energy.


However, it seems that the CO2 data is easier to believe than the
estimates of global temperature. There are just too many confounding
factors for the various methodologies (tree rings, ice depth, etc) to be
able to arrive at an average temperature measurement that can be accurate
to degrees, let alone tenths of a degree.


Agreed.

Note that the highest CO2 concentration over the last half
million years is a bit over 300 ppm. The current concentration
is 380 ppm.

Note that the present rate of rise of the concentration of
CO2, from 1960 to present is about 1.5 ppm/year. The
scale of the plot for the Vostock data on that page makes
it a bit hard to estimate slope but it looks like in the past
the highest rate of rise was 0.01ppm.year.

Now it would be silly to mindlessly extrapolate the current
rate on indefinitely into the future. But we DO know that
burning fossil fuels removes oxygen and puts CO2 into the
atmosphere. Making cement and a few other processes
also put CO2 into the atmosphere (albeit without removing
oxygen). We can readily estimate how much that is, and
it is more than enough to account for the observed rate of
increase.

In short, we can be confident that the present rate of increase
will not change if we continue to produce CO2 at the present
rate.

The CO2 concentration in the Earth's atmosphere is already
nearly 30% higher than in the last half million years AND the
current rate of rise is 1500 times greater than any time in that
same record. We cannot forecast the future from the geological
record because the present conditions are wildly different from
past conditions. Now that astronomically high rate of rise of CO2
concentration is an artifact of the very short time span of the
data. Obviously we will not sustain that rate. But what will
we do differently to change it? Will we do it voluntarily to
preserve the habitability of the Earth, or will that change be
forced on us?

The relationship between atmospheric gases and the equilibrium
temperature of the Earth is well-understood (Greenhouse effect).
There is no doubt that adding any gas to the atmosphere, or
replacing oxygen with CO2 INCREASES the greenhouse effect.

We know that the sun is not cooling, and may even be heating
up slightly slightly contributing to the rise.

We know that jet aircraft have been putting particulates and ice
crystals into the stratosphere increasing the Earth's albedo by
nearly 2% over the last 50 years (Global Dimming). Such a
dramatic change SHOULD have resulted in noticeable cooling.
Yet global temperatures have not dropped and may even have
increased.

I want to thank Mark or Juanita, and you others for this discussion.
I never quite realized how extreme the situation is, until I looked
at these numbers.

--

FF

On Mar 4, 5:25 pm, Mark & Juanita wrote:
On Sun, 4 Mar 2007 07:19:55 -0700, Bruce wrote:

...

These accurate measurements then needed to be correlated with the actual year
of entrapment in the ice as well as calibrated to the currently understood
conditions at the time (i.e. temperature, ice formation rates, etc.). The
accuracy of the CO2 measurements are fine, the accuracy of the information
derived from those measurements is very dependent on preconceived notions and
assumptions.

That is the part that I am more concerned about. Various assumptions
have to be made that may be totally incorrect since it is not possible to
experimentally verify how stable CO2 in ice remains for 10's of thousands
of years.

And yet those concerns don't seem to matter to you
when you want to use the data to 'disprove' the relationship
between atmospheric CO2 and global temperature that is
predicted by spectroscopy and the law of conservation of
energy.


However, it seems that the CO2 data is easier to believe than the
estimates of global temperature. There are just too many confounding
factors for the various methodologies (tree rings, ice depth, etc) to be
able to arrive at an average temperature measurement that can be accurate
to degrees, let alone tenths of a degree.


Agreed.

Note that the highest CO2 concentration over the last half
million years is a bit over 300 ppm. The current concentration
is 380 ppm.

Note that the present rate of rise of the concentration of
CO2, from 1960 to present is about 1.5 ppm/year. The
scale of the plot for the Vostock data on that page makes
it a bit hard to estimate slope but it looks like in the past
the highest rate of rise was 0.01ppm.year.

Now it would be silly to mindlessly extrapolate the current
rate on indefinitely into the future. But we DO know that
burning fossil fuels removes oxygen and puts CO2 into the
atmosphere. Making cement and a few other processes
also put CO2 into the atmosphere (albeit without removing
oxygen). We can readily estimate how much that is, and
it is more than enough to account for the observed rate of
increase.

In short, we can be confident that the present rate of increase
will not change if we continue to produce CO2 at the present
rate.

The CO2 concentration in the Earth's atmosphere is already
nearly 30% higher than in the last half million years AND the
current rate of rise is 1500 times greater than any time in that
same record. We cannot forecast the future from the geological
record because the present conditions are wildly different from
past conditions. Now that astronomically high rate of rise of CO2
concentration is an artifact of the very short time span of the
data. Obviously we will not sustain that rate. But what will
we do differently to change it? Will we do it voluntarily to
preserve the habitability of the Earth, or will that change be
forced on us?

The relationship between atmospheric gases and the equilibrium
temperature of the Earth is well-understood (Greenhouse effect).
There is no doubt that adding any gas to the atmosphere, or
replacing oxygen with CO2 INCREASES the greenhouse effect.

We know that the sun is not cooling, and may even be heating
up slightly slightly contributing to the rise.

We know that jet aircraft have been putting particulates and ice
crystals into the stratosphere increasing the Earth's albedo by
nearly 2% over the last 50 years (Global Dimming). Such a
dramatic change SHOULD have resulted in noticeable cooling.
Yet global temperatures have not dropped and may even have
increased.

I want to thank Mark or Juanita, and you others for this discussion.
I never quite realized how extreme the situation is, until I looked
at these numbers.

--

FF

On Sun, 4 Mar 2007 08:33:10 -0700, wrote
(in article . com):

On Mar 4, 9:19 am, Bruce wrote:

...

I've spent a fair amount of time sifting through papers based on the Vostok
ice core data.
...

Thanks.

Is there, at present, any theoretical explanation for the observed
relationship?


Nothing that I would call definitive in my opinion but there is sure to be
lots of conjecture 8)

--

FF

On Sun, 4 Mar 2007 14:03:36 -0700, Lobby Dosser wrote
(in article IuGGh.579$1C6.7@trndny04):

Bruce wrote:

I've spent a fair amount of time sifting through papers based on the
Vostok ice core data. Basically the original research authors showed
that it was likely the temperature increase was out of phase
(preceded) the CO2 increases by about 4000 years +/- 6000 or so.

If I'm reading that correctly and my math is right, temperature precedes
the CO2 increase by 10,000 years, or follows it by 2,000 years. Or so.

Yes, the standard deviation reports that spread but in more layman terms "it
might or it might not".

Certainly it could be argued that some increase in solar activity raised the
temperatures which decreased ocean capacity to absorb CO2 (hence led to a
trailing CO2 increase).
I'm sure as more research is applied to the question, more variables will
emerge and as most science goes, more questions will appear than answers.

On Sun, 4 Mar 2007 15:25:57 -0700, Mark & Juanita wrote
(in article ):

On Sun, 4 Mar 2007 07:19:55 -0700, Bruce wrote:



While the data you reference is interesting, I still question the
ability of *anybody* to be able to measure either the global average
temperature or ppm atmospheric CO2 before current measurement capabilities
were developed to anywhere near the precision that these findings indicate.



I've spent a fair amount of time sifting through papers based on the Vostok
ice core data. Basically the original research authors showed that it was
likely the temperature increase was out of phase (preceded) the CO2
increases
by about 4000 years +/- 6000 or so. Sorting through the statistics really
impresses me with two things. Statistics are a very powerful tool when
applied to well behaved processes and statistics are very useful to both
prove and disprove processes that are not well behaved.

Most interesting was the accuracy of the CO2 measurements.
The accuracy of the CO2 measurements was about 2ppm base on the equipment
used and calibration methodology.

I have no doubt about that.

These accurate measurements then needed to be correlated with the actual
year
of entrapment in the ice as well as calibrated to the currently understood
conditions at the time (i.e. temperature, ice formation rates, etc.). The
accuracy of the CO2 measurements are fine, the accuracy of the information
derived from those measurements is very dependent on preconceived notions
and
assumptions.

That is the part that I am more concerned about. Various assumptions
have to be made that may be totally incorrect since it is not possible to
experimentally verify how stable CO2 in ice remains for 10's of thousands
of years.

Interesting you should mention that. One of the more interesting "problems"
the researchers had was dealing with the diffusion of CO2 within the ice.
They don't find nice bubbles that they can suck the air out of, they have to
essentially heat the sample and collect the gas. It seems that the CO2 gets
involved with the ice crystals in various ways that make this operation less
than simple and there are many side effects of trying to get a representative
sample to analyze.



---
---+

"Bruce" wrote in message ...
On Sun, 4 Mar 2007 15:25:57 -0700, Mark & Juanita wrote
(in article ):

On Sun, 4 Mar 2007 07:19:55 -0700, Bruce wrote:



While the data you reference is interesting, I still question the
ability of *anybody* to be able to measure either the global average
temperature or ppm atmospheric CO2 before current measurement
capabilities
were developed to anywhere near the precision that these findings
indicate.



I've spent a fair amount of time sifting through papers based on the
Vostok
ice core data. Basically the original research authors showed that it
was
likely the temperature increase was out of phase (preceded) the CO2
increases
by about 4000 years +/- 6000 or so. Sorting through the statistics
really
impresses me with two things. Statistics are a very powerful tool when
applied to well behaved processes and statistics are very useful to both
prove and disprove processes that are not well behaved.

Most interesting was the accuracy of the CO2 measurements.
The accuracy of the CO2 measurements was about 2ppm base on the
equipment
used and calibration methodology.

I have no doubt about that.

These accurate measurements then needed to be correlated with the actual
year
of entrapment in the ice as well as calibrated to the currently
understood
conditions at the time (i.e. temperature, ice formation rates, etc.).
The
accuracy of the CO2 measurements are fine, the accuracy of the
information
derived from those measurements is very dependent on preconceived
notions
and
assumptions.

That is the part that I am more concerned about. Various assumptions
have to be made that may be totally incorrect since it is not possible to
experimentally verify how stable CO2 in ice remains for 10's of thousands
of years.

Interesting you should mention that. One of the more interesting
"problems"
the researchers had was dealing with the diffusion of CO2 within the ice.
They don't find nice bubbles that they can suck the air out of, they have
to
essentially heat the sample and collect the gas. It seems that the CO2
gets
involved with the ice crystals in various ways that make this operation
less
than simple and there are many side effects of trying to get a
representative
sample to analyze.



---
---+
What caused the end of the last ice age? If there were animals around then,
was global warming caused by the animals doing too much farting and thus a
rush of CO2 was released into the atmosphere and vola global warming began.
Eighty percent of all CO2 that is released into the air today is caused by
methane from livestock.

On Mar 6, 2:31 am, "Will" wrote:
"Bruce" wrote in ...

...

Interesting you should mention that. One of the more interesting
"problems"
the researchers had was dealing with the diffusion of CO2 within the ice.
They don't find nice bubbles that they can suck the air out of, they have
to
essentially heat the sample and collect the gas. It seems that the CO2
gets
involved with the ice crystals in various ways that make this operation
less
than simple and there are many side effects of trying to get a
representative
sample to analyze.



What caused the end of the last ice age?

It is generally accepted that Milankovitch cycles cause the ice ages
and
inter-glacial epochs.

Why is it that CO2 concentrations are now 30% higher than during
any previous inter-glacial epoch of the las half-million years? Why
are
they rising faster than at any time during the last half-million
years?


If there were animals around then,
was global warming caused by the animals doing too much farting and thus a
rush of CO2 was released into the atmosphere and vola global warming began.
Eighty percent of all CO2 that is released into the air today is caused by
methane from livestock.

I'd REALLY like to see where you got that figure, and also what
chemistry
text you used in High School.

--

FF

wrote:

Note that the highest CO2 concentration over the last half
million years is a bit over 300 ppm. The current concentration
is 380 ppm.

IF that is true, it's also true that the earth is far from the hottest
it's been during that same time frame. Which would seem to indicate
that CO2 concentration is not the cause of global temperature levels.

In article ,
says...

What caused the end of the last ice age? If there were animals around then,
was global warming caused by the animals doing too much farting and thus a
rush of CO2 was released into the atmosphere and vola global warming began.
Eighty percent of all CO2 that is released into the air today is caused by
methane from livestock.

But if we blame the livestock, that would remove the convenient soul
cleansing that can only be achieved through collective guilt. I'm
dying to hear how the currently increasing temps on Mars are going to
be pinned by our rovers.

In article .com, wrote:

We know that the sun is not cooling, and may even be heating
up slightly slightly contributing to the rise.

Oddly enough, in a different thread, you wrote:

"... solar irradiance has been decreasing:
http://www.sec.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/
http://www.pmodwrc.ch/pmod.php?topic.../SolarConstant
"

Reference:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.w...ec1074423ef4a0

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

In article , "Will" wrote:

What caused the end of the last ice age? If there were animals around then,
was global warming caused by the animals doing too much farting and thus a
rush of CO2 was released into the atmosphere and vola global warming began.
Eighty percent of all CO2 that is released into the air today is caused by
methane from livestock.

This 80% figure may or may not be correct -- but surely you must acknowledge
that while livestock flatulence is not the direct result of human activity, at
least some of it certainly is an *indirect* result.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

On Mar 6, 7:37 am, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article .com, wrote:
We know that the sun is not cooling, and may even be heating
up slightly slightly contributing to the rise.

Oddly enough, in a different thread, you wrote:

"... solar irradiance has been decreasing:http://www.sec.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/h.../SolarConstant
"


Not odd at all. Context is everything.

There is an eleven year solar cycle. We are near a
minimum so that solar irradiance has been decreasing
for the last five years--the same period over which global
warming has been observed on Mars. Other studies
have shown that the last minimum, in the early 1990s,
was at most very slightly higher than the previous.

Solar variation over times less than ten years are dominated
by the eleven year cycle. A determination of longer-term
trends requires observations over several cycles. We are
nearing the third minimum since such measurements have
been possible by satellite.

Ground-based observations are confounded by global
dimming, something that might explain Dr Abdussamatov's
statement that the sun has been dimming since the early
1990s. During that time,contrary to how he has been quoted,
solar irradiance dropped a bit, then rose again to the peak
in 2000-2001 and has since dropped as part of the 11-year
cycle. It is also possible that Dr Abdussamatov has already
concluded that the current minimum is lower than the previous
one, most others in the field appear to be waiting a bit
longer to be sure the current minimum is past. He also
has made predictions for the next couple of decades which
implies that he is working from a theoretical model.

Solar maxima are poorly defined and noisier than
solar minima so the period is defined as the time
between successive minima, not successive maxima,
and attempts to determine long term trends con-
centrate on the the differences between minima,
not maxima.

There are people who claim that the global warming observed
on Mars over the last 5 terrestrial years (about three Martian
years or 35 dog years) shows that global warming on both
the Earth and Mars is due to an increase in solar irradiance.
Those people ignore the actual solar measurements over
the same period of time and instead conclude that the
solar irradiance has increased from the observed warming,
putting the cart before the horse and ignoring the other
data.

The spectroscopy of atmospheric gases is well understood.
Conservation of energy is well established. The Greenhouse
effect is clearly established. There is no question that current
trends in atmospheric composition are forcing the equilibrium
temperature upwards. To deny that is to deny basic Physics.

The Greenhouse effect is NOT the only mechanism that
determines temperature. The others need to be studied
as well.


Reference:http://groups.google.com/group/rec.w...ec1074423ef4a0


Thanks.

Do you understand now?

--

FF

On Mar 6, 7:40 am, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article , "Will" wrote:
What caused the end of the last ice age? If there were animals around then,
was global warming caused by the animals doing too much farting and thus a
rush of CO2 was released into the atmosphere and vola global warming began.
Eighty percent of all CO2 that is released into the air today is caused by
methane from livestock.

This 80% figure may or may not be correct -- but surely you must acknowledge
that while livestock flatulence is not the direct result of human activity, at
least some of it certainly is an *indirect* result.


I'm still trying to figure out how that methane contributes to the
CO2
in the atmosphere. Does OP go about sparking cattle farts?

--

FF