Toshiba TV29C90 problem; Image fades to black...

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sat, 1 Oct 2011 17:30:35 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
<trevor@rageaudio.com.au> 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. Either warming causes a CO2 increase, or
CO2 causes a warming increase. Since they track each other, it's
presumed that there's a cause and effect mechanism in operation. If
your claim of mutual causality were true, where an increase in either
factor causes an increase in the other, then that's positive feedback.
Temperature and CO2 would simply increase without any limit, causing
the planet to look like Venus. We've survived 5 temperature cycles in
the last 500,000 years which demonstrates that it's NOT postive
feedback.

<http://rps3.com/Files/AGW/VOSTOKICECoreObservations_Stewart2009.pdf>
Assuming the five temperature maximums are related to the 1st
Order 100,000 year Milankovitch cycles, CO2 had little effect
is maintaining the high temperatures. As seen in Cycle 4,
even though CO2 levels were at maximum 299 ppmv CO2,
temperature did not continue to increase, but actually made
a abrupt reversal. Therefore it appears that the mechanical
temperature rise & fall associated with 1st order Milankovitch
cycles appear to overwhelm any warming effect associated with
CO2, for CO2 levels below 299 ppmv;

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

 

[Trevor Wilson]

Jeff Liebermann wrote:

On Sat, 1 Oct 2011 17:30:35 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
trevor@rageaudio.com.au> 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.

Either warming causes a CO2 increase, or

CO2 causes a warming increase.

**Of both.

Since they track each other, it's

presumed that there's a cause and effect mechanism in operation.

**Well, we KNOW that CO2 acts as a GHG. That has been shown experimentally
many times.

If

your claim of mutual causality were true, where an increase in either
factor causes an increase in the other, then that's positive feedback.

**Correct.

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 also don't know precisely what caused prior warmings or
high CO2 levels. We are also much further out from the Sun than Venus is.
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.

We've survived 5 temperature cycles in

the last 500,000 years which demonstrates that it's NOT postive
feedback.

**Not quite. The prior warming periods occured over many thousands of years.
This present warming is occuring within a few hundred. It is occuring MUCH
faster that at any time in the past few hundred million years. It is the
extreme rapidity of the present warming that is causing considerable
concern.

http://rps3.com/Files/AGW/VOSTOKICECoreObservations_Stewart2009.pdf
Assuming the five temperature maximums are related to the 1st
Order 100,000 year Milankovitch cycles, CO2 had little effect
is maintaining the high temperatures. As seen in Cycle 4,
even though CO2 levels were at maximum 299 ppmv CO2,
temperature did not continue to increase, but actually made
a abrupt reversal. Therefore it appears that the mechanical
temperature rise & fall associated with 1st order Milankovitch
cycles appear to overwhelm any warming effect associated with
CO2, for CO2 levels below 299 ppmv;

**Except that CO2 levels are presently around 385ppm and rising. As is
average temperature.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Trevor Wilson]

josephkk wrote:

On Sun, 2 Oct 2011 15:23:10 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:


**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.

Only in seeming on the IPCC time reversed graphs. Which when read
correctly shows CO2 follows temperature!!

**I suggest you examine the graphs VERY carefully.

**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.

You need to study both the IPCC graph and the time orientation
corrected graphs (thanks Jeff) a lot more then.

**I've been doing so for many years. I suggest you do likewise. It is
important that you understand the process, rather than just quickly looking
at the graphs. Incorrect assumptions can easily be made.

The raw data in the

IPCC graph is increasing depth in the ice core, and thus farther back
in time. Do read the labels carefully. Temperture generally
precedes CO2 rather consistently (both increases and decreases).

)

**Your words are almost correct. Temperature SOMETIMES precedes CO2 level
rise and SOMETIMES it lags.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Jeßus]

On Sun, 2 Oct 2011 15:22:03 +1100, "Phil Allison" <phil_a@tpg.com.au>
wrote:

"Fuckwit Murtz"

Good dictionaries do, Macquarie lists words before they become common
enough therefore hastening change.

** What absolute bollocks.

No, this is: http://tinyurl.com/phallison

 

[josephkk]

On Tue, 4 Oct 2011 07:33:23 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
<trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:

Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sat, 1 Oct 2011 17:30:35 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
trevor@rageaudio.com.au> 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.

Either warming causes a CO2 increase, or
CO2 causes a warming increase.

**Of both.

Since they track each other, it's
presumed that there's a cause and effect mechanism in operation.

**Well, we KNOW that CO2 acts as a GHG. That has been shown experimentally
many times.

If
your claim of mutual causality were true, where an increase in either
factor causes an increase in the other, then that's positive feedback.

**Correct.


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 also don't know precisely what caused prior warmings or
high CO2 levels. We are also much further out from the Sun than Venus is.
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.

We've survived 5 temperature cycles in
the last 500,000 years which demonstrates that it's NOT postive
feedback.

**Not quite. The prior warming periods occured over many thousands of years.
This present warming is occuring within a few hundred. It is occuring MUCH
faster that at any time in the past few hundred million years. It is the
extreme rapidity of the present warming that is causing considerable
concern.


http://rps3.com/Files/AGW/VOSTOKICECoreObservations_Stewart2009.pdf
Assuming the five temperature maximums are related to the 1st
Order 100,000 year Milankovitch cycles, CO2 had little effect
is maintaining the high temperatures. As seen in Cycle 4,
even though CO2 levels were at maximum 299 ppmv CO2,
temperature did not continue to increase, but actually made
a abrupt reversal. Therefore it appears that the mechanical
temperature rise & fall associated with 1st order Milankovitch
cycles appear to overwhelm any warming effect associated with
CO2, for CO2 levels below 299 ppmv;

**Except that CO2 levels are presently around 385ppm and rising. As is
average temperature.

Bottom line. The direct line causal connections are just not there.
Moreover, all of your recent stuff points to at least one well known input
which can produce both increases. Your case is breaking down.

?-)

 

[Trevor Wilson]

josephkk wrote:

On Tue, 4 Oct 2011 07:33:23 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:

Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sat, 1 Oct 2011 17:30:35 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
trevor@rageaudio.com.au> 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.

Either warming causes a CO2 increase, or
CO2 causes a warming increase.

**Of both.

Since they track each other, it's
presumed that there's a cause and effect mechanism in operation.

**Well, we KNOW that CO2 acts as a GHG. That has been shown
experimentally many times.

If
your claim of mutual causality were true, where an increase in
either factor causes an increase in the other, then that's positive
feedback.

**Correct.


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 also don't know precisely what caused
prior warmings or high CO2 levels. We are also much further out from
the Sun than Venus is. 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.

We've survived 5 temperature cycles in
the last 500,000 years which demonstrates that it's NOT postive
feedback.

**Not quite. The prior warming periods occured over many thousands
of years. This present warming is occuring within a few hundred. It
is occuring MUCH faster that at any time in the past few hundred
million years. It is the extreme rapidity of the present warming
that is causing considerable concern.


http://rps3.com/Files/AGW/VOSTOKICECoreObservations_Stewart2009.pdf
Assuming the five temperature maximums are related to the 1st
Order 100,000 year Milankovitch cycles, CO2 had little effect
is maintaining the high temperatures. As seen in Cycle 4,
even though CO2 levels were at maximum 299 ppmv CO2,
temperature did not continue to increase, but actually made
a abrupt reversal. Therefore it appears that the mechanical
temperature rise & fall associated with 1st order Milankovitch
cycles appear to overwhelm any warming effect associated with
CO2, for CO2 levels below 299 ppmv;

**Except that CO2 levels are presently around 385ppm and rising. As
is average temperature.


Bottom line. The direct line causal connections are just not there.

**Not quite. Absolute cause and effect cannot be proven for past events.
What we do have, however, is solid science that CO2 acts as a GHG. We also
have compelling evidence that rising CO2 levels and temperatures are solidly
linked. When one rises, the other follows.

Moreover, all of your recent stuff points to at least one well known
input which can produce both increases. Your case is breaking down.

?-)

**You think? You need to supply some science to show that rising CO2 levels
are not the cause of the present warming. Thus far, you've supplied nothing.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Tue, 4 Oct 2011 07:33:23 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
<trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:

Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sat, 1 Oct 2011 17:30:35 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
trevor@rageaudio.com.au> 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 jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

 

[Trevor Wilson]

Jeff Liebermann wrote:

On Tue, 4 Oct 2011 07:33:23 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:

Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sat, 1 Oct 2011 17:30:35 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
trevor@rageaudio.com.au> 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.

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.

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.

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.

**Clearly, you have not read IPCC AR4. The IPCC very clearly states that
rising CO2 levels increase temperature and that increasing temperatures
causes higher levels of CO2.

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.

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.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Arfa Daily]

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:9f3t2cF3i4U2@mid.individual.net...

Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Tue, 4 Oct 2011 07:33:23 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:

Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sat, 1 Oct 2011 17:30:35 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
trevor@rageaudio.com.au> 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

 

[Trevor Wilson]

Arfa Daily wrote:

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:9f3t2cF3i4U2@mid.individual.net...
Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Tue, 4 Oct 2011 07:33:23 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:

Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sat, 1 Oct 2011 17:30:35 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
trevor@rageaudio.com.au> 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 shit. 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

 

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Thu, 6 Oct 2011 07:29:54 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
<trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:

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.

I do wish you would cease trivializing this point. It's not uncharted
territory, the great unknown, or magic. It's simple logic. If either
factor causes the other to increase, then both will increase until
some other limit is reached. From the historical data, it appears
that both temperature and CO2 are cyclic rather than constantly
increasing. Therefore, something is causing both CO2 and temperature
to drop. Since nobody seems to know what might be causing this
decrease, Occam's Razor suggests that it might be far simpler to
assume that bother factors do NOT cause each other to increase
endlessly, and that temperature and CO2 are not as tightly coupled as
you suggest. Even better, the Vostok-Petit graphs clearly show CO2
following temperature, not the other way around.
<http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/crud/Vostok_Petit_data_03.jpg>

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.

I don't place my faith in experts. I've been screwed by alleged
experts and have seen from the inside how they operate in a different
industry. In this case, the problem is funding. It's almost
impossible to get funding for AGW research intended to disprove the
IPCC consensus. Well, not impossible if you don't mind taking money
from big oil. If someone does manage to produce an unfavorable
report, their funding magically goes away.

How soon we forget Global Cooling:
<http://archive.glennbeck.com/2006news/newsweek-coolingworld.pdf>

Incidentally, experts are often wrong.
"Vindicated: Ridiculed Israeli scientist wins Nobel"
<http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2011/10/05/international/i041311D61.DTL>

**Clearly, you have not read IPCC AR4.

As I indicated previously, I read one part out of four. The physical
science basis report is what I found interesting. The rest are
summaries, guesswork, conclusions, extrapolations, predictions, and
some politics. I wasn't interested.

The IPCC very clearly states that
rising CO2 levels increase temperature and that increasing temperatures
causes higher levels of CO2.

Ummm... reading the report doesn't mean that I'm instantly converted.
I tend to be very suspicious of methodology. For example, ice cores
older than about 150,000 years are dated largely by guesswork. The
glacial creep that far back causes the distinctive annual ice layers
to blurr into mush. They also tend to form angular layers, which are
difficult to see on a vertical ice core sample. The best they can do
is correlate volcanic dust events with corresponding land based
dating.

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.

Lasting how long? Looking at the graphs, it appears that CO2 and
temperature were decoupled at least 1-2 million years. I can see such
isolated events causing climate changes, but not for extended periods.
Also, the Vostok-Petit graph shows atmospheric dust concentration,
which should be an indication of volcanism and asteroid hits. No
connection with temperature or CO2.

Reminder, others agree with me. Read the comments:
<http://rps3.com/Files/AGW/VOSTOKICECoreObservations_Stewart2009.pdf>
<http://www.denverclimatestudygroup.com>

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.

It was true in 3 out of 4 peaks as shown on the Vostok-Petit graph.
The 4th was admittedly difficult to determine because the temperature
did not drop as rapidly as the other peaks.

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

 

[Arfa Daily]

<snip>

I've just lost the will to live ...

Arfa

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Arfa Daily wrote:

snip

I've just lost the will to live ...

Take two kill filters and call me in the morning.


--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense.

 

[Arfa Daily]

"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:i-mdnTDIRtyYLRPTnZ2dnUVZ_o6dnZ2d@earthlink.com...

Arfa Daily wrote:

snip

I've just lost the will to live ...


Take two kill filters and call me in the morning.


--
OK Michael, will do !

I just can't quite understand how 1000+ dissenting voices (links to
government papers citing this previously supplied by Jeff L) from the same
scientific world as the scientists advocating that the problem is man-made
in the first place, can possibly represent "a handful of people" that are
"religious nutters" (!!) or "employed by the fossil fuel lobby". If that
many of them really represent just a handful, there must then be millions of
climatologists in the world, and they must all be speaking somehow with the
same voice. Even the sacred IPCC hasn't got that many climatologists on its
panel, and still fewer among its peer reviewers that Trevor is so fond of
quoting, as apparently, there is no actual requirement to be qualified in
that discipline, and the main criteria for acceptance onto the peer review
panel, is to be invited by some (like-minded) person already on it.

Arfa

 

[Trevor Wilson]

Arfa Daily wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:i-mdnTDIRtyYLRPTnZ2dnUVZ_o6dnZ2d@earthlink.com...

Arfa Daily wrote:

snip

I've just lost the will to live ...


Take two kill filters and call me in the morning.


--
OK Michael, will do !

I just can't quite understand how 1000+ dissenting voices (links to
government papers citing this previously supplied by Jeff L) from the
same scientific world as the scientists advocating that the problem
is man-made in the first place, can possibly represent "a handful of
people" that are "religious nutters" (!!) or "employed by the fossil
fuel lobby".

**Because a 1000+ dissenting scientists is a MINISCULE proportion of all
those who hold degrees in science. Utterly insignificant, in fact. Think
MILLIONS. In any case, the only opinions of interest are those who are those
who are credentialled in the area of climatology. I see no reference to the
credentials of these alleged "1,000 scientists" BTW. They could, like
Spencer, be 'Creation Scientists'. Will you throw your weight behind Spencer
and his odd-ball ideas?

If that many of them really represent just a handful,

there must then be millions of climatologists in the world,

**There isn't. There are not very many climatologists.

and they

must all be speaking somehow with the same voice.

**97% are. 3% dispute the science. Spencer (the religious nutter that denies
Darwin's seminal work) is one of the most vocal. That should tell you all
you need to know.

Even the sacred

IPCC hasn't got that many climatologists on its panel,

**So?


and still

fewer among its peer reviewers that Trevor is so fond of quoting, as
apparently, there is no actual requirement to be qualified in that
discipline, and the main criteria for acceptance onto the peer review
panel, is to be invited by some (like-minded) person already on it.

**I'm reasonably certain that religious fruit looks, like Spencer, have
automatically disqualified themselves, due to their insistence that the fact
of evolution is bunk and that the only form of acceptable funding comes from
Exxon.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[kreed]

On Oct 7, 10:23 am, "Arfa Daily" <arfa.da...@ntlworld.com> wrote:

snip

I've just lost the will to live ...

Arfa

Don't take him seriously, he has that effect on some, but in reality
he is full of it.

Even if the AGW was actually true, there are far more dangerous things
in the real world to be wary of.

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Trevor Wilson wrote:

**Because.

Yawn. Grow a brain, and get a life.


--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense.

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Arfa Daily wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:i-mdnTDIRtyYLRPTnZ2dnUVZ_o6dnZ2d@earthlink.com...

Arfa Daily wrote:

snip

I've just lost the will to live ...


Take two kill filters and call me in the morning.


--
OK Michael, will do !

I just can't quite understand how 1000+ dissenting voices (links to
government papers citing this previously supplied by Jeff L) from the same
scientific world as the scientists advocating that the problem is man-made
in the first place, can possibly represent "a handful of people" that are
"religious nutters" (!!) or "employed by the fossil fuel lobby". If that
many of them really represent just a handful, there must then be millions of
climatologists in the world, and they must all be speaking somehow with the
same voice. Even the sacred IPCC hasn't got that many climatologists on its
panel, and still fewer among its peer reviewers that Trevor is so fond of
quoting, as apparently, there is no actual requirement to be qualified in
that discipline, and the main criteria for acceptance onto the peer review
panel, is to be invited by some (like-minded) person already on it.

He's a small minded loser who latches onto something, then refuses to
look at the issue. He searches for others like him to 'prove' that he's
right. He ignores anything may may even remotely prove him wrong,
because his whole world would collapse. Even though it's been shown
that his beloved IPCC is composed of liars who cook data and thieves who
knowingly publish bad data to keep their funding, he keeps drinking the
'Jonestown Kool-Aid' and demanding more poison.


--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense.

 

[Jeffrey Angus]

On 10/7/2011 6:32 AM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

he keeps drinking the
'Jonestown Kool-Aid' and demanding more poison.

Point of order, Jonetwon used Flavoraid, not Koolaid.

Minor nit. ;-)

Jeff-1.0
wa6fwi



--
"Everything from Crackers to Coffins"

 

[Phil Allison]

"kreed"

Don't take him seriously, he has that effect on some, but in reality
he is full of it.

Even if the AGW was actually true, there are far more dangerous things
in the real world to be wary of.


** Like Arab zealots with a stolen or back yard built nuclear weapon.

Forget a 1960s type nuclear Armageddon - that is the LEAST of our worries.

Imagine the actual consequences of a major city (ie London, New York )
being rendered uninhabitable by a "dirty bomb".

The whole planet would be immediately turned into a Nazi style police
state - purely to prevent a recurrence.

That is where we are all headed folks.

After seeing 911- who can doubt it?




.... Phil