Dear list:
This is about AGW, so for any who have no interest, please delete. I
will also say that I have no intention to continue the discussion on
the forum.
Randy,
On 7/21/2011 10:23 AM, Randy Mott wrote:
Linzer is the real thing. The historical data do not support the
modeling, which - when you examine it - is goofy to say the
least. Most of the warming effect is from assumptions about water
vapor that have been contradicted by actual studies. Al Gore's
famous ice core graphic is DELIBERATELY misleading, in that he uses
100,000 intervals that mask the fact that the temperature changes
observed came before the GHG increases by 900 years on average.
I am not relying on anyone's opinion, but on data. The historical
record COMPLETELY contradicts the models and opinions of the "grant
seekers."
As Steve said, this area of study has "plenty of uncertainty",
although, I would add, the uncertainty is less and less /fundamental/,
if I may use that word, every day. By that I mean to point to the
reasons why the overwhelming majority (better than 95%, according to
figures I have seen) of relevant scientists agree that anthropogenic
climate change is real: it's because the data are accumulating. The
disagreement, although the popular press does not seem to realize, is
about the /degree/ of the effect (pardon the pun), not whether the
effect exists. We still are learning rather important new things about
the natural systems that impact the trend line, bending it flatter or
steeper, but not, as far as I know, as yet erasing or reversing the trend.
Contributing to the uncertainty we have a moving target, where
accumulating evidence provides both new questions and new answers,
while at the same time tending to invalidate positions taken at an
earlier stage of the process, particularly where those opinions went
beyond the data in hand when expressed.
All of this-- as well as simple courtesy and humility-- means that it
is nearly impossible to say something sufficiently true about climate
change that is not rather nuanced and cautious. As I said previously,
science does not provide us with very many opportunities to be dogmatic.
To wit, Newton made enormous strides-- including inventing calculus, a
feat which continues to amaze me when I contemplate it-- in describing
planetary mechanics. And as compared with preceding efforts, the
accuracy and completeness of what he provided was overwhelming. And in
spite of any appearance of perfection-- based perhaps on the beauty of
the math-- those who proclaimed that the matter could be put to rest
were bound to be disappointed, because...
Then along came Einstein, demonstrating that Newton was actually
wrong. I don't think it's too strong a statement to say that we would
not, could not have GPS today except for the subtle corrections
provided by Einstein, because GPS depends so heavily on the timing of
signals, and that timing is affected by the gravity well of the earth
sufficiently that a merely Newtonian, trigonometric approach to the
issue would not give us good localization.
As such, when I encounter statements which appear to me to lack
nuance-- where the statements are not humble, even if the statement
maker may perhaps be-- I find that they are, for me at least,
counter-productive, i.e. that they tend to make me more skeptical of
the position advanced in such clothing, even though I recognize that
the two are different. That is, someone may well shout about a
scientific matter and still speak with considerable accuracy-- these
being, as I said, two different things-- but given the nuance of the
data, it is difficult for me to understand how those who understand it
might fail to communicate in a nuanced way.
As regards the historical record, a number of respected scientists
appear to disagree with you. For example, Montañez et al, in
"CO2-Forced Climate and
Vegetation Instability During Late Paleozoic Deglaciation" (here
<http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/rrusso/gly6932/Montanez_etal_Science07.pdf>),
state that
The late Paleozoic deglaciation is the vegetated Earth's only
recorded icehouse-to-greenhouse transition, yet the climate
dynamics remain enigmatic. By using the stable isotopic
compositions of soil-formed minerals, fossil-plant matter, and
shallow-water brachiopods, we estimated atmospheric partial
pressure of carbon dioxide (pCO2) and tropical marine surface
temperatures during this climate transition. Comparison to
southern Gondwanan glacial records documents covariance between
inferred shifts in pCO2, temperature, and ice volume consistent
with greenhouse gas forcing of climate. Major restructuring of
paleotropical flora in western Euramerica occurred in step with
climate and pCO2 shifts, illustrating the biotic impact associated
with past CO2-forced turnover to a permanent ice-free world.
I do not think it is correct that a 900 year difference in ancient
temperature changes vs. CO2 concentration has been established. Such
an inference ignores a number of things, including the fact that the
further back in time we go, the more it is true that this data is
inferential, not direct, as indicated in the abstract quoted above.
That is, we are measuring markers which /infer/ temperature, and much
of what we know about CO2 concentration, past a certain point, is
likewise inferential, since we have no direct record of the former,
nor any truly ancient direct record of the latter. Ice core data comes
close to directly recording CO2 concentrations, but as we go back in
the record-- deeper in the ice-- it becomes increasingly difficult to
state with confidence when a given bubble was trapped. As well, beyond
something between 100,000 and 400,000 years ago (depending on the core
being examined), there is no record, no ice remaining from that time.
For anything more ancient than that the data for both is inferential.
Further, the inferential measure of one most usually comes from
several entirely different data sets than those used for the
inferential measure of the other, which would mean that one is
(likewise) inferring two time scales and then matching data across
time on that basis. Scientists have some confidence, based on ice core
data and other measures, that it has been ~400,000 years (or more)
since the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere was higher than it is
today. Across that /minimum/ timescale the 900 year difference you
invoke is below a quarter of one percent in the /aggregate/ data.
Because errors multiply, the source data (i.e. before timescale
matching) would have to be far, far more accurate than that. Thus,
given the uncertainties listed, the data would have to be really
remarkably accurate to support as conclusive a statement as it appears
you've made, and while I'm by no means a scientist, I would think it
would be difficult to find such certainty in such data.
d.
--
David William House
"The Complete Biogas Handbook" |www.completebiogas.com|
/Vahid Biogas/, an alternative energy consultancy |www.vahidbiogas.com
|
"Make no search for water. But find thirst,
And water from the very ground will burst."
(Rumi, a Persian mystic poet, quoted in /Delight of Hearts/, p. 77)
http://bahai.us/
_______________________________________________
Digestion mailing list
to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
[email protected]
to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/digestion_lists.bioenergylists.org
for more information about digestion, see
Beginner's Guide to Biogas
http://www.adelaide.edu.au/biogas/
and the Biogas Wiki http://biogas.wikispaces.com/
