AGWists are sore losers
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Relativity: Einstein's lost frame
Next: DISCOVERY OF BRIGHT GALAXIES IN THE DISTANT UNIVERSE AND A VARIABLE GRAVITATIONAL 'CONSTANT'
From: Bill Ward on 3 Aug 2007 15:57 On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 19:36:02 +0000, Jonathan Kirwan wrote: > On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 12:43:57 -0700, Bill Ward > <bward(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: > >>On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 19:13:04 +0000, Jonathan Kirwan wrote: >> >>> On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 11:35:19 -0700, Bill Ward >>> <bward(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: >>> >>>>On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 16:58:03 +0000, Jonathan Kirwan wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 09:28:24 -0700, z <gzuckier(a)snail-mail.net> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On Jul 27, 11:57 pm, kdth...(a)yahoo.com wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> So throw down on some none lies and irrelevancy on this SIMPLE >>>>>>> TOPIC of the changing temperatures and CO2 levels according to the >>>>>>> ice cores which show the lag of about 900 yrs for CO2 to >>>>>>> temperature. >>>>>> >>>>>>Sure, that's easy enough for you to say. >>>>> >>>>> Nowhere in his comment does he show any knowledge about the error >>>>> bars in the ice core time measurements. I believe they quite often >>>>> exceed 900 years. Not that it matters, as there wasn't 6 billion >>>>> people on the planet at the time dumping huge quantities of CO2 into >>>>> the atmosphere and no one is arguing that CO2 must always __lead__ a >>>>> temperature rise, back then. CO2 levels can (as can CH4 levels) be >>>>> driven by Milankovitch cycles, for example. >>>> >>>>OK, I'll bite. How can Milankovitch cycles drive CO2 and CH4 levels >>>>without involving temperature? >>> >>> Who said it didn't involve temperature? >> >>Then are you implying that rising temperatures from the Milankovitch >>cycle caused the CO2 and CH4 to increase? > > Yes, that consideration should be in the mix. > >>It's not clear what you mean. > > Sorry about that. S'OK, nobody's perfect. What other effects of the Milankovitch cycle on CO2 and CH4 do you see in your "mix"?
From: Jonathan Kirwan on 3 Aug 2007 16:32 On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 12:57:24 -0700, Bill Ward <bward(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: >On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 19:36:02 +0000, Jonathan Kirwan wrote: > >> On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 12:43:57 -0700, Bill Ward >> <bward(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: >> >>>On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 19:13:04 +0000, Jonathan Kirwan wrote: >>> >>>> On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 11:35:19 -0700, Bill Ward >>>> <bward(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>>On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 16:58:03 +0000, Jonathan Kirwan wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 09:28:24 -0700, z <gzuckier(a)snail-mail.net> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On Jul 27, 11:57 pm, kdth...(a)yahoo.com wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So throw down on some none lies and irrelevancy on this SIMPLE >>>>>>>> TOPIC of the changing temperatures and CO2 levels according to the >>>>>>>> ice cores which show the lag of about 900 yrs for CO2 to >>>>>>>> temperature. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Sure, that's easy enough for you to say. >>>>>> >>>>>> Nowhere in his comment does he show any knowledge about the error >>>>>> bars in the ice core time measurements. I believe they quite often >>>>>> exceed 900 years. Not that it matters, as there wasn't 6 billion >>>>>> people on the planet at the time dumping huge quantities of CO2 into >>>>>> the atmosphere and no one is arguing that CO2 must always __lead__ a >>>>>> temperature rise, back then. CO2 levels can (as can CH4 levels) be >>>>>> driven by Milankovitch cycles, for example. >>>>> >>>>>OK, I'll bite. How can Milankovitch cycles drive CO2 and CH4 levels >>>>>without involving temperature? >>>> >>>> Who said it didn't involve temperature? >>> >>>Then are you implying that rising temperatures from the Milankovitch >>>cycle caused the CO2 and CH4 to increase? >> >> Yes, that consideration should be in the mix. >> >>>It's not clear what you mean. >> >> Sorry about that. > >S'OK, nobody's perfect. What other effects of the Milankovitch cycle on >CO2 and CH4 do you see in your "mix"? My purpose was just as I said, that Kent's comment about a 900 years lag (whether taken from a factual source, or otherwise) isn't determinative. For (1), the error bars in the time measurements are rather wide in some places in the datasets and can easily wipe out something that appears to be a mere 900 yr lag. (In other words, it's possible that it is a lead and not a lag, at all, and that the errors in time measurement account for that difference.) For (2), a lag taken to be the actual case in some circumstances may very well be an effect or response and not a driving force and, due to atmospheric CO2's effect on warming itself, is a positive feedback factor enhancing another natural cause (such as Milankovitch cucles.) For the current state of science on these things, one must be fairly comprehensive and study quite a few reports. I don't hold myself out as an expert in this area. Just an interested consumer of some of it. Jon
From: Jonathan Kirwan on 3 Aug 2007 16:33 On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 20:32:40 GMT, I wrote: >cucles cycles
From: claudiusdenk on 3 Aug 2007 16:54 On Aug 3, 12:12 pm, Jonathan Kirwan <jkir...(a)easystreet.com> wrote: > On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 11:23:50 -0700, claudiusd...(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > >On Aug 3, 10:42 am, Jonathan Kirwan <jkir...(a)easystreet.com> wrote: > >> On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 10:37:00 -0700, claudiusd...(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > >> >On Aug 3, 10:12 am, Jonathan Kirwan <jkir...(a)easystreet.com> wrote: > >> >> On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 10:03:55 -0700, claudiusd...(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > >> >> >On Aug 3, 9:58 am, Jonathan Kirwan <jkir...(a)easystreet.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 09:28:24 -0700, z <gzuck...(a)snail-mail.net> wrote: > >> >> >> >On Jul 27, 11:57 pm, kdth...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > > >> >> >> >> So throw down on some none lies and irrelevancy on this SIMPLE TOPIC > >> >> >> >> of the changing temperatures and CO2 levels according to the ice cores > >> >> >> >> which show the lag of about 900 yrs for CO2 to temperature. > > >> >> >> >Sure, that's easy enough for you to say. > > >> >> >> Nowhere in his comment does he show any knowledge about the error bars > >> >> >> in the ice core time measurements. I believe they quite often exceed > >> >> >> 900 years. Not that it matters, as there wasn't 6 billion people on > >> >> >> the planet at the time dumping huge quantities of CO2 into the > >> >> >> atmosphere and no one is arguing that CO2 must always __lead__ a > >> >> >> temperature rise, back then. > > >> >> >Uh . . . shouldn't they be. You know, to be consistent? > > >> >> Humans today introduce new elements. Consistency here is that the > >> >> natural systems have their own responses to these __new__ intrusions. > > >> >I'm not understanding. Could you be less vague and more explicit and > >> >specific? Are you arguing against uniformitarianism? You know, are > >> >you saying the laws of nature (principles of cause and effect) in the > >> >past were different than they are at present? > No response. > > >> >Surely you couldn't be > >> >making such a specious argument. So please clarify. If CO2 didn't > >> >lead temp in the past then why should we believe it does now? > No response. > > >> >Please be explicit in your response. And, please, refrain from the > >> >whacko tactic of proof by assertion. If you can't support an > >> >assertion then don't assert it. > > >> >> > CO2 levels can (as can CH4 levels) be > >> >> >> driven by Milankovitch cycles, for example. And none of that takes > >> >> >> away from the idea that CO2 driven by human activities can also be the > >> >> >> __lead__ in a rise in temperature, > > >> >> >None of it indicates why we should believe it does either. > > >> >> Since I already know you cannot either cannot read science with > >> >> understanding > > >> >How can I be expected to read and understand something that you have > >> >not (yet) presented. I've yet to see any evidence that CO2 can/will > >> >have a thermal effect on atmospheric temperatures. There is no > >> >shortage of people that will claim that it does. But there is > >> >absolutely nobody that can say how or how much. > > >> I'm not going to be engaged on arguing this with you. > > >Why not? > > I explained why. See below. I must have missed it. Explain it again. > >> You can't even > >> deal with the theory and mathematics in Rasool & Scheider's 1971 paper > >> on the subject, and that's just a highly simplified 1D approach to the > >> question. > > >I'm well aware of this paper. What aspect of it would you like to > >discuss? > > Have you read it and can you work your way through the arguments with > understanding? Of course. > You don't say. > > >> That you have "yet to see any evidence" doesn't amount to a > >> hill of beans one way or another. It's just noise. > > >One can only wonder why you suddenly don't want to discuss any of > >this. > > I think I explained why, clearly. I'm not interested in engaging > folks who cannot handle the theory or the math, for one. For another, > there is already the very best resources available on this subject > from the IPCC and I've no intention of pretending to do better than > they at this subject. There is no need for me to deal with anything > unless you take a specific point from their discussions you find > incorrect where I also feel I can shed some light. I knew you couldn't answer any questions. > >> >> or else are taking an intentionally deceitful position, > >> >> I can see why you might say that. However, to anyone else there is > >> >> plenty of reasoning available > > >> >Keep in mind we don't have access to your imagination. > > >> >> that is very strong and better than any > >> >> other reasoning presented so far. > > >> >So we're supposed to take your word on this? > > >> I'd MUCH rather folks go read the peer-reviewed papers for themselves. > > >I have. All of them. > > I don't believe you. It hardly matters since you refuse to discuss any of this anyways. For you this forum is nothing but an opportunity for more propaganda. For me it's an opportunity to expose you as a propagandist.
From: claudiusdenk on 3 Aug 2007 16:55
On Aug 3, 12:13 pm, Jonathan Kirwan <jkir...(a)easystreet.com> wrote: > On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 11:35:19 -0700, Bill Ward > > > > > > <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: > >On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 16:58:03 +0000, Jonathan Kirwan wrote: > > >> On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 09:28:24 -0700, z <gzuck...(a)snail-mail.net> wrote: > > >>>On Jul 27, 11:57 pm, kdth...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > > >>>> So throw down on some none lies and irrelevancy on this SIMPLE TOPIC of > >>>> the changing temperatures and CO2 levels according to the ice cores > >>>> which show the lag of about 900 yrs for CO2 to temperature. > > >>>Sure, that's easy enough for you to say. > > >> Nowhere in his comment does he show any knowledge about the error bars in > >> the ice core time measurements. I believe they quite often exceed 900 > >> years. Not that it matters, as there wasn't 6 billion people on the > >> planet at the time dumping huge quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere and > >> no one is arguing that CO2 must always __lead__ a temperature rise, back > >> then. CO2 levels can (as can CH4 levels) be driven by Milankovitch > >> cycles, for example. > > >OK, I'll bite. How can Milkankovitch cycles drive CO2 and CH4 levels > >without involving temperature? > > Who said it didn't involve temperature? Answer the question you evasive twit: How can Milkankovitch cycles drive CO2 and CH4 levels without involving temperature? |