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: Jonathan Kirwan on 3 Aug 2007 18:10 On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 14:46:37 -0700, claudiusdenk(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: >On Aug 3, 2:00 pm, Jonathan Kirwan <jkir...(a)easystreet.com> wrote: >> On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 13:54:49 -0700, claudiusd...(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: >> ><snip> >> >I knew you couldn't answer any questions. >> >> Hmm. How's your calculus question doing? Still unable to answer it, >> yet? >> >> Jon > >Oh, I get it. You knew you couldn't answer any of my questions about >climatology and AGW so you put up a subject that you can answer. Nothing you said was worth taking seriously. >What do you think you are proving except that you are an evasive twit? That you can't do calculus. Jon
From: Jonathan Kirwan on 3 Aug 2007 18:20 On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 15:09:01 -0700, Bill Ward <bward(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: >On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 20:32:40 +0000, Jonathan Kirwan wrote: > >> 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. > >OK, fair enough, I'm about the same. The reason for my question was your >comment, "CO2 levels can (as can CH4 levels) be driven by Milankovitch >cycles, for example." > >I took that to imply the M cycle could directly affect something other >than temperature, such as CO2 and CH4. Apparently that's not what you >meant. > >On the original point, according to what I've seen, the CO2 vs temperature >lag was determined by correlation of the two datasets (T and CO2) from >each of a number of icecores from differing locations. The lag is fairly >consistent across cores. Error bars were calculated normally (3 sigma?), >and seem to rule out any lead of CO2 ahead of T. Hence the assumption >that CO2 cannot drive temperature. A couple of comments here from my narrow and non-comprehensive perspective. The lag is larger in portions of the data sets, large enough to exceed the error bars in time, so that in those places there is a fairly strong argument that a lag does in fact exist in those periods. That much I grant, from my own reading. But this doesn't mean that every place it is a lag. Nor, even if it is always a lag in the past, does that mean that humans dumping the levels of CO2 we currently dump cannot present a lead effect. (And, in fact, we know the mechanisms by how this does work, as well.) It remains that in some places it may still be a lead effect. In other words, I don't think the data RULES OUT the possibility, for example, of a CO2 intrusion from unusual volcanic activity having its impact on the environment. In short, various circumstances may lead to similar outcomes. Just as in the case of "consumption," back a century and more ago, was caused by a variety of diseases with similar manifestations. I completely disagree with your comment "that CO2 cannot drive temperature." This is NOT SHOWN by either theory or science result. >The positive feedback you refer to is, I believe, derived entirely from >climate models and unconfirmed assumptions about the behavior of water >vapor in the troposphere. Given your interest in math, you may find >climate models interesting: > >http://www.giss.nasa.gov/tools/modelE/ I do find them interesting, though I also find them prodigious to master. When I find the time to dig in as a hobbyist, I may do so. Until then, I will have to be satisfied with smaller bites. Jon
From: Bill Ward on 3 Aug 2007 19:34 On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 22:20:07 +0000, Jonathan Kirwan wrote: > On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 15:09:01 -0700, Bill Ward > <bward(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: > >>On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 20:32:40 +0000, Jonathan Kirwan wrote: >> >>> 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. >> >>OK, fair enough, I'm about the same. The reason for my question was your >>comment, "CO2 levels can (as can CH4 levels) be driven by Milankovitch >>cycles, for example." >> >>I took that to imply the M cycle could directly affect something other >>than temperature, such as CO2 and CH4. Apparently that's not what you >>meant. >> >>On the original point, according to what I've seen, the CO2 vs >>temperature lag was determined by correlation of the two datasets (T and >>CO2) from each of a number of icecores from differing locations. The lag >>is fairly consistent across cores. Error bars were calculated normally (3 >>sigma?), and seem to rule out any lead of CO2 ahead of T. Hence the >>assumption that CO2 cannot drive temperature. > > A couple of comments here from my narrow and non-comprehensive > perspective. > > The lag is larger in portions of the data sets, large enough to exceed the > error bars in time, so that in those places there is a fairly strong > argument that a lag does in fact exist in those periods. That much I > grant, from my own reading. > > But this doesn't mean that every place it is a lag. On the average, though, when the noise is reduced, it's a lag. This is how you find it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-correlation <begin quote> Explanation For example, consider two real valued functions f and g that differ only by a shift along the x-axis. One can calculate the cross-correlation to figure out how much g must be shifted along the x-axis to make it identical to f. The formula essentially slides the g function along the x-axis, calculating the integral for each possible amount of sliding. When the functions match, the value of (f\star g) is maximized. The reason for this is that when lumps (positives areas) are aligned, they contribute to making the integral larger. Also, when the troughs (negative areas) align, they also make a positive contribution to the integral because the product of two negative numbers is positive. <end quote> It's a common technique for finding signals lost in noise, or in this case finding the time relation between two noisy signals. > Nor, even if it is > always a lag in the past, does that mean that humans dumping the levels of > CO2 we currently dump cannot present a lead effect. (And, in fact, we > know the mechanisms by how this does work, as well.) That argument would be stronger if CO2 could be shown to actually have a significant effect on temperature. As of now, it's an implicit assumption in the climate models, which are generally stipulated not to handle convective transport well, especially in the tropics. Water vapor at 20000ppm may totally swamp 380ppm of CO2. > It remains that in some places it may still be a lead effect. In other > words, I don't think the data RULES OUT the possibility, for example, of > a CO2 intrusion from unusual volcanic activity having its impact on the > environment. > > In short, various circumstances may lead to similar outcomes. Just as > in the case of "consumption," back a century and more ago, was caused by > a variety of diseases with similar manifestations. > > I completely disagree with your comment "that CO2 cannot drive > temperature." This is NOT SHOWN by either theory or science result. I meant that in the context of the lag in the ice core data. CO2 has not been shown directly to significantly affect climate temperatures. That's an assumption based on the IR absorption spectrum and climate models of dubious value. >>The positive feedback you refer to is, I believe, derived entirely from >>climate models and unconfirmed assumptions about the behavior of water >>vapor in the troposphere. Given your interest in math, you may find >>climate models interesting: >> >>http://www.giss.nasa.gov/tools/modelE/ > > I do find them interesting, though I also find them prodigious to > master. When I find the time to dig in as a hobbyist, I may do so. Until > then, I will have to be satisfied with smaller bites. Good luck. I think the key to the puzzle will be found in assumptions made in the climate models.
From: Jonathan Kirwan on 3 Aug 2007 19:31 On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 16:34:00 -0700, Bill Ward <bward(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: >On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 22:20:07 +0000, Jonathan Kirwan wrote: > >> On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 15:09:01 -0700, Bill Ward >> <bward(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: >> >>>On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 20:32:40 +0000, Jonathan Kirwan wrote: >>> >>>> 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. >>> >>>OK, fair enough, I'm about the same. The reason for my question was your >>>comment, "CO2 levels can (as can CH4 levels) be driven by Milankovitch >>>cycles, for example." >>> >>>I took that to imply the M cycle could directly affect something other >>>than temperature, such as CO2 and CH4. Apparently that's not what you >>>meant. >>> >>>On the original point, according to what I've seen, the CO2 vs >>>temperature lag was determined by correlation of the two datasets (T and >>>CO2) from each of a number of icecores from differing locations. The lag >>>is fairly consistent across cores. Error bars were calculated normally (3 >>>sigma?), and seem to rule out any lead of CO2 ahead of T. Hence the >>>assumption that CO2 cannot drive temperature. >> >> A couple of comments here from my narrow and non-comprehensive >> perspective. >> >> The lag is larger in portions of the data sets, large enough to exceed the >> error bars in time, so that in those places there is a fairly strong >> argument that a lag does in fact exist in those periods. That much I >> grant, from my own reading. >> >> But this doesn't mean that every place it is a lag. > >On the average, though, when the noise is reduced, it's a lag. This is >how you find it: > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-correlation > ><begin quote> >Explanation > >For example, consider two real valued functions f and g that differ only >by a shift along the x-axis. One can calculate the cross-correlation to >figure out how much g must be shifted along the x-axis to make it >identical to f. The formula essentially slides the g function along the >x-axis, calculating the integral for each possible amount of sliding. When >the functions match, the value of (f\star g) is maximized. The reason for >this is that when lumps (positives areas) are aligned, they contribute to >making the integral larger. Also, when the troughs (negative areas) align, >they also make a positive contribution to the integral because the product >of two negative numbers is positive. ><end quote> > >It's a common technique for finding signals lost in noise, or in this case >finding the time relation between two noisy signals. > >> Nor, even if it is >> always a lag in the past, does that mean that humans dumping the levels of >> CO2 we currently dump cannot present a lead effect. (And, in fact, we >> know the mechanisms by how this does work, as well.) > >That argument would be stronger if CO2 could be shown to actually have a >significant effect on temperature. As of now, it's an implicit assumption >in the climate models, which are generally stipulated not to handle >convective transport well, especially in the tropics. Water vapor at >20000ppm may totally swamp 380ppm of CO2. > >> It remains that in some places it may still be a lead effect. In other >> words, I don't think the data RULES OUT the possibility, for example, of >> a CO2 intrusion from unusual volcanic activity having its impact on the >> environment. >> >> In short, various circumstances may lead to similar outcomes. Just as >> in the case of "consumption," back a century and more ago, was caused by >> a variety of diseases with similar manifestations. >> >> I completely disagree with your comment "that CO2 cannot drive >> temperature." This is NOT SHOWN by either theory or science result. > >I meant that in the context of the lag in the ice core data. CO2 has >not been shown directly to significantly affect climate temperatures. > >That's an assumption based on the IR absorption spectrum and climate >models of dubious value. > >>>The positive feedback you refer to is, I believe, derived entirely from >>>climate models and unconfirmed assumptions about the behavior of water >>>vapor in the troposphere. Given your interest in math, you may find >>>climate models interesting: >>> >>>http://www.giss.nasa.gov/tools/modelE/ >> >> I do find them interesting, though I also find them prodigious to >> master. When I find the time to dig in as a hobbyist, I may do so. Until >> then, I will have to be satisfied with smaller bites. > >Good luck. I think the key to the puzzle will be found in assumptions >made in the climate models. I don't have direct responses to your replies except that they don't carry much water with me. I am already fairly familiar with some quantum mechanics (1-D variety simplified versions usually taught in a course on basic QM), understand ideas of photon-electron interactions both in bound and unbound states, am aware of illegal state transitions like triplet states in lattices, and have a feel for the idea of mean-free path and thermalization. There is no doubt at all in my mind about both the theoretical as well as experimental results which confirm all aspects of these things. This is NOT a matter of assumption. Jon
From: Bill Ward on 3 Aug 2007 20:35
On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 23:31:11 +0000, Jonathan Kirwan wrote: > On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 16:34:00 -0700, Bill Ward > <bward(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: > >>On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 22:20:07 +0000, Jonathan Kirwan wrote: >> >>> On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 15:09:01 -0700, Bill Ward >>> <bward(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: >>> >>>>On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 20:32:40 +0000, Jonathan Kirwan wrote: >>>> >>>>> 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. >>>> >>>>OK, fair enough, I'm about the same. The reason for my question was >>>>your comment, "CO2 levels can (as can CH4 levels) be driven by >>>>Milankovitch cycles, for example." >>>> >>>>I took that to imply the M cycle could directly affect something other >>>>than temperature, such as CO2 and CH4. Apparently that's not what you >>>>meant. >>>> >>>>On the original point, according to what I've seen, the CO2 vs >>>>temperature lag was determined by correlation of the two datasets (T >>>>and CO2) from each of a number of icecores from differing locations. >>>>The lag is fairly consistent across cores. Error bars were calculated >>>>normally (3 sigma?), and seem to rule out any lead of CO2 ahead of T. >>>>Hence the assumption that CO2 cannot drive temperature. >>> >>> A couple of comments here from my narrow and non-comprehensive >>> perspective. >>> >>> The lag is larger in portions of the data sets, large enough to exceed >>> the error bars in time, so that in those places there is a fairly >>> strong argument that a lag does in fact exist in those periods. That >>> much I grant, from my own reading. >>> >>> But this doesn't mean that every place it is a lag. >> >>On the average, though, when the noise is reduced, it's a lag. This is >>how you find it: >> >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-correlation >> >><begin quote> >>Explanation >> >>For example, consider two real valued functions f and g that differ only >>by a shift along the x-axis. One can calculate the cross-correlation to >>figure out how much g must be shifted along the x-axis to make it >>identical to f. The formula essentially slides the g function along the >>x-axis, calculating the integral for each possible amount of sliding. >>When the functions match, the value of (f\star g) is maximized. The >>reason for this is that when lumps (positives areas) are aligned, they >>contribute to making the integral larger. Also, when the troughs >>(negative areas) align, they also make a positive contribution to the >>integral because the product of two negative numbers is positive. >><end quote> >> >>It's a common technique for finding signals lost in noise, or in this >>case finding the time relation between two noisy signals. >> >>> Nor, even if it is >>> always a lag in the past, does that mean that humans dumping the levels >>> of CO2 we currently dump cannot present a lead effect. (And, in fact, >>> we know the mechanisms by how this does work, as well.) >> >>That argument would be stronger if CO2 could be shown to actually have a >>significant effect on temperature. As of now, it's an implicit >>assumption in the climate models, which are generally stipulated not to >>handle convective transport well, especially in the tropics. Water vapor >>at 20000ppm may totally swamp 380ppm of CO2. >> >>> It remains that in some places it may still be a lead effect. In other >>> words, I don't think the data RULES OUT the possibility, for example, >>> of a CO2 intrusion from unusual volcanic activity having its impact on >>> the environment. >>> >>> In short, various circumstances may lead to similar outcomes. Just as >>> in the case of "consumption," back a century and more ago, was caused >>> by a variety of diseases with similar manifestations. >>> >>> I completely disagree with your comment "that CO2 cannot drive >>> temperature." This is NOT SHOWN by either theory or science result. >> >>I meant that in the context of the lag in the ice core data. CO2 has not >>been shown directly to significantly affect climate temperatures. >> >>That's an assumption based on the IR absorption spectrum and climate >>models of dubious value. >> >>>>The positive feedback you refer to is, I believe, derived entirely from >>>>climate models and unconfirmed assumptions about the behavior of water >>>>vapor in the troposphere. Given your interest in math, you may find >>>>climate models interesting: >>>> >>>>http://www.giss.nasa.gov/tools/modelE/ >>> >>> I do find them interesting, though I also find them prodigious to >>> master. When I find the time to dig in as a hobbyist, I may do so. >>> Until then, I will have to be satisfied with smaller bites. >> >>Good luck. I think the key to the puzzle will be found in assumptions >>made in the climate models. > > I don't have direct responses to your replies except that they don't carry > much water with me. I am already fairly familiar with some quantum > mechanics (1-D variety simplified versions usually taught in a course on > basic QM), understand ideas of photon-electron interactions both in bound > and unbound states, am aware of illegal state transitions like triplet > states in lattices, and have a feel for the idea of mean-free path and > thermalization. There is no doubt at all in my mind about both the > theoretical as well as experimental results which confirm all aspects of > these things. That's all very good, and quite applicable to CO2 radiative heat transfer. Overkill, even. Now, how about the relative effect of convective heat transport via the latent heat of water vapor? There's an solar powered elevator under every cumulus cloud taking latent heat right past the GHG radiative transfer region to cloud top, where it has a straight shot at radiating to the sky. What about the cooling effect of cumulus clouds high albedo, and the resulting strong negative temperature feedback? And the explicit admission that climate models don't have enough resolution to handle tropical moisture? How does CO2, constant at 380ppm, somehow overwhelm water vapor, variable at 10000-40000ppm? How can you have "no doubt in your mind" without also understanding how these phenomena work? Looking at only the one side you understand is unlikely to yield accurate results, and is basically yielding to authority. > This is NOT a matter of assumption. I agree, but you seem to be assuming the AGW view of issues you are unfamiliar with is correct, because you understand the physics of CO2. I'm suggesting you question everything until you understand it. Make people convince you. That's the basis of science. And it's a lot more interesting than simply believing. Thanks for your comments. |