<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<font face="Georgia"><br>
Dear list:<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Randy,<br>
</font><br>
On 7/21/2011 10:23 AM, Randy Mott wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:001801cc47ca$ee3c0ae0$cab420a0$@ceeres.eu"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=ISO-8859-1">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered
medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Georgia;
panose-1:2 4 5 2 5 4 5 2 3 3;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";
color:black;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
code
{mso-style-priority:99;
font-family:"Courier New";}
p.MsoAcetate, li.MsoAcetate, div.MsoAcetate
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:8.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";
color:black;}
span.BalloonTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Balloon Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text";
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle22
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family:
"Calibri","sans-serif"; color: rgb(31,
73, 125);">I am not relying on anyone’s opinion, but on
data. The historical record COMPLETELY contradicts the
models and opinions of the “grant seekers.”</span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
As Steve said, this area of study has "plenty of uncertainty",
although, I would add, the uncertainty is less and less <i>fundamental</i>,
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 <i>degree</i> 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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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. <br>
<br>
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...<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
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<br>
Vegetation Instability During Late Paleozoic Deglaciation" (<a
href="http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/rrusso/gly6932/Montanez_etal_Science07.pdf">here</a>),
state that<br>
<blockquote>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.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
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 <i>infer</i> 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.<br>
<br>
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 <i>minimum</i> timescale the 900 year
difference you invoke is below a quarter of one percent in the <i>aggregate</i>
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.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
d.<br>
<div class="moz-signature">-- <br>
<div style="font:Georgia" ;=""><span style="font-size:110%;">David
William House<br>
</span>
<div style="padding-left:3em;font-size:80%;">"The Complete
Biogas Handbook" <code><a href="www.completebiogas.com">www.completebiogas.com</a></code><br>
<em>Vahid Biogas</em>, an alternative energy consultancy <code><a
href="www.vahidbiogas.com">www.vahidbiogas.com</a><br>
<br>
</code></div>
<div style="padding-left:2em;">"Make no search for water.
But find thirst,<br>
And water from the very ground will burst."
<div style="padding-left:2em;font-size:80%;">(Rumi, a Persian
mystic poet, quoted in <em>Delight of Hearts</em>, p. 77) <br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://bahai.us/">http://bahai.us/</a></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>