CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors

[Trevor Wilson]

Nope, I couldn't care less about his religious views, neither do I
care in the least about the religious views of the members of the
IPCC.

**A person that holds 'Intelligent Design' as some kind of rational view is
seriously suspect. In fact, I would be concerned about any person, that
claims to be a scientist, who hold any kind of supernatural beliefs.

Spencer is part of this organisation:

http://www.cornwallalliance.org/about/

Here is part of their platform:

http://www.cornwallalliance.org/articles/read/an-evangelical-declaration-on-global-warming/

An excerpt:

1.. We believe Earth and its ecosystems—created by God’s intelligent
design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence —are
robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited
for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth’s climate system is
no exception. Recent global warming is one of many natural cycles of warming
and cooling in geologic history.
2.. We believe abundant, affordable energy is indispensable to human
flourishing, particularly to societies which are rising out of abject
poverty and the high rates of disease and premature death that accompany it.
With present technologies, fossil and nuclear fuels are indispensable if
energy is to be abundant and affordable.
3.. We believe mandatory reductions in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse
gas emissions, achievable mainly by greatly reduced use of fossil fuels,
will greatly increase the price of energy and harm economies.
4.. We believe such policies will harm the poor more than others because
the poor spend a higher percentage of their income on energy and desperately
need economic growth to rise out of poverty and overcome its miseries.
Disturbing stuff. Spencer is listed as a prominent signer:

http://www.cornwallalliance.org/blo...an-evangelical-declaration-on-global-warming/

It seems clear that Spencer STARTS from a theological POV and moulds his
science to fit that view. Are you certain you want to get on this idiot's
train of thought?

Spencer's own words:-

"Dr. Spencer’s research has been entirely supported by U.S. government
agencies: NASA, NOAA, and DOE. He has never been asked by any oil
company to perform any kind of service. Not even Exxon-Mobil."

Do you have any cites to prove him a liar?

**Certainly, but it gets very messy. Probably easier to refer you to the
organisation that has unravelled the paper trail:

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2010/...disinformation-front-group-cornwall-alliance/

And here:

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2010/...-cornwall-alliance-exxonmobil-climate-change/

And:

http://thinkprogress.org/green/2010/06/15/174718/cornwall-alliance-frontgroup/

And, of course, here is where he has worked for the Heartland Institute:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Conference_on_Climate_Change

The Heartland Institute is a 'front' for big tobacco and big oil (along with
big guns):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heartland_Institute

In short, Spencer is a religious nutter, who is (partly) paid by big oil.

Yes, it worries me that they start out from the point of view that he
is wrong, and then go looking for evidence to support that.

**No, I do not. Spencer is a religious fruit-cake. ANYTHING he says must be
viewed with deep suspicion.

That is

not the scientific method.

**Indeed. Which is why I supplied a number of cites that criticise Spencer's
claims. Did you look at them?

Some of it, unfortunately, I am not in a position to confirm or
dispute their modelling,

**This present discussion is not specifically about the modelling. It's
about the fact that AGW is occuring. IOW: We only need look at the
historical data.

but I am by nature suspicious of the results

of computer modelling, basically it tends to be high speed guessing.

**Indeed. And the modelling of climate is improving all the time.

The problem is extremely complex and all attempts to model climate
have been gross simplifications. Even the models to predict tomorrows
weather rarely agree with each other.

**Bullshit. The BoM has a very impressive success rate with determining
weather over a 24 hour period. It is less successful over 48 hours and even
less so over 72 hours and so on. However, we are not discussing weather.
We're discussing climate. BIG difference.

I have an open mind on the subject (which probably puts me in a
minority of one) global warming is without doubt, but the cause is very
much open to question.

**Well, no, it is not "Very much open to question". There is a small amont
of doubt about why it is occuring. Around 5% at present.

 

[Trevor Wilson]

I don't have a huge amount of time to take apart the graphs. So, I
selected just the one above. The first thing I noticed is that there
are no vertical grid lines, making it difficult to determine whether a
CO2 peak caused warming, or whether it was the other way around. So,
dragging out GIMP photo editor, I added vertical grid lines. I also
reversed the graph so that time goes from left to right. Today is on
the right.

<http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/crud/Vostok_Petit_data_03.jpg>

Note the circled peaks. Note that the temperature peak precedes the
CO2 rise in all 3 visible peaks. I'm not quite sure what to do about
the most recent peak. If I get ambitious, I'll grab the raw data and
expand just that section. It kinda looks like temp rise precedes CO2
again, but I can't be sure on such a wide scale.

**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.

(skipping down....)


According to the trend lines, we should now be heading into another
ice age.

**We SHOULD have entered an ice age quite a long time ago. But we didn't.
The temperature of the planet is rising. Our production of CO2 has prevented
the ice age from occuring.

If true and we reduce CO2 emissions, my guess is that we'll

create our own disaster.

**There's the rub: If we reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere (by some
means, not specified), then we may precipitate an ice age. However, reducing
the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is an extremely unlikely possibility.
The VERY BEST we can hope for is to reduce emissions to zero. If we do that,
then CO2 levels would stabilise at the present level. That ain't gonna
happen. The most likely scenario is that CO2 levels will continue rising at
a faster rate than at any time in the last several hundred thousand years.
Temperatures are likely to follow (with 95% certainty).

True. By limiting the shrinking list of acceptable solutions, only
the most expensive CO2 reduction schemes will be left. For example,
extensive expansion of nuclear power is becoming increasingly
expensive due primarily to government oversight.

**That is a political issue. I'm discussing science.

"Few" bucks?

**Yeah. A few Bucks. Here is a reasonably comprehensive analysis of the
costs of action and the potential costs of inaction.

I can't think of any C02 reduction scheme that is cheap.

Switching to CFL and LED lighting might be cost effective because the
cost is spread over maybe 50 years. Same with hybrid vehicles.
However, large scale reductions in CO2 reduction, such as eliminating
coal generated electricity, has huge associated costs.

**That would depend on what you consider to be "huge". I consider that a
temperature rise of (say) 6 degrees C (which is possible under some of the
more pessimistic estimates) is of far more concern than a (say) doubling of
electricity costs today.

Apocalyptic predictions of the demise of civilization have
traditionally accompanied such changes. I recall reading one from the
ancient Greeks. While the risks of inaction are high, the probability
of disaster is quite low. Like the predictions of a Y2K disaster, the
modern alarmists have their limitation.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eschatology>
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocalypse>

**You're mixing up religion with science. The science that has been
presented is just that - science. It is based on many thousands of man-hours
of investigation and a great many of measurements. It is not wild
speculation. I leave that to guys like Roy Spencer.

Well, since we're doing a disaster movie here, I suggest you do a back
of the envelope calculation. If we assume that the energy consumption
and greenhouse gas production per person remains constant at today's
western world levels, what would the population of the planet need to
be in order to produce a greenhouse gas stable environment? I think
you might be amused by the result.

**Not at all. 500 million is my best guess. I've said it in the past and
that is the figure I'll stick with.

Incidentally, I just bought an EcoSmart LED lamp for $10 at Home
Depot. 40 watt equivalent, 9 watts consumption, 429 lumens, 3000K, 46
year life. Works with my light dimmer. The color accuracy 85 is not
very good.
<http://www.homedepot.com/buy/lighti...-a19-40-watt-equivalent-light-bulb-39632.html>
Prices seem to be getting down to reasonable. One nice feature is
that the plastic "bulb" and aluminum base look sufficiently strong to
survive being dropped, something that CFL bulbs can't do.

**I'll post some pics of my latest find a bit later. They are amongst the
most impressive LED arrays I've ever used:

http://www.dealextreme.com/p/12w-3500k-800lm-warm-white-led-emitter-metal-strip-12-14v-80310

Almost double the light output, compared to an 11 Watt, T5 fluoro.

 

[josephkk]

**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. 2)
effect cannot precede cause. The graph is very clear on temperature
change preceding CO2 levels generally.

**We SHOULD have entered an ice age quite a long time ago. But we didn't.
The temperature of the planet is rising. Our production of CO2 has prevented
the ice age from occuring.

If true and we reduce CO2 emissions, my guess is that we'll

**There's the rub: If we reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere (by some
means, not specified), then we may precipitate an ice age. However, reducing
the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is an extremely unlikely possibility.
The VERY BEST we can hope for is to reduce emissions to zero. If we do that,
then CO2 levels would stabilise at the present level. That ain't gonna
happen. The most likely scenario is that CO2 levels will continue risingat
a faster rate than at any time in the last several hundred thousand years.
Temperatures are likely to follow (with 95% certainty).


**That is a political issue. I'm discussing science.

No, you are not. Effect does not precede cause. You are an indoctrinated
political follower.

**Yeah. A few Bucks. Here is a reasonably comprehensive analysis of the
costs of action and the potential costs of inaction.

I can't think of any C02 reduction scheme that is cheap.

**That would depend on what you consider to be "huge". I consider that a
temperature rise of (say) 6 degrees C (which is possible under some of the
more pessimistic estimates) is of far more concern than a (say) doublingof
electricity costs today.

And i see it quite the reverse. Nor do i believe that the Greenland ice
sheet will all melt away and cause a calamitous ocean level rise (as
depicted is some apocalyptic projections).

**You're mixing up religion with science. The science that has been
presented is just that - science. It is based on many thousands of man-hours
of investigation and a great many of measurements. It is not wild
speculation. I leave that to guys like Roy Spencer.

Effect does not precede cause.

**Not at all. 500 million is my best guess. I've said it in the past and
that is the figure I'll stick with.

I don't actually find that number unreasonable. Though i am looking a lot
more factors.

 

[Trevor Wilson]

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.

**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.

No, you are not.

**_I_ am.

Effect does not precede cause.

**Duh.

You are an

indoctrinated
political follower.

**If you mean to say:

I regard science as the arbiter of this present situation and have no regard
for those who reject science and embrace the supernatural, then you'd be
correct.

And i see it quite the reverse.

**Good for you. Cite your peer-reviewed science that proves the IPCC AR4
incorrect.

Nor do i believe that the Greenland

ice
sheet will all melt away and cause a calamitous ocean level rise (as
depicted is some apocalyptic projections).

**You may believe in all the supernatural mumbo-jumbo you wish. I'll stick
with the scientists on this one. You may care to note that the Greenland ice
melt has accelerated in the past few years. Why do you think that is? You
may also care to note that Greenland's arable land has increased in recent
years. Why do you think that is? Given these two effects, what do you think
will cause them to cease?

Effect does not precede cause.

**Strawman. Spencer is a religious nutter.

 

[josephkk]

**I never suggested otherwise. Read my words more carefully in future.

2)

**Duh. I suggest you study up on the sequence of events during times of high
CO2 levels.

The graph is very clear on temperature

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

**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. 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).

)

 

[Trevor Wilson]

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]

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.

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.

 

[josephkk]

**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

**Of both.

Since they track each other, it's

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

If

**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

**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.


**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]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

Ah, so that's ok then. Case re-proven. Status quo restored.

**Take the time to read AR4.

 

[Trevor Wilson]

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.

 

[Jeffrey Angus]

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

 

[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

 

[Jerry Peters]

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

and they

**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.

Did you actually look at that study? After a thorough torturing of the
data to get the desired conclusion, they ended up with *79* "climate
scientists". A perfect example of cherry picking!

Even the sacred

**So?


and still

Try this: http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/06/ipcc-discussion-thread/
Note that Judith Curry is chair of atmospheric physics at GA Tech.

**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.

You should be, since you are one.

Jerry

 

[josephkk]

**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.



**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.

Aleready done. Jeff provided the time direction corrected graph. The
presumed causal connection is voided due to the timing of the changes in
CO2 and temperature. You just refuse to understand.

?-))))

 

[josephkk]

**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.

The explaining power of the model is worthless then.

 

[Trevor Wilson]

Not quite millions.
31,487 Scientists who have their doubts.
<http://www.petitionproject.org>

**Strawman noted. However, let's take a random name from that list.
Something slightly unusual:

Henry W. Apfelbach, MD

Dr Apfelback (deceased) was an orthopaedic surgeon. He graduated Harvard in
1946.

http://www.avvo.com/doctors/henry-apfelbach-2237598.html

http://www.aaos.org/news/aaosnow/mar11/youraaos9.asp

Not much experience in climate reseach.

And, just to reiterate: The total number of science degree holders on the
planet number in the MILLIONS. 39,000 is a pitiful number. Even if some of
those are duplicates, called Jeri Halliwell (Spice Girls) or even Mickey
Mouse.

So, if I want to know about orthopaedics, I'll consult with someone like Dr
Apfleback. If I want to know about climate science, I'll consult the people
who specialise in that area.

The real question is this: Why did you choose to bring up the long
discedited 'Oregon Petition'?

The breakdown is:
<http://www.petitionproject.org/qualifications_of_signers.php>
3,805 Atmospheric, environmental, and Earth sciences
935 Computer and mathematical sciences
5,812 Physics and aerospace sciences
4,822 Chemistry
2,965 Biology and agriculture
3,046 Medicine
10,102 Engineering and general science

"List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of
global warming"
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...tream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming>

On the other foot, the IPCC AR4 had about 2500 contributors, including
800 listed as authors. The rest seem to be mostly reviewers:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change#Contributors>

Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change


It's amazingly difficult to verify credentials and degrees.

**It is, yet you'll note that I managed one, chosen more or less at random,
with a Google search. I selected a slightly unusual name.

I would

not be surprised if a fairly large number of degrees, on both sides of
the debate, were faked.

**The Oregon Petition has been very comprehensively debunked. Using it as an
example is putting your claims on very shakey ground.

There's also the question of qualifications.

I have a BS in Electrical and Electronics Engineering, which certainly
has little to do with climate. Yet, I my varied experience would
qualify me as a reviewer. Since the head of the IPCC, Rajendra K.
Pachauri, is an economist, and shared the Nobel Peace Prize with Al
Gore, a professional politician, precisely what qualifications do you
believe are required in order to have an opinion on the subject?

**ANYONE may have an opinion. ANYONE may present the science. Science is
science. Although helpful, a science degree is not essential to present
solid evidence of a specific area of science. When a specialist in a
particular area of scientific research makes a claim, it makes perfect sense
to take careful notice of that claim. When a non-specialist makes a claim,
it makes perfect sense to dispense with that clima, unless there is some
compelling science to accompany it.

<http://www.logicalscience.com/consensus/consensus.htm>
"The number of climate scientists in the US can be found
by examining the members of the American Geophysical Union
(AGU). As of November 10, 2006 we know that there is a
minimum (no official count of foreign climatologists is
available) of 20,000 working climatologists worldwide."


What is your problem with Spencer?

**I have serious problems with anyone that embraces 'Creation Science' as
part of their belief system. Creationism is the most debunked, discredited
and utterly banal religious belief system on the planet. Spence is a
religious loon, who embraces 'Creation Science'.

Controversial causes and debates

all have their lunatic fringe. Every organization that I've ever been
associated with has had "supporters" that have done more damage than
good by their involvement. Many of them associate themselves with
causes and organizations simply to further their own agenda (cheap
advertising). With anything as argumentative as global warming, the
lunatic fringe is certain to be well represented on both sides of the
debate.

**Certainly. Trouble is, Spencer is a mover and a shaker in the denialist
camp. He is a big target.

It was you that was suggesting that the AGW deniers were
insufficiently qualified. The number of climatologists can be fairly
minimal, and still be correct.

**Of course.


Climatologists usually don't do their

own statistics

**Don't they?

, don't deal with economic impacts,

**Of course not. That is irrelevant to their area of research.

and have minimal

involvement in actual contents of the report.

**I don't know if that is the case. Do you have any evidence to support that
claim?


Climatologists and

researchers produce the original numbers on which the reports are
based. Those numbers are taken up by statisticians, chemists,
doctors, atmospheric researchers, economists, etc and turned into a
coherent and peer reviewed report, suitable for general consumption.

**That would be, generally, the case I would imagine.

If the report required the sole participation of only climate
scientists, then we might see the IPCC AR5 in the next century.


That's the 3rd time you've mentioned Spencer in your rant. He's not
important.

**I was not the one who used Spencer as an expert in this thread. Since he
was cited, earlier in the thread, I have no issue with bringing him up. If
you wish to denounce Spencer as a nutcase, you may do so at any time.

 

[Trevor Wilson]

He's a small minded loser who latches onto something, then
refuses to (...)

I'm having a lousy day and feel the need to unload on someone[1].
You'll suffice. Nothing personal.

I have a different view of Trevor. Even though I don't agree with
his position, I do understand his and the IPCC's point of view.
I'll even read IPCC AR4, specifically looking for how they handled
temperature precedes C02. I would not expect him to respect my
opinions unless I also respect his. Therefore, I have not engaged
in any name calling, labeling, word games, or insults.

Good for you. Wait a while, and he'll be calling you names.

**Not likely. Unlike you, Mr Liebermann is conducting himself reasonably,
rationally, intelligently and is peppering his posts with appropriate cites.
You, OTOH, are engaged in little more than sniping. Your posts are tiresome,
ignorant and without substantive content. You remind me of a 10 year old.

 

[Trevor Wilson]

Without snipping.

I'm sure that you will swear otherwise, and find arguments to back your
position, but I have to say - on the face of it, at least - your
position with regard to 'experts' seems very variable. In one breath,
you insist that valid input on the subject can only come from experts -
that's climatologists according to you - and that any non experts,
regardless of what qualifications - scientific or otherwise - they have,
are just fools, dissenters, deniers, religious fruits, and a whole raft
of other derogatory names.

**Incorrect. I will attempt to clarify my position:

* The Oregon Petition has been discredited. Many times. It is very
seriously flawed.
* Dr Apfelbach has signed the petition, but, AFAK, has never published
any original science to validate his position. Since Dr Apfelbach is
deceased, we can't even know if his position was aligned with the
perpetrators of the Oregon Petition. Dr Apfelbach is not likely to be
the only scientist in that situation. IE: Dead, unpublished (in the area
of climatology) and possibly not in agreement with the position espoused
by the Oregon Petition.
* ANY person (specialist or non-specialist) who makes new claims WRT any
area of science, must also provide healthy, peer-reviewed science to
back that claim.
* A specialist in a particular area of science must be assumed to have
knowledge of that area of science and should always be granted a
reasonable level of credibility.

Then, on the other hand, you seem to imply the complete reverse. You
continuously cite the output of the IPCC as the bible for this man-made
climate change argument, claiming them to be the 'experts', but then
happily accept that many of the scientists on that panel, are from
completely different disciplines, and insist that it doesn't matter.

**The climate scientists are the ones that have submitted the data. The
IPCC has collated that data. The people who collate data, make policy
decisions and provide technical input on possible solutions don't
necessarily need to be qualified in the area of climatology, nor do they
necessarily need to be scientists. For instance: A specific area of the
debate centres around the ramifications of a carbon tax or an ETS.
Scientists are not necessarily qualified to provide expert opinions on
the ramifications of such actions. Economists, however, are just the
kinds of people that are required to provide the opinions.


You

further validate the output of the panel, by declaring that it is all
peer reviewed prior to publication, but again, when it is pointed out to
you that many, if not most of the members of the peer review committee,
are not qualified in any scientific discipline remotely related to
climatology, your answer is "so?"

**Peer-review people are ALWAYS in the same area of expertise as those
who are doing the research. ALWAYS. IOW: Climate research is
peer-reviewed by climatologists, not nuclear physicists.

Well, "so" indeed. What exactly is it that they are reviewing and
validating with such authority, that makes the data any more valid in
its conclusions ? The spelling perhaps ? Or the grammar ?

**That was not the comment made, nor was it related to my response. The
IPCC requires the expertise of a large number of disparate people. Not
all are climatologists. Some are economists, for instance.


If they are

not properly qualified to understand the subtleties and nuances of the
subject, then their opinions carry no more weight than any person of a
reasonable education level, randomly picked off the street.

**Irrelevant. I suggest you read up on the IPCC, it's charter and what
it does. It would be helpful for you to read IPCC AR4 too. I guess you
won't be doing that any time soon though.

You picked on one person above, largely because you felt that his name
was odd. You then go on to state that your researches found him to be
qualified in orthopedic surgery which you then claim does not have much
to do with climate research.

So I have to say, back at you - so ?

**The Oregon Petition was put foreward as an example of 39,000
scientists who (allegedly) disputed the theory of AGW, the IPCC and the
research performed by climatologists. That is why I say: so? It's
irrelevant. Let's put it into context:

I was service manager for Marantz Australai for 5 years, from 1974 -
1979. I have more than passing familiarity with Marantz products
manufactured from 1972 - 1980.

Let's say a client brings you a Marantz 2325 reciever in for service.
The fault is one that causes the amplifier to make a sudden,
intermittant noise, sometimes tripping the protection relay.

You ask 200 plumbers, 200 electricians, 200 doctors, 200 hi fi
sales-people, 200 TV techs and 200 geologists what the problem is. You
recieve the following answers:

* Output transistors are faulty. (200 opinions)
* The on/off switch is faulty. (200 opinions)
* The front end diff amp pair is faulty. (200 opinions)
* The fueholder is faulty. (200 opinions)
* You need an (expensive) mains filter. (200 opinions)
* It's cosmic radiation. (200 opinions)

From that list, you'd reasonably assume that the front end diff amp is
the most likely cause of the fault, yet a mere 200 out of 1,200 people
tell you that is the cause.

If you asked me, I'd say: None of them. It's one of the varistors in the
output stage. For safety, replace all 4 (two in each output stage)

Who're you gonna trust? The guys that offer a completely plausible
reason, based on no experience? Or the one, lone opinion, from the guy
who knows the 2325 back to front and inside out?

You really can't have it both ways, Trevor. Either you must believe that
everyone involved in researching, processing and presenting the data
needs to be qualified in a branch of science at least *related* to
climatology in order for them to be authoritative on the subject, or
not. You cannot embrace both cases equally, and use each one as the
fancy takes you, to refute whatever arguments in that regard, are put to
you by various people.

**I believe you've misread what I wrote. I'll take the rap for not
stating my case with adequate precision. Sorry.