Global Warming Funding
|Jan11-07, 07:38 PM||#1|
Global Warming Funding
Quite a while ago, someone posted a flow-chart that showed how the "global warming lie" is repeatedly supported (one bubble being that scientists need funding for their research)
I was wondering if anyone remember/knows of it and could dig it up and post it here for me. I'm not sure whether it was factual or comical, but it was interesting.
|Jan12-07, 02:13 AM||#2|
Might that have been this?
http://www.john-daly.com/history.htm (fig 1/2)
Proving the positive scaremongering feedback loop, you can see here that AGW got a strong boost with the discovery of the CO2 spike in the ice cores. Many details here
Then it became clear that the lagging of CO2 to isotope spikes (widely erroneously interpreted as paleo temperature), was not a strong case for causation, so the positive feedback was invented, but lags of over 1000 years cannot be taken seriously. Moreover research has not been able to reproduce this positive feedback. So nobody believes anymore that CO2 caused icing periods to end. It's cristal clear that the CO2 spikes are a reaction to something. Nevertheless it is still widely used in the indoctrination like here:
The scholars of global warming should realize that this lagging has taken away most of the cause for the global warming idea and that initial positive proof turned against it as positive refutation. That's how Karl Poppers science should work. That it doesn't work like this, proofs that Richard Courtney was right with his positive feedback loop of desire to be scared and scaremongering.
the lagging of CO2 to isotopes during the last Glacial termination.
data source: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/iceco...pica_data.html
|Jan13-07, 02:58 PM||#4|
Global Warming Funding
Well, I guess there are a few engineers here, with experience in system respons to feedback who could give their opinion of the possible feedback effects of the green lagging CO2 to the blue leading isotopes.
From what I know about system respons, i'd say, given the constant lag without signs of transitions, the whole thing is probably flawed and we are looking at something completely different.
See the problem areas:
Also when the CO2 was providing feedback why could the isotopes drop suddenly at those positions without the feedback fighting it, which would have required something of a smooth curved transition.
|Jan13-07, 07:11 PM||#5|
Local variations? External unseen mechanism? I dunno I despise isotope records and keep my distance. Different isotopes do unpredictable things and everyone is arguing about it in each conceivable direction, I keep my distance.
"this is a proxy for this"
"yes but this is a proxy for that too and this says something contradictory"
"ahhhh but did you collect samples every 0.0000005 mm"
"bla blah blah"
That said, they do agree about global warming (on a broad scale) and to be honest CO2 is not exactly the be all and end all. Yeah it's a greenhouse gas and yes it warms up the planet as greenhouse gases tend to do, but it's not the only thing that matters, of course it's going to be more complicated than a nice proportionality relationship a dog could understand. So what??
|Jan14-07, 07:52 AM||#6|
Well as said the CO2- d18O (dD) proxies in their shapes show a very tight relationships if we shift scales a bit like here.
But system response of higher order semi linear close loop feedback systems with substantial lag is completely different and most certainly not a lateral lagging duplicating echo of the apparant input. System response examples here. That's why there should also be engineers in the climatology branch.
How about the time scale? In Greenland it's simple, the annual ice layers clearly show. But Antarctica this is not so, due to the low accumulation rate. At only a moderate depth in the core the annual layers merge under the gigantic pressure of the overlaying ice. So, instead, a multitude of tricks is used to establish dating, like tuning 10Be spikes of known ages or dated tephra layers etc giving a few odd hard dating points but how do you wiggle the rest in between?
I believe that the strong correlation between isotopes values and layer accumulation seen elsewhere in Greenland, is used as a given to reconstruct the dating in between.
But when the annual layers still can be counted in the upper part of the EPICA ice core some 5000 years, we see a good but far from ideal 100% correlation:
Blue is annual layer thickness relative to the trend (detrended), red is dD isotope permil values also relative to the trend.
(incidentally, notice the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice age perfectly showing in the last 1300 year)
So the assumption of 100% correlation between moisture and isotopes, used to calculate layer thickness will introduce a dating error.
The second big problem is the ice age - gas ice difference as initial open snow /ice at the surface permits air to diffuse in, refreshing the old captured air. Consequently, in the open phase (firn), the first 80-100 meter, the air is much younger than the ice. Typical for Antarctica summit domes is 1000-5000 years. it goes without saying that establishing the correct gas age (matching all kind of spikes) also causes errors.
Seeing the near identical shape of both isotopes and CO2 graphs and taking into account system response characteristics, my guess is that both are simultaneous reactions to another cause and the lagging is simply artefact due to erroneous assumptions.
|Oct29-08, 05:51 AM||#7|
Who would fund a practical solution to control global temperature?
|Similar discussions for: Global Warming Funding|
|Global warming- Yes or no?||Earth||12|