The truth at last

rb608 wrote:

I'm not willing to have my family shiver in a
cold house or sit in the dark for a .005% difference.

but 300 million (or 3 billion) making a .005 (percent?) difference equals??

jeff (in awe of engineers, math, and the atmosphere...but it has been
uncommonly warm in nc recently based on my 56 years of anecdotal experience)

" wrote in
ups.com:

On Mar 13, 4:17 pm, Scott Seidman wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote in
news:wcDJh.7140 :

I don't know, but if the historical, all-time high before the
industrial age is ~300 ppm and there is now 379 ppm (and growing)
I'd venture a wild guess and say some of it anyway. Maybe one of
these days we can talk the CO2 molecules into wearing little name
tags while we count them so we can tell "natural" from "human". ;-)

I can't find any reviews of the physics underlying the ice core data,
but the idea that we can melt ice and "know" the CO2 history of the
planet grates on me.

Can anyone in the know tell me for certain that there wouldn't be
Fickian diffusion of the gas throughout the core over the course of
hundreds of thousands of years. Even very slow diffusion adds up,
and it will smooth out the bumps in the CO2 record, flattening out
highs and lows.

I honestly don't know the answer, but it certainly is one of the
things I'd ask about if I were refereeing. I'd almost guarantee that
the climatologists who wrote the original Nature paper (cited more
than 1,200 times!) don't know, either, and neither would the
climatologists solicited for peer review.

--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

I've been looking for reviews of that too. Let me know if you find
it,
I haven't had any luck.
- Ken



Just in case anyone else wants to sit down with google scholar, the
original article is

Nature 399, 429-436 (3 June 1999) | doi:10.1038/20859; Received 20
January 1999; Accepted 14 April 1999
Climate and atmospheric history of the past 420,000 years from the Vostok
ice core, Antarctica

J. R. Petit1, J. Jouzel2, D. Raynaud1, N. I. Barkov3, J.-M. Barnola1, I.
Basile1, M. Bender4, J. Chappellaz1, M. Davis5, G. Delaygue2, M.
Delmotte1, V. M. Kotlyakov6, M. Legrand1, V. Y. Lipenkov3, C. Lorius1, L.
PÉpin1,1, C. Ritz1, E. Saltzman5 and M. Stievenard2

I'm zeroing in on some of the other issues:

# CRAIG, H, GRAVITATIONAL SEPARATION OF GASES AND ISOTOPES IN POLAR ICE
CAPS, SCIENCE 242: 1675 (1988).[Abstract/Free Full Text]

# RAYNAUD, D, THE ICE RECORD OF GREENHOUSE GASES, SCIENCE 259: 926
(1993).

# RAYNAUD, D, SCIENCE 260: 1411 (1993).[Free Full Text]

# SCHWANDER, J, THE AGE OF THE AIR IN THE FIRN AND THE ICE AT SUMMIT,
GREENLAND, JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH-ATMOSPHERES 98: 2831 (1993).



I just printed out Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
Vol. 94, pp. 8343–8349, August 1997
Colloquium Paper
This paper was presented at a colloquium entitled ‘‘Carbon Dioxide and
Climate Change,’’ organized by Charles D.
Keeling, held November 13–15, 1995, at the National Academy of Sciences,
Irvine, CA.
Gases in ice cores
MICHAEL BENDER*, TODD SOWERS†, AND EDWARD BROOK*‡

This has a section on "The Physics of Gases in Glaciers" I must admit I
thought gases had two s's!
Long section, but:
"The diffusivity of an element or compound decreases with
increasing mass and increasing atomic or molecular diameter.
Thus each element or compound diffuses at a different rate,
and each isotope of a compound diffuses at a different rate. In
consequence, the covariation between the composition of one
gas and another (e.g., CO2 and CH4) in firn is different from
their historical covariation in air. The isotopic composition of
a gas (e.g., CO2) in firn air also varies with the concentration
of that gas in a way that is different from the historical
relationship. The concentrations of gases and isotopes that
diffuse most rapidly will be closest to their current atmospheric
concentrations. Because light isotopes diffuse more rapidly,
the concentration of a gas in firn air will be more depleted in
heavy isotopes than was the atmosphere at the time it had the
same concentration as a firn air sample. Differential diffusivity
is a first-order effect that must be taken into account when
interpreting data on the concentration and isotopic composition
of gases in firn air and ice cores (7)."

What it seems to come down to is that there's a relatively complex
inverse model of all this stuff that needs to be applied. As inverse
models are often ill-posed, of course, it's not clear to me that the
pristine state of the atmosphere can be recovered.




--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

On Mar 13, 3:20 pm, wrote:

Now, see, if you didn't start with comical lies like this:

I was curious to see what the hell caused 70-something replies in a few
hours, so I read a few of them...

And finish with ever so tedious crap like this:

And whatever the case, Al and his
Gorons are as full of **** as a Christmas goose.

it might be easy for someone (who could almost certainly find more
imaginative ways to waste time) to be tempted to take the vapid
maunderings between seriously.

Thank you. Thank you SO much for making it SO easy for SO many.

Wolfgang
who begins to worry that even if the boy ever DOES discover that he
has something to say, it won't be worth the bother for anyone
concerned.

Scott Seidman wrote:

Ken Fortenberry wrote in
t:


Scott Seidman wrote:

The answer is, of course, no. The same bunch of scientists who are
suggesting we need to change our lifestyles to counter global warming
are unwilling to put a firm estimate on how much our lifestyles
contribute to global warming.

More unable than unwilling, I imagine. So the crystal ball isn't
perfect, it's still better to do something than nothing. Reducing
greenhouse gases certainly won't make the problem worse but it
might make the situation a little better.




Or it might not. My agnosticism might damn me to hell if there really is a
God. Should I thus believe, because its thus the safest option?

pascal g... it's a gamble. (did you read the times piece on "darwin's
god"?) frequently the safest option (assuming "safe" to be a positive,
beneficial quality) is the best choice...no? what harm in the safe
choice? and, i've come to the opinion you're damned to hell whether
there's a god or not.


You don't undertake a massive infrastructure change in the name of the
environment because it "might" help.

what is the "massive infrastructure"? changing from incandescent bulbs?
turning off your computer? turning the thermostat down several degrees?

You sink your resources into what
careful analysis shows stands a reasonable chance of success. Of course,
while all this analysis is going on, you don't stop turning off the lights
in empty rooms.


ok... it's a start...


I'm a little sensitive these days, watching the steamroller of alternative
fuels barreling over town planning and zoning boards.


politics... it's confounding and confabulating. but isn't there
something decent and right and sensible about alternative fuels
(assuming solar and wind are included as "fuels"... corn too)?

i've observed the horror of personal ideology, greed, and money
perverting science. still, there seem some things we can accept and do
about mankind's impact on global warming. what do you think will help?

jeff

wrote:

On Mar 13, 10:44 am, Scott Seidman
wrote:

Ken Fortenberry wrote . net:

More unable than unwilling, I imagine. So the crystal ball isn't
perfect, it's still better to do something than nothing. Reducing
greenhouse gases certainly won't make the problem worse but it
might make the situation a little better.

Or it might not. My agnosticism might damn me to hell if there really is a
God. Should I thus believe, because its thus the safest option?


That's actually used to convert the weak-minded. (See Pascal's Wager)
KenF should be appalled that he's using the same logical argument as
the fundies.
- Ken


well damn... i hadn't yet reached your post when i did the pascal ploy
on our friend scott... but, i disagree with the "weak-minded" ploy.
it's actually a strong argument in matters unscientific to say "what's
the harm", isn't it?

if you're going to bet on a potentially life-altering (or after-life)
issue, why not the safe wager?

"Old Guy" wrote in message
...
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Old Guy wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
That's what I thought, Mr. Guy. You're a one-trick pony. All you
got is the one crackpot video that impressed the hell out of you
and that should be enough to convince anybody. That's not the way
it works, Mr. Guy. Like I said, when you get some facts let me
know, until then you're just so much anonymous noise.

Yeah. Its a crackpot video because it disagrees with your POV. Keep
that mind of yours closed.

When you get some facts let me know, until then you're just so
much anonymous noise.



Let's not lose sight of the FACT that you're refusing to review the video.
Its only crackpot because it disagrees with your POV.

Please don't view the video. I'm having way too much fun observing
someone as closed-minded and narrow as you.

I watched or listened to 90% of the vid and found it to be just so much
Right-wing propaganda of the Lefts hatred of the advance of capitalist
progress.

Otherwise it was a great piece of Right-wing propaganda.

Op

On Mar 13, 5:54 pm, jeff wrote:
wrote:
That's actually used to convert the weak-minded. (See Pascal's Wager)
KenF should be appalled that he's using the same logical argument as
the fundies.
- Ken

well damn... i hadn't yet reached your post when i did the pascal ploy
on our friend scott... but, i disagree with the "weak-minded" ploy.
it's actually a strong argument in matters unscientific to say "what's
the harm", isn't it?

if you're going to bet on a potentially life-altering (or after-life)
issue, why not the safe wager?

I just can't help myself. What exactly is the "safe wager"
for the after-life?
- Ken

wrote:
On Mar 13, 5:54 pm, jeff wrote:

wrote:

That's actually used to convert the weak-minded. (See Pascal's Wager)
KenF should be appalled that he's using the same logical argument as
the fundies.
- Ken

well damn... i hadn't yet reached your post when i did the pascal ploy
on our friend scott... but, i disagree with the "weak-minded" ploy.
it's actually a strong argument in matters unscientific to say "what's
the harm", isn't it?

if you're going to bet on a potentially life-altering (or after-life)
issue, why not the safe wager?


I just can't help myself. What exactly is the "safe wager"
for the after-life?
- Ken


as we were talking about global warming, and the "safe wager" of
minimizing human contribution, causes, etc...

the "after-life" comment was meant only to be humorous reference to
pascal's wager...purely a tongue-in-cheek aside. ... some might say
it's the best or better bet...i chose safe because it seems to me a
wager grounded on "comfort".

....and... i doubt you can't help yourself. but, if you need solace,
there is always the "infinite nothing" alternative. g

your turn...

On 13 Mar 2007 20:35:20 -0700, "
wrote:

On Mar 13, 5:54 pm, jeff wrote:
wrote:
That's actually used to convert the weak-minded. (See Pascal's Wager)
KenF should be appalled that he's using the same logical argument as
the fundies.
- Ken

well damn... i hadn't yet reached your post when i did the pascal ploy
on our friend scott... but, i disagree with the "weak-minded" ploy.
it's actually a strong argument in matters unscientific to say "what's
the harm", isn't it?

if you're going to bet on a potentially life-altering (or after-life)
issue, why not the safe wager?

I just can't help myself. What exactly is the "safe wager"
for the after-life?
- Ken

Postulate that there is a god / are gods, but they're hidden, so we
ordinary mortals can't see any evidence of them.

If we turn agnostic, then the gods may blame us, but they may also be
understanding (doubtful, from all the god legends I've heard).
However, if we don't believe, but pretend to believe and the god /
gods are omniscient, I'd suspect that the pretense is going to be put
down as a black mark / flunk grade by said gods. And there's no doubt
whatever that black marks from gods tend to lead to bad experiences.
Most gods make the nastier of our last two presidents (choose
whichever one is opposite your party of preference.) look like sweetie
pies. You've got your choice of Arkansas State Troopers with guns and
billy clubs and Vince Foster versus Gitmo and the military prisons in
Iraq for starters.

There's no way pretending to believe comes off as a safe or secure
option as far as I can see.

My safe bet for after death is decomposition, just like any other
animal or virus or plant or rock. If I wake up to something else,
I'll be one surprized chickie. Because I can't come up with any
philosophy / belief system that treats humans as any different than
any other form of living matter (or mineral, for that, too.) to me.

--

r.bc: vixen
Minnow goddess, Speaker to squirrels, willow watcher.
Almost entirely harmless. Really.

http://www.visi.com/~cyli

Cyli wrote:

On 13 Mar 2007 20:35:20 -0700, "
wrote:


On Mar 13, 5:54 pm, jeff wrote:

wrote:

That's actually used to convert the weak-minded. (See Pascal's Wager)
KenF should be appalled that he's using the same logical argument as
the fundies.
- Ken

well damn... i hadn't yet reached your post when i did the pascal ploy
on our friend scott... but, i disagree with the "weak-minded" ploy.
it's actually a strong argument in matters unscientific to say "what's
the harm", isn't it?

if you're going to bet on a potentially life-altering (or after-life)
issue, why not the safe wager?

I just can't help myself. What exactly is the "safe wager"
for the after-life?
- Ken


Postulate that there is a god / are gods, but they're hidden, so we
ordinary mortals can't see any evidence of them.

If we turn agnostic, then the gods may blame us, but they may also be
understanding (doubtful, from all the god legends I've heard).
However, if we don't believe, but pretend to believe and the god /
gods are omniscient, I'd suspect that the pretense is going to be put
down as a black mark / flunk grade by said gods. And there's no doubt
whatever that black marks from gods tend to lead to bad experiences.
Most gods make the nastier of our last two presidents (choose
whichever one is opposite your party of preference.) look like sweetie
pies. You've got your choice of Arkansas State Troopers with guns and
billy clubs and Vince Foster versus Gitmo and the military prisons in
Iraq for starters.

There's no way pretending to believe comes off as a safe or secure
option as far as I can see.

My safe bet for after death is decomposition, just like any other
animal or virus or plant or rock. If I wake up to something else,
I'll be one surprized chickie. Because I can't come up with any
philosophy / belief system that treats humans as any different than
any other form of living matter (or mineral, for that, too.) to me.


one of the criticisms of the wager. still, developing a pretense wasn't
the goal of the wager though. ...