mozzaok wrote on Jan 26^th, 2010 at 10:47am:


Are you trying to say that soren is producing a smokescreen?

muso wrote on Jan 26^th, 2010 at 1:21pm:



Rates of change, dear boy, rates of change, and their respective effects.

Sunny_beach_babe wrote on Jan 25^th, 2010 at 11:28pm:


Please supply your definition of "logic" and "Marvel".

Soren wrote on Jan 27^th, 2010 at 12:11pm:


Not quite. I just gave a short discussion of the papers presented, which showed that even a 30% change was close to the uncertainty of measurement.

It's not the figure of 6% or 30% that's significant, it's whether or not we can tell if that figure is reliable or not, and that comes down to the  precision of the measurement. Intuitively, it would make sense that a 30% change in the flow rate of the GS  should have a significant effect in the weather in NW Europe, however if we are not capable of measuring it with any degree of confidence, we can't draw any such conclusion. The jury is still out on it.  The most we can say is that it's 'quite possible'.


Quote:


I know what you said, but for a start, you're simplifying what I meant. I meant that a change of 30% is really not quantifiable using the techniques in the original paper. So it wouldn't matter whether it was 6% or 30% - you might as well say x percent, where we don't really know what that value is.  

Quote:


There are several things that add up to a causal relationship. One is the basic underlying physics, the second is the accuracy with which we can determine the rise in CO2 level (very accurate) and the third is the confirmation in terms of measurements - the decreasing Long wave radiation as measured from orbit which demonstrates that more and more heat energy is being retained by the Earth's atmosphere. This is an effect called teh greenhouse effect, which is well understood.  

Quote:


Once again soren, nobody is claiming that it's all one way**  Heat the oceans and you release some CO2, cool the oceans and you absorb more CO2. It's a two-way relationship. The difference between the pre-industrial past and the present day is that there was nobody adding CO2 to the atmosphere at that time, and there were a lot more buffers, such as rainforests, that acted as a sink.  

Quote:


Incorrect. The Milankovich orbital changes in the Earth's orbit could not account for all the temperature changes during the ice ages and interglacials. The greenhouse gases (mainly CO2 and water) contributed to the effect and in fact dominated the effect.

It is correct to say that CO2 did not trigger the warmings in the last million years or so,  but it definitely contributed to them. In fact it can be shown that  greenhouse gas forcing was the dominant factor in the magnitude of the ultimate changes during these periods.
 
Quote:


Again, you're ignoring the fact that different gases absorb IR radiation to different extents.  Where it matters, water vapour and CO2 both absorb and re-emit IR radiation and contribute to the greenhouse effect in a quantifiable way.

You don't dispute that the Earth has a greenhouse effect - do you? That's what keeps the Earth at a much higher temperature than what it would be otherwise. That greenhouse effect is caused by well-known greenhouse gases.




Then I provide data to knock that hypothesis down in flames.



In fact, marriage is a two-way relationship, just like CO2 and temperature.  

As the French say "L'homme propose, et femme dispose"

Soren wrote on Jan 27^th, 2010 at 4:53pm:


Good. I'm glad that at least some of my explanation is not falling on deaf ears.

Quote:


Have you ever heard of Le Chatelier's Principle? It's more commonly applied to chemical reactions, but in many real-life situations, reactions and effects are reversible. The Global Temperature / atmospheric CO2  relationship is such an equilibrium situation.  Increase the CO2, the temperature rises, but increase the temperature (for example by increases in solar irradiance, and CO2 is released from the Oceans, increasing the atmospheric concentration.

In geological history there have been occasions where sharp rises in temperature were initiated and driven by large spikes in greenhouse gases, similar to the fossil fuel emissions spike of today. The Paleocene Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM) is an example.

Roughly 55 million years ago, ocean pH levels dropped drastically and global temperatures rapidly rose over 5 degrees. The resolution of available proxy records indicates that this occurred in a period of time no longer than 5000 years. It's not possible to know if it happened even faster. It could have. The likely cause was massive releases of methane from the ocean floors, perhaps due to some smaller warming or changes in sea level. It took over 100,000 years for the ocean, atmosphere, and temperatures to return to their previous state. The result was a mass extinction event that took millions of years to recover from.

Another example was the massive volcanic eruption of the Deccan traps around the end of the Cretaceous Period (around 65 billion years ago).  This was a basaltic eruption of massive proportions (a sizeable part of India). It released vast quantities of CO2, but no significant levels of particulates or SO2. Basaltic eruptions tend to be much less violent than Acid volcanoes (eg Mt Pinatubo). The lava is much more liquid and there is no pressure build up and subsequent explosion, associated with the latter.

That the Deccan traps substantially changed atmospheric composition and drastically altered the climate is well established. That it caused the extinction of the dinosaurs is less clear.  


Quote:


True, but all you need is a cold night for the water to drop out of the atmosphere. That doesn't happen with CO2, and the warming effect from extra CO2 goes on to increase average atmospheric water content.  


Quote:


I think I already answered that already in talking about the Deccan traps and the PETM. It's not really a useful question. What is more to the point is the well established causal relationship between CO2 and warming today. We know that we are increasing the atmospheric CO2 concentration. We can measure it very accurately and determine its source by analysis of its isotopes, and we can determine how much warming it causes and how much this effect is amplified by water and other feedbacks - all by closely monitoring the Earth.

There have been other effects in past prehistory that have had as marked an effect on the Earth as the current fossil fuel burning spike, but pondering the matter, I think we'd know if we had a massive traps type eruption somewhere on Earth,  or some other cataclysmic event such as the type that have caused such warming events in the past.

These past events had entirely different causes.

When it comes to Anthropogenic Global Warming, we have caught Colonel Mustard in the drawing room plunging a knife into the heart of Sweet Fanny Adams. It's pretty conclusive. Just because there have been other murders in the past in the same village by another villain (sic) doesn't mean that he was the one who did the dastardly deed this time around.

Can't you see the lack of logic in your argument? - There have been past historical warmings, so AGM is crap? Same principle as Colonel Mustard. Colonel Mustard is guilty as hell and he can't worm out of it this time around. It's an inevitable conclusion.  

muso wrote on Jan 28^th, 2010 at 9:16am:



So for eons the climate changed for entirely different reasons. We come on the scene and in 30 years we set in motion catastrophic changes never seen before - by increasing CO2 from 0.0280% to 0.0380 % - and not even all of that increase is due to us. And all that simply because a third of the popultion lives in evil conumer societies instead of freezing thir arses off in winter and getting by on pedalling a richshaw for 23 and a half hours a day.


Quote:



Where do you get these completely inane, off-the-wall, absolutely irrelevant yet menacing analogies? Are you sublimating honey turnover and lettuce deprivation?...

I had my suspicion who Marvel was, but now it's obvious. Don't bother posting any more here Marvel/DT/IQISNIL, because your posts will be deleted.

muso wrote on Jan 29^th, 2010 at 8:16am:


Yes you did explain it. Many times in fact. But that's the dilemma of trying to explain in a genuine sensible fashion sophisticated ideas with Sophists who deliberately mislead and "misunderstand".  The whole "comparing percetages of different things" (ocean flow/Co2 was hilarious...reminded me of wishy washy Christian Science confusionalism, lies that are just clever enough to sound valid to the uncritical thinker).

But at least each stupid point raised that recieves a sensible reply helps me understand things a little better. The boy is tenacious though. And each time I think to myself.."Surely, he can't be serious"