Australian Politics Forum - Climate Change Discussion and Questions

Paella Senior Member Offline OzPolitic Posts: 290	Re: Climate Change Discussion and Questions Reply #270 - Feb 9^th, 2010 at 5:32pm Soren wrote on Feb 9^th, 2010 at 1:42pm: But kibbitzing is OK, presumably. Yes, it's fine. But only for those who can spell it.
Back to top	IP Logged

Soren Gold Member Offline Posts: 25654 Gender:	Re: Climate Change Discussion and Questions Reply #271 - Feb 9^th, 2010 at 6:03pm Paella wrote on Feb 9^th, 2010 at 5:32pm: Soren wrote on Feb 9^th, 2010 at 1:42pm: But kibbitzing is OK, presumably. Yes, it's fine. But only for those who can spell it. There you go, arguing with a sceptic already! Your principles didn't last long. Shall we move on to smokking?
Back to top	IP Logged

skippy. Gold Member Offline Posts: 20882 Gender:	Re: Climate Change Discussion and Questions Reply #272 - Feb 10^th, 2010 at 7:45am Quote: Shall we move on to smokking? My mother makes a lovely smok, shes very good at sewing.
Back to top	freedivers other forum- POLITICAL ANIMAL Click onWWW below IP Logged

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: Climate Change Discussion and Questions
Reply #273 - Feb 10^th, 2010 at 7:47am

Soren wrote on Feb 9^th, 2010 at 6:03pm:

Paella wrote on Feb 9^th, 2010 at 5:32pm:

Soren wrote on Feb 9^th, 2010 at 1:42pm:

But kibbitzing is OK, presumably.

Yes, it's fine. But only for those who can spell it.

There you go, arguing with a sceptic already! Your principles didn't last long.

Shall we move on to smokking?

Back to top

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Climate Change Discussion and Questions
Reply #274 - Feb 10^th, 2010 at 7:48am

Soren wrote on Feb 9^th, 2010 at 2:14pm:

You are saying that by way of Chatelier's Principles of chemical equilibrium, since 1920, the after-effect of previous warmings (CO2) can become the cause of warming. At last, a 'retrospective cause'.

Because as every schoolboy knows, it's really a balance of warming and CO2 when you sit on the climate see-saw, it's only these two things that need to be in the equation. One way or another, it's gotta be that 8000 gigatonnes of CO2. That's an awful lot of lollies, even if it only means less than 0.05% of the total atmospheric gases.

OK. You don't understand equilibria.

Let's take the oxygen in the atmosphere as an example. Does the oxygen cause arboreal life, or does arboreal life cause oxygen?
OK - according to your logic, you can't have it both ways. Either the oxygen causes life, or life causes oxygen - which is it to be? In natural systems, very few things are simply black and white cause and effect. Most things are in a state of equilibrium or balance. However, if you add something to the system, it is possible to shift the balance.

It's just as meaningless a question as trivialising the CO2/ temperature relationship into cause and effect. Throughout pre-industrial history, sometimes CO2 and other greenhouse gases have caused temperature rise, and sometimes increased energy output from the sun has warmed the oceans (and land) causing the release of CO2 into the atmosphere. This has almost always been a slow process, except for certain cataclysmic events.

Can you take your debating hat off for a moment and see if you understand that?

Back to top

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Climate Change Discussion and Questions
Reply #275 - Feb 10^th, 2010 at 7:54am

Everybody makes typos and grammatical errors. Let's not go there Typo's and spelling are not really relevant to the topic.

By the way, I choose to spell skeptic with a k because I spend a lot of time on international forums. It's like 'civilization' instead of 'civilisation'. It wouldn't surprise me if these words became alternative spellings in the next Macquarie dictionary.

Back to top

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

Darwin Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 1037	Re: Climate Change Discussion and Questions Reply #276 - Feb 10^th, 2010 at 7:58am Soren doesn't dare actually look at the evidence because it might mean he has to change his comfortable rut. You can bring a Soren to evidence but you can't make him think!
Back to top	IP Logged

skippy. Gold Member Offline Posts: 20882 Gender:	Re: Climate Change Discussion and Questions Reply #277 - Feb 10^th, 2010 at 7:58am Quote: Everybody makes typos and grammatical errors. Let's not go there Typo's and spelling are not really relevant to the topic Did somebody make a typo? I never noticed.
Back to top	freedivers other forum- POLITICAL ANIMAL Click onWWW below IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Climate Change Discussion and Questions
Reply #278 - Feb 10^th, 2010 at 8:03am

Soren wrote on Feb 9^th, 2010 at 2:14pm:

And when was the climate in 'natural equilibrium'?

Ever since there was life on this planet. As I said, you fail to understand the term equilibrium. An equilibrium doesn't imply that nothing changes. You can change the inputs and shift an equilibrium. That's what we're talking about here.

Quote:

Applying equilibrium principles to the climate, it would mean that even though in the past Gaia increased her CO2 output in response to warming, now she is increasing her temperature in response to CO2. For the first time ever.

No- not for the first time. You are not paying attention. Re-read my post 233 - in particular this:

Quote:

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.

Back to top

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: Climate Change Discussion and Questions
Reply #279 - Feb 10^th, 2010 at 8:06am

muso wrote on Feb 10^th, 2010 at 7:48am:

[quote author=soren2 link=1247905174/255#269 date=1265688885]

Throughout pre-industrial history, sometimes CO2 and other greenhouse gases have caused temperature rise.

50 million years ago the planet was quite a different place.

My understanding is that in the last few hundred thousand years this was never the case, CO2 always lagged behind temperature rises. In other words, warmings and coolings continued to happen on an Earth recognisably like the present one, and in each case CO2 lagged, not drove, warming. Turn it around - CO2 increases came at tghe END of warming per iods, seemingly at the sam tim as warming slowed or stopped.
This is why in the 70s a cooling was predicted.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Feb 10^th, 2010 at 8:11am by Soren »

IP Logged

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: Climate Change Discussion and Questions
Reply #280 - Feb 10^th, 2010 at 8:20am

Darwin wrote on Feb 10^th, 2010 at 7:58am:

Soren doesn't dare actually look at the evidence because it might mean he has to change his comfortable rut.

You can bring a Soren to evidence but you can't make him think!

Au contraire. I have stopped to think and found the evidence unconvincing. You and millions like you, have had the thinking done for you and accepted whatever you have accepted, on authority.

Put it down to my education, my brush with Kuhn and Feyerabend, my dislike of fads and herds - I could not but remain unconvinced when presented with such an insistent, monomaniacal hypothesis about something so complex and only partially understood. In addition, I got a glimpse of the hoof of activist political opportunists and now honour demands it that I do not join the ranks of the bleeting, nodding, preening multitude. Not my kind of crowd.

Back to top

IP Logged

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: Climate Change Discussion and Questions
Reply #281 - Feb 10^th, 2010 at 8:40am

muso wrote on Feb 10^th, 2010 at 7:48am:

Soren wrote on Feb 9^th, 2010 at 2:14pm:

You are saying that by way of Chatelier's Principles of chemical equilibrium, since 1920, the after-effect of previous warmings (CO2) can become the cause of warming. At last, a 'retrospective cause'.

Because as every schoolboy knows, it's really a balance of warming and CO2 when you sit on the climate see-saw, it's only these two things that need to be in the equation. One way or another, it's gotta be that 8000 gigatonnes of CO2. That's an awful lot of lollies, even if it only means less than 0.05% of the total atmospheric gases.

OK. You don't understand equilibria.

I understand the concept of equilibrium. I just don't accept that Chatelier's bizzo is applicable to warming/CO2 because, just to give you the simplest reason, warming and CO2 are not the simple see-saw AGW would like to make it out to be.

To put it in a more complex and verbose way (so even you'll understand it

) the chemical equilibrium you would like to press into service is applicable only to stable, static chemical systems. The data does not support, even by IPCC-scale stretch of the imagination, any close correlation between CO2 and warming that a principle of equilibrium would predict.
APplying warming/CO2 equilibrium to the complex and often chaotic planetary climate, is hopelessly, hopelessly reductionist, which is a goodish hallmark of the AGW way of seeing things. Like weighing bananas and giving rat's the once over with a thermometer, or drinking poison. It will appeal only to the impressionable who are clamouring for 'climate action now'.

Back to top

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Climate Change Discussion and Questions
Reply #282 - Feb 10^th, 2010 at 8:55am

Soren wrote on Feb 10^th, 2010 at 8:06am:

My understanding is that in the last few hundred thousand years this was never the case, CO2 always lagged behind temperature rises.

Your understanding is based on reading articles on contrarian sites without examining the data yourself. Sometimes it leads, and sometimes it lags. Do you dispute that, or do I have to show you the data?

The full temperature change during an ice age can not be explained by solar irradiance alone. It is amplified by CO2 and water vapour. It's not as black and white as you want to paint it. Nothing in natural systems is.

- and I explained that before too.

(By the way - is your understanding based on temperature proxies? I didn't think you liked models

)

Back to top

« Last Edit: Feb 10^th, 2010 at 9:00am by muso »

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: Climate Change Discussion and Questions
Reply #283 - Feb 10^th, 2010 at 9:12am

muso wrote on Feb 10^th, 2010 at 8:55am:

It's not as black and white as you want to paint it. Nothing in natural systems is.

You do remind me of Lestat sometimes.

It was my line that climate is not as simple as a static chemical status quo, where your Chatelier's bizzo would apply. I was telling YOU that the climate is complex and chaotic
ANd you turn around and tell me that I am simplistic? Tell us about your trip to Africa, Captain!

Back to top

IP Logged

Paella

Senior Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 290

Re: Climate Change Discussion and Questions
Reply #284 - Feb 10^th, 2010 at 1:04pm

I thought the Media Watch report on press coverage of Christopher Monckton's visit was excellent:

http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s2813459.htm

Imagine if someone from the IPCC was caught out, claiming to be quoting from a report they have in their possession, when it can be demonstrated that the report doesn't even exist!

Back to top

IP Logged