Australian Politics Forum - Why is this statement true, but irrelevant?

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Why is this statement true, but irrelevant?
Reply #150 - Nov 24^th, 2009 at 8:52am

Soren wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2009 at 2:42pm:

Blood alcohol: a very silly analogy, the type that gives a bad name to AGW. The heart of the dispute, the scepticism, is NOT whether we are putting alcohol/CO2 into the blood/atmosphere. That is a matter of measurement.

I didn't notice that before. I'm glad that you finally recognize that.

Now does that mean that you agree with the concerns about the falling ocean pH and the reducing rates of calcification in marine organisms? - because that is a direct consequence of the rising CO2 levels, not the temperature rise. In some ways, the rising temperatures will actually mitigate that effect (increased temperature desorbs some CO2 from the oceans). In other ways (coral bleaching etc) it will not.

- And that is a far more imminent threat than global warming.

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: Why is this statement true, but irrelevant? Reply #151 - Nov 24^th, 2009 at 9:08am Yes, the ocean acifification is attacking the marine food pyramid. As CO2 levels in the atmosphere keep rising the equilibrium level of CO2 also rises so increasing oceanic warmth will not reduce acidification.
Back to top	IP Logged

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: Why is this statement true, but irrelevant?
Reply #152 - Nov 24^th, 2009 at 9:20am

muso wrote on Nov 24^th, 2009 at 8:06am:

Soren wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2009 at 6:04pm:

So you are suggesting that this basic property of CO2 is your reason for declaring human CO2 to be the cause of global warming?

I have not seen any other cause suggested by you or othres.

I don't know if you're being deliberately obtuse. I have probably been simplifying this too much.

The basic property of CO2 to absorb infrared is the first part. This is the effect that traps a greater proportion of the heat in the troposphere.

We know that it absorbs IR and we can monitor that by satellite.
We know how much we put there (from source and isotopes).

We also know how much extra water vapour will / has been partitioned into the atmosphere as a result of the temperature rise due to CO2 and can do a back calculation to confirm the climate sensitivity of about 3 degrees per doubling of CO2. Approximately 1 degree of this rise is due to the CO2 itself, while the other 2 degrees are due to the water vapour.

As a confirmation, we can look at the paleoclimate record from ice core data and we can confirm that this relationship between temperature and CO2 has applied over the last 850,000 years or so.

Over the years, various workers have conducted independent work that show varying levels of climate sensitivity, centred on about 3 degrees for a doubling of CO2.

Here is an example of such a paper. It's well worth reading through it.

http://www.citebase.org/abstract?id=oai:arXiv.org:physics/0411002
http://www.citebase.org/abstract?id=oai:arXiv.org:physics/0411002

There is no linear correlation between CO2 and temperature increase. The greenhouse effect associated with CO2 is a logarithmic relationship - double the CO2 does not mean double the absorbtion or greenhouse effect. There is a rapid 'diminishing returns' effect.

ANd CO2 is a tiny part of the atmosphere, a small player in greenhouse effect; the atmosphere is only one player in the climate.

The shrill insistence that human can catastrophically alter the climate by doubling or even tripling one component of the atmosphere from 0.0280% to 0.0560% or 0.0840 % and that this will outweigh everything else that makes up the climate is a mania.

A Brooker points out: "One of the more suspicious features of the man-made global warming theory is the extraordinary pressure, which has been built up to insist the evidence for it is so overwhelming that it is a moral crime to question it."

And "The fact remains that the models on which the whole global warming panic was based have been proved dismally wrong, suggesting that the theory on which they were programmed may itself have been fundamentally flawed.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1230113/The-devastating-book-debunks-climate-change.html#ixzz0XjAkfiRd

Back to top

IP Logged

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: Why is this statement true, but irrelevant?
Reply #153 - Nov 24^th, 2009 at 9:32am

muso wrote on Nov 24^th, 2009 at 8:52am:

Soren wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2009 at 2:42pm:

Blood alcohol: a very silly analogy, the type that gives a bad name to AGW. The heart of the dispute, the scepticism, is NOT whether we are putting alcohol/CO2 into the blood/atmosphere. That is a matter of measurement.

I didn't notice that before. I'm glad that you finally recognize that.

Then you are a very careless reader. Very careless. Nobody has ever said that there is no human-made CO2 going into the atmosphere. If you are only now waking up to it then perhaps you should adjust the mindset from 'patronising' to ' what are they actually saying?' Much more scientific, to say the least.

Quote:

Now does that mean that you agree with the concerns about the falling ocean pH and the reducing rates of calcification in marine organisms? - because that is a direct consequence of the rising CO2 levels, not the temperature rise. In some ways, the rising temperatures will actually mitigate that effect (increased temperature desorbs some CO2 from the oceans). In other ways (coral bleaching etc) it will not.

- And that is a far more imminent threat than global warming.

SO we have been knotting our collective brows and pursing our lips with great, great concern over global cooling, warming, changing, justice- now the issue is that the colour in coral will run a little? Never mind saving the wales, what is a far more imminent threat is that in 10-20 years Nemo won't be camouflaged adequatly.

Back to top

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Why is this statement true, but irrelevant?
Reply #154 - Nov 24^th, 2009 at 10:10am

Soren wrote on Nov 24^th, 2009 at 9:32am:

SO we have been knotting our collective brows and pursing our lips with great, great concern over global cooling, warming, changing, justice- now the issue is that the colour in coral will run a little? Never mind saving the wales, what is a far more imminent threat is that in 10-20 years Nemo won't be camouflaged adequatly.

Don't you realise that it's a lot more that just coral bleaching? (In fact coral bleaching is an effect of temperature, not pH reduction. Now who's a careless reader?)

If the current decreasing trends in ocean pH hold up, coral reefs will not be able to maintain themselves. The erosion rate will exceed the growth rate. On current projections, this will happen in about 40 years time.

Do you realise what the implications are in terms of commercial fishing?

Apart from that, the reduction of calcification will have effects on other food chain organisms which will also have an impact on commercial fisheries. Fish are equipped with otoliths, which are balance organs which rely on calcification rates. If the otoliths can't grow at a sufficient rate, the fish will not survive.

Whole societies rely on harvests from the sea. Can't you see the implications of this?

You may choose to reduce it to 'save the whales', but the consequences are a lot more far reaching than that. Ultimately (and I haven't set a time scale on this statement), it could result in the extinction of life in the ocean, the removal of organisms which in themselves act as carbon sinks, and potentially, just one or two less understood consequences, such as global ocean anoxia.

Think clouds of toxic hydrogen sulfide gas (rotten egg gas) emanating from the oceans.

Back to top

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

IP Logged

Yadda

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 22850
A cat with a view

Re: Why is this statement true, but irrelevant?
Reply #155 - Nov 24^th, 2009 at 10:33am

muso wrote on Nov 24^th, 2009 at 10:10am:

You may choose to reduce it to 'save the whales', but the consequences are a lot more far reaching than that. Ultimately (and I haven't set a time scale on this statement), it could result in the extinction of life in the ocean
, the removal of organisms which in themselves act as carbon sinks, and potentially, just one or two less understood consequences, such as global ocean anoxia
.

Think clouds of toxic hydrogen sulfide gas (rotten egg gas) emanating from the oceans.

Silly Yadda, intrudes this thread with scripture [....AGAIN!!]. Wink

Revelation 8:9
And the third part of the creatures which were in the sea, and had life, died; and the third part of the ships were destroyed.

Revelation 16:3
And the second angel poured out his vial upon the sea; and it became as the blood of a dead man: and every living soul died in the sea.

Hmmmm, could global ocean anoxia cause all living things in the oceans to die???

In commiseration, can i offer ? ,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eyFiClAzq8

Back to top

"....And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."
Luke 16:31

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Why is this statement true, but irrelevant?
Reply #156 - Nov 24^th, 2009 at 10:38am

Soren wrote on Nov 24^th, 2009 at 9:20am:

There is no linear correlation between CO2 and temperature increase. The greenhouse effect associated with CO2 is a logarithmic relationship -

double the CO2 does not mean double the absorbtion

or greenhouse effect. There is a rapid 'diminishing returns' effect.

Once again, nobody is claiming that it's a linear effect. The effect is very subtle, and all those subtleties have been taken into account. Really Soren, don't you think climatologists don't understand basic physics?

OMG! Let's get real here. If we were talking about a doubling in the Energy absorbed, then we'd rapidly have a planet like Venus where the surface temperature is high enough to melt lead.

We're not talking about this at all. Please take a reality check, Soren. Roll Eyes

Quote:

ANd CO2 is a tiny part of the atmosphere, a small player in greenhouse effect; the atmosphere is only one player in the climate.

OK, soren- please list all the players in the climate, and what you understand to be their relative importance. You obviously have a good grasp on this. We already explained how tiny components can have huge impacts. 5 parts per million of copper in a lake system will kill all the fish. If you take Mercury, then you're talking parts per billion. Your statement is nonsensical when taken without applying some sort of context or reasoning behind it.

Quote:

The shrill insistence that human can catastrophically alter the climate by doubling or even tripling one component of the atmosphere from 0.0280% to 0.0560% or 0.0840 % and that this will outweigh everything else that makes up the climate is a mania.

What about the shrill insistence that most radiance heat is transferred by infrared radiation? Is that another shrill insistence? - or maybe the shrill insistence that a 1kg mass resting on the ground exerts a downwards force of 9.81 Newtons?

Quote:

A Brooker points out: "One of the more suspicious features of the man-made global warming theory is the extraordinary pressure, which has been built up to insist the evidence for it is so overwhelming that it is a moral crime to question it."

It's a moral crime not to question it. What do you think the thousands of research papers have been about, if not to question the whole idea?
That's what science is all about.

Quote:

And "The fact remains that the models on which the whole global warming panic was based have been proved dismally wrong, suggesting that the theory on which they were programmed may itself have been fundamentally flawed.

THe models have actually been confirmed time and time again. Modern models even take into account natural cycles such as ENSO and solar cycles.

Provide an example of where a modern climate model has been proved (your term, not mine) to be wrong.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Nov 24^th, 2009 at 10:54am by muso »

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: Why is this statement true, but irrelevant?
Reply #157 - Nov 24^th, 2009 at 10:52am

Yadda wrote on Nov 24^th, 2009 at 10:33am:

Silly Yadda, intrudes this thread with scripture [....AGAIN!!]. Wink

Revelation 8:9
And the third part of the creatures which were in the sea, and had life, died; and the third part of the ships were destroyed.

Revelation 16:3
And the second angel poured out his vial upon the sea; and it became as the blood of a dead man: and every living soul died in the sea.

Hmmmm, could global ocean anoxia cause all living things in the oceans to die???

Well done, Yadda Grin

See soren! - the Bible confirms this. Grin

Yadda - I listened to a program on ABC National at lunchtime yesterday in which a climatologist was explaining how different societies come to terms with the realities of climate change through their individual traditional mythologies.

As the more dire consequences start to take effect, I'm sure that there will be an increasing role for religion, so I don't think that your post is particularly out of place. Wink

I doubt if the world is going to be largely atheistic by 2050.

This link is especially for you:

http://www.christianecology.org/Stewardship.html/

Back to top

« Last Edit: Nov 24^th, 2009 at 11:06am by muso »

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

IP Logged

Yadda

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 22850
A cat with a view

Re: Why is this statement true, but irrelevant?
Reply #158 - Nov 24^th, 2009 at 11:06am

muso wrote on Nov 24^th, 2009 at 10:52am:

Yadda wrote on Nov 24^th, 2009 at 10:33am:

Silly Yadda, intrudes this thread with scripture [....AGAIN!!]. Wink

Revelation 8:9
And the third part of the creatures which were in the sea, and had life, died; and the third part of the ships were destroyed.

Revelation 16:3
And the second angel poured out his vial upon the sea; and it became as the blood of a dead man: and every living soul died in the sea.

Hmmmm, could global ocean anoxia cause all living things in the oceans to die???

Well done, Yadda Grin

See soren! - the Bible confirms this.
Grin

Yadda - I listened to a program on ABC National at lunchtime yesterday in which a climatologist was explaining how different societies come to terms with the realities of climate change through their individual traditional mythologies.

As the more dire consequences start to take effect, I'm sure that there is a role for religion, so I don't think that your post is particularly out of place. Wink

I doubt if the world is going to be largely atheistic by 2050.

LOL

Its OK though muso, coz someone up there is looking out for all of those ppl like me. Cheesy

....ALL THREE OF US! Grin

Matthew 24:21
For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.
22 And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened.

Wink

Back to top

« Last Edit: Nov 24^th, 2009 at 11:13am by Yadda »

"....And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."
Luke 16:31

IP Logged

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: Why is this statement true, but irrelevant?
Reply #159 - Nov 24^th, 2009 at 11:07am

muso wrote on Nov 24^th, 2009 at 10:38am:

We already explained how tiny components can have huge impacts. 5 parts per million of copper in a lake system will kill all the fish. If you take Mercury, then you're talking parts per billion. Your statement is nonsensical when taken without applying some sort of context or reasoning behind it.

Context or reasoning, you say?

Could it be that this is due to the strange fact that fish are not a copper or mercury based life form? Or am I just a fish-death denialist?

Back to top

IP Logged

muso Gold Member Offline Posts: 13151 Gladstone, Queensland Gender:	Re: Why is this statement true, but irrelevant? Reply #160 - Nov 24^th, 2009 at 11:09am Soren wrote on Nov 24^th, 2009 at 11:07am: Context or reasoning, you say? Could it be that this is due to the strange fact that fish are not a copper or mercury based life form? Or am I just a fish-death denialist? Picky, aren't you? - ok make that cyanide then - a carbon based toxin.
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: Why is this statement true, but irrelevant?
Reply #161 - Nov 24^th, 2009 at 11:19am

Yadda wrote on Nov 24^th, 2009 at 11:06am:

Matthew 24:21
For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.
22 And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened.

Do you think soren would qualify for the rapture? For the sake of my hair, it would be nice if he was whisked away. - and could you pray for that? Pray for my hair too if you like.

- or do you think he might just be my personal tormentor for being non-religious ? Grin

- the one who returns my rock down to the bottom of the hill when I think I've just about got it to the top?

Back to top

« Last Edit: Nov 24^th, 2009 at 11:30am by muso »

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

IP Logged

Yadda

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 22850
A cat with a view

Re: Why is this statement true, but irrelevant?
Reply #162 - Nov 24^th, 2009 at 11:30am

muso wrote on Nov 24^th, 2009 at 11:19am:

Yadda wrote on Nov 24^th, 2009 at 11:06am:

Matthew 24:21
For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.
22 And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened.

Do you think soren would qualify for the rapture? For the sake of my hair, it would be nice if he was whisked away. - and could you pray for that? Pray for my hair too if you like.

- or do you think he might just be my personal tormentor for being non-religious ?
Grin

- the one who returns my rock down to the bottom of the hill when I think I've just about got it to the top?

soren might just be your personal tormentor for being non-religious ?

Hmmm?

Yes, that makes a lot of sense to me muso. Grin

But then again, someone once said,

To live, is to suffer.

Bhudda

I think that the Bhudda was on the money.

Back to top

"....And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."
Luke 16:31

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Why is this statement true, but irrelevant?
Reply #163 - Nov 24^th, 2009 at 1:48pm

Ok, to complete my analogy of your way of thinking, we have a lake (Let's call it Baia Mare, and site it in Romania). We have a major fish kill in the said lake and you're the mine manager whose tailings dam burst its banks.

What have you to say for yourself Mr Soren?

- Well Cyanide is carbon based (true) and it is after all a plant food (true - calcium cyanide was actually used as a fertiliser in the 1950's) .

Apart from that, an independant laboratory has verified that there is only a tiny proportion of cyanide in the water (a mere 387 parts per billion). Are you telling me that such a tiny proportion 0.0000387 percent - an insignificant proportion of the entire lake of this plant food is responsible for killing those fish? There are many other things in that lake that could have killed the fish. Our laboratory tests proved quite conclusively that salt kills freshwater fish. Our analysis conclusively found significant quantities of salt in the Baia Mare. Now lacustrine toxicology is an extremely complex system, and we can't possibly account for all the variables concerned. Besides that, correlation does not imply causation. Please prove to me that those fish were killed by cyanide - you can't prove it.

However our best scientists have incontrovertible evidence that the fish also had a major biological defect. Their respiratory process was ultimately to blame. It's a basic weakness of the Krebs cycle, and we can prove that the terminal oxidase of the mytochondrial respiratory system, cytochrome c oxidase (1) was obviously genetically defective in that it caused an irreversible block of the electron chain reaction, resulting in an auto induced chemical asphyxiation. This resulted in the fatal death of the said endangered Romanian freshwater kipper fish. (nya nya)

(1) Pecina, P., Houstkova, H., Hansikova, H., Zeman, J., Houstek, J. (2004). Genetic Defects of Cytochrome c Oxidase Assembly. Physiol. Res. 53(Suppl. 1): S213-S223.

Now get your Leninist Atheist greenie ass out of my office! I shall write to my favourite Viscount about this. This is obviously a Maoist plot to confiscate the profits of my mine and share it with a number of muslim coutries in the third world. It's a commie-Islamic plot (and have I made my gratuitous gay or hand-wringing apologetics stereotypical references yet?).

You can't deny it. That's the real agenda here - isn't it - hmmm?

Back to top

« Last Edit: Nov 24^th, 2009 at 2:15pm by muso »

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

IP Logged

Soren Gold Member Offline Posts: 25654 Gender:	Re: Why is this statement true, but irrelevant? Reply #164 - Nov 24^th, 2009 at 2:48pm The fish are not dead. They are merely resting.
Back to top	IP Logged