Australian Politics Forum - Climate "Skepticism"

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: Climate "Skepticism"
Reply #30 - Apr 22^nd, 2010 at 1:09am

The other kinda catch in AGW is this: I am not aware of any accurate predictions so far by AGW proponents. So more 'mission have to be flown' in the form of more guesses are to be made about future events or trends, only to turn out as inaccurate as the ones before.

My prediction is this: these AGW predictions are inaccurate because they rely too heavily on the assumption that CO2 is the determinant factor in climate.
Why?
In accordance with scientific tradition, there would be a gentlemen's competition among cientists to disprove the CO2 induced AGW hypothesis. The greatest service one science can do for another is to work at falsifying his theory. But I am not aware of worldwide, well-regarded (and well-funded) efforts to falsify CO2 induced AGW. Instead, it is treated as heresy.

Whatever scientific consensus exists, it does not seem to be the result of years of pro and con research. It is the result of years of pro research reinforced by a lot of 'shuddapayourface' directed at those who would attempt to falsify it.

This is not science, it is groupthink. It also illustrates that there is no 'scientific conspiracy', only unwillingness by scientists to conduct research to falsify the theory: they would be treated as heretics rather than as gentlemen doing a great service for science.

This may also be a clue as to why it is mostly independent scientists outside climate departments who voice contrary views or if it's insiders, they tend to be the older, most senior profs, like Lindzen, who no longer need to rely on reserch grants and funding proposals for their jobs. If you are an active, mid-career researcher, what would you do? Face down the hysterics or get with the program?

Back to top

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Climate "Skepticism"
Reply #31 - Apr 22^nd, 2010 at 8:08am

Soren wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2010 at 1:09am:

My prediction is this: these AGW predictions are inaccurate because they rely too heavily on the assumption that CO2 is the determinant factor in climate.

CO2 is not the determinant factor in climate, Soren. Nobody is saying that. You're simplifying the case and creating a strawman in the process.

Greenhouse gases will probably end up being the determinant factor in the increase in temperature over the next 50/100 years or so.

However, if we have a chain of catastrophic volcanic explosions over the next 30 years, that could change the situation completely. If we had a comet impact, that could change it too. If we had a sudden fluctuation in solar output, that could also affect it. If we discovered a new source of energy that was cheap and didn't produce CO2, that could also change the prediction. All we have to go on is probability and the past climate history.

CO2 is also the main determinant factor in reduction of ocean pH at this point in time.

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 "Skepticism"
Reply #32 - Apr 22^nd, 2010 at 10:11am

muso wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2010 at 8:08am:

Soren wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2010 at 1:09am:

My prediction is this: these AGW predictions are inaccurate because they rely too heavily on the assumption that CO2 is the determinant factor in climate.

CO2 is not the determinant factor in climate, Soren. Nobody is saying that. You're simplifying the case and creating a strawman in the process.

Funny. Why is there a worldwide campaign to 'limit' (the hubris! the hubris!) global warming to 2 degrees by simply reducing CO2 emissions. What the hell was An Inconvenient Truth about? What was Copenhagen about?

Not about "catastrophic volcanic explosions over the next 30 years,' or "sudden fluctuation in solar output" or "a new source of energy ". It has always been only about CO2 emissions. We are not urged to transform our lives in case there are volcanic eruptions and/or solar flairups.

Back to top

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Climate "Skepticism"
Reply #33 - Apr 22^nd, 2010 at 10:43am

Soren wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2010 at 10:11am:

muso wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2010 at 8:08am:

Soren wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2010 at 1:09am:

My prediction is this: these AGW predictions are inaccurate because they rely too heavily on the assumption that CO2 is the determinant factor in climate.

CO2 is not the determinant factor in climate, Soren. Nobody is saying that. You're simplifying the case and creating a strawman in the process.

Funny. Why is there a worldwide campaign to 'limit' (the hubris! the hubris!) global warming to 2 degrees by simply reducing CO2 emissions. What the hell was An Inconvenient Truth about? What was Copenhagen about?

Not about "catastrophic volcanic explosions over the next 30 years,' or "sudden fluctuation in solar output" or "a new source of energy ". It has always been only about CO2 emissions. We are not urged to transform our lives in case there are volcanic eruptions and/or solar flairups.

Maybe because history has shown us that there is very little we can do about either of those less likely scenarios.

Maybe because greenhouse gas emissions (Including CO2) can be controlled, and we already possess the technology to limit their production.

I don't think there is any problem with attempting to control what we are capable of controlling - do you?

I was also objecting to the fact that you are equating total climate to a very specific aspect of climate/

Back to top

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

IP Logged

Paella

Senior Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 290

Re: Climate "Skepticism"
Reply #34 - May 4^th, 2010 at 5:32pm

P1ssed myself laughing watching Q&A last night ... and so did many in the audience, at Nick Minchin's numerous inane remarks. I particularly loved the way he brought up the East Angle issue. Hold on to it Nick, hold on to it for dear life. Surely there must be something in it for you!

Well probably not, but you'll sure as hell create plenty of amusement for us in the meantime.

Back to top

IP Logged

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: Climate "Skepticism"
Reply #35 - Jul 16^th, 2010 at 2:02pm

'It has been profoundly depressing to witness the way the so-called climate sceptics are, apparently, able to intimidate all sorts of people from adopting the precautionary measures necessary to avert environmental collapse,' he said...'People have heard the climate sceptics and attempted to listen to the kind of pseudo science they are peddling.'

HRH PC

I hereby apologise for intimidating youse all.

S.

Back to top

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Climate "Skepticism"
Reply #36 - Jul 16^th, 2010 at 2:22pm

Soren wrote on Jul 16^th, 2010 at 2:02pm:

'It has been profoundly depressing to witness the way the so-called climate sceptics are, apparently, able to intimidate all sorts of people from adopting the precautionary measures necessary to avert environmental collapse,' he said...'People have heard the climate sceptics and attempted to listen to the kind of pseudo science they are peddling.'

HRH PC

I hereby apologise for intimidating youse all.

S.

Soren - you are at least capable of listening to logical arguments..... then forgetting about them after a month or two only to dredge up the same old "Wot about this then? eh? - got you there, haven't I" from whatever source you choose.

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 "Skepticism"
Reply #37 - Jul 16^th, 2010 at 2:52pm

muso wrote on Jul 16^th, 2010 at 2:22pm:

Soren wrote on Jul 16^th, 2010 at 2:02pm:

'It has been profoundly depressing to witness the way the so-called climate sceptics are, apparently, able to intimidate all sorts of people from adopting the precautionary measures necessary to avert environmental collapse,' he said...'People have heard the climate sceptics and attempted to listen to the kind of pseudo science they are peddling.'

HRH PC

I hereby apologise for intimidating youse all.

S.

Soren - you are at least capable of listening to logical arguments..... then forgetting about them after a month or two only to dredge up the same old "Wot about this then? eh? - got you there, haven't I" from whatever source you choose.

Ahh, but I have intimidated you into whatever you are now doing, alarmed warmerist! AND now you also have your kooky toff - HRH PC.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/7890783/The-Prince-of-Wales-accuses-s...

I'd like to see the Monckton v HRH bout, er, climate debate.

Back to top

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Climate "Skepticism"
Reply #38 - Jul 16^th, 2010 at 3:18pm

Soren wrote on Jul 16^th, 2010 at 2:52pm:

muso wrote on Jul 16^th, 2010 at 2:22pm:

Soren wrote on Jul 16^th, 2010 at 2:02pm:

'It has been profoundly depressing to witness the way the so-called climate sceptics are, apparently, able to intimidate all sorts of people from adopting the precautionary measures necessary to avert environmental collapse,' he said...'People have heard the climate sceptics and attempted to listen to the kind of pseudo science they are peddling.'

HRH PC

I hereby apologise for intimidating youse all.

S.

Soren - you are at least capable of listening to logical arguments..... then forgetting about them after a month or two only to dredge up the same old "Wot about this then? eh? - got you there, haven't I" from whatever source you choose.

Ahh, but I have intimidated you into whatever you are now doing, alarmed warmerist! AND now you also have your kooky toff - HRH PC.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/7890783/The-Prince-of-Wales-accuses-s...

I'd like to see the Monckton v HRH bout, er, climate debate.

Oh I see your spin now. HRH Prince Chuckie is somewhat irrelevant - I mean in terms of the climate.

Now if it was about bringing democracy into architectural planning............ no, sorry he's still irrelevant.

When I met him back in 1979, I was struck by his totally unremarkable character. He didn't know the first thing about science then and he's no better now. With every passing year, he's turning into his father.

I liked Robert Sawyer's prediction in "Flashforward". Elizabeth II dies in 2017, the throne bypasses a now totally barmy Prince Charles, and is renounced by Prince William, forcing parliament to dissolve the monarchy.

Back to top

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

IP Logged

Ziggy

Full Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 131

Re: Climate "Skepticism"
Reply #39 - Jul 27^th, 2010 at 5:43pm

As Muso has related we have the technology to reduce carbon and other greenhouse gas emissions but all that entails considerable cost.

I read an article recently that a relatively cheap fix would be to pump sulphur dioxide into the stratosphere. The downside of this appeared to be that this would encourage the expansion of greenhouse house gases and, of course, rampant consumerism with gay abandon. It was also mentioned that should these occur we would forever be locked into a cycle of pumping sulphur dioxide into the atmosphere. Should for any reason that stop, it is estimated that global temperatures would rise 10 to 20 times their current rate.

What would people here opt out for? The costly pain of curtailment of carbon and other greenhouse emissions or the addictive quick fix of sulphur dioxide injections into the atmosphere?

Back to top

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Climate "Skepticism"
Reply #40 - Jul 27^th, 2010 at 7:19pm

Ziggy wrote on Jul 27^th, 2010 at 5:43pm:

As Muso has related we have the technology to reduce carbon and other greenhouse gas emissions but all that entails considerable cost.

I read an article recently that a relatively cheap fix would be to pump sulphur dioxide into the stratosphere. The downside of this appeared to be that this would encourage the expansion of greenhouse house gases and, of course, rampant consumerism with gay abandon. It was also mentioned that should these occur we would forever be locked into a cycle of pumping sulphur dioxide into the atmosphere. Should for any reason that stop, it is estimated that global temperatures would rise 10 to 20 times their current rate.

What would people here opt out for? The costly pain of curtailment of carbon and other greenhouse emissions or the addictive quick fix of sulphur dioxide injections into the atmosphere?

It doesn't do anything for the more imminent problem - that of ocean acidification.

Back to top

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

IP Logged

Ziggy Full Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 131	Re: Climate "Skepticism" Reply #41 - Jul 27^th, 2010 at 7:44pm Apart from reducing carbon emissions with respect to acidification, is there anything else that can be done?
Back to top	IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Climate "Skepticism"
Reply #42 - Jul 27^th, 2010 at 9:36pm

Ziggy wrote on Jul 27^th, 2010 at 7:44pm:

Apart from reducing carbon emissions with respect to acidification, is there anything else that can be done?

I have an idea that could conceivable be tested in land-locked seas. You basically have to genetically modify certain types of foraminifera such that they accumulate carbonate at a greater rate and die earlier, thus increasing the rate at which calcite is deposited on the seabed.

The forams and corals that were prevalent during the Eocene would be better suited to seawater of lower pH. Unfortunately these are now extinct. We could potentially mimic and accelerate adaptive evolution using this technology.

However there are risks. They are much greater than the risks of reducing carbon emissions.

Back to top

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

IP Logged