Australian Politics Forum - Re: Climate Science

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: Climate Science
Reply #375 - Mar 18^th, 2011 at 2:45pm

muso wrote on Mar 18^th, 2011 at 12:44pm:

Soren wrote on Mar 17^th, 2011 at 11:54am:

muso wrote on Mar 17^th, 2011 at 10:07am:

By the way, I'm impressed that you're asking questions on statistics.

Thanks. I think it's a linguistic question, really. After all, statistics is the art of interpreting numbers (in a way physics or chemistry aren't).

For example (and I mean for example only)
The Japanese earthquake has a "significant' effect on stockmarkets around the world - they have been dropping by about 2-6 %. If human CO2 emission's impact is around that level of significance (and raised no other considerations), then the do absolutely nothing about it approach would be beyond dispute.

Pissing into Sydney harbour will increase its temperature and add to its ammonium levels. I am resolutely against against pissing into the harbour - but not for these reasons. If these were the only arguments against it, I'd encourage the practice for its convenience value, if nothing else.

You think that 'significant' is too vague a term for a survey? Maybe, but that's nitpicking to the n'th degree.

I think you mean it's and inconvenient question.

A 10% drop in economic activity is a recession. A 10% drop in the rate of acceleration of economic activity isn't.
A 90% increase in the number of Melesseusites (followers of the god of honey... Wink

or Minites (followers of Min, the god of lettuce, among other things Wink

) in Australia is no cause for concern.

A 90% increase of Mohammedans or Vodouisants is.

Back to top

IP Logged

perceptions_now

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth WA
Gender: male

Re: Climate Science
Reply #376 - Mar 18^th, 2011 at 5:02pm

Soren wrote on Mar 18^th, 2011 at 2:45pm:

muso wrote on Mar 18^th, 2011 at 12:44pm:

Soren wrote on Mar 17^th, 2011 at 11:54am:

muso wrote on Mar 17^th, 2011 at 10:07am:

By the way, I'm impressed that you're asking questions on statistics.

Thanks. I think it's a linguistic question, really. After all, statistics is the art of interpreting numbers (in a way physics or chemistry aren't).

For example (and I mean for example only)
The Japanese earthquake has a "significant' effect on stockmarkets around the world - they have been dropping by about 2-6 %. If human CO2 emission's impact is around that level of significance (and raised no other considerations), then the do absolutely nothing about it approach would be beyond dispute.

Pissing into Sydney harbour will increase its temperature and add to its ammonium levels. I am resolutely against against pissing into the harbour - but not for these reasons. If these were the only arguments against it, I'd encourage the practice for its convenience value, if nothing else.

You think that 'significant' is too vague a term for a survey? Maybe, but that's nitpicking to the n'th degree.

I think you mean it's and inconvenient question.

A 10% drop in economic activity is a recession. A 10% drop in the rate of acceleration of economic activity isn't.
A 90% increase in the number of Melesseusites (followers of the god of honey... Wink

or Minites (followers of Min, the god of lettuce, among other things Wink

) in Australia is no cause for concern.

A 90% increase of Mohammedans or Vodouisants is.

I think you meant its an inconvenient question?

Whilst we are talking about inconvenient questions, how about inconvenient answers?

A Recession
The standard/accepted version of a Recession is
1) Two consecutive quarters of negative GDP.

A Depression
The standard/accepted versions of a Depression are -
1) a decline in real GDP exceeding 10%
or
2) a recession lasting 2 or more years

For most accepted purposes, GDP is the measure of Economic Activity.

You don't sell real estate do you? If you do, I may go against one of my current rules and buy some, from you?

Btw, if you apply similar rules to Climate Change, I can see how you would get a little confused?

Back to top

IP Logged

Foolosophy Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 1171 Australia Gender:	Re: Climate Science Reply #377 - Mar 18^th, 2011 at 7:04pm There is no escaping the effects of AGW - they will be global and will effect communities and nations in different ways Humans will look back at the 20th and 21st century and ask "why were we so suicidal when we knew what was causing the warming of the planet and had solutions and DID NOTHING ABOUT IT"?
Back to top	IP Logged

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: Climate Science
Reply #378 - Mar 18^th, 2011 at 9:16pm

perceptions_now wrote on Mar 18^th, 2011 at 5:02pm:

Soren wrote on Mar 18^th, 2011 at 2:45pm:

muso wrote on Mar 18^th, 2011 at 12:44pm:

Soren wrote on Mar 17^th, 2011 at 11:54am:

muso wrote on Mar 17^th, 2011 at 10:07am:

By the way, I'm impressed that you're asking questions on statistics.

Thanks. I think it's a linguistic question, really. After all, statistics is the art of interpreting numbers (in a way physics or chemistry aren't).

For example (and I mean for example only)
The Japanese earthquake has a "significant' effect on stockmarkets around the world - they have been dropping by about 2-6 %. If human CO2 emission's impact is around that level of significance (and raised no other considerations), then the do absolutely nothing about it approach would be beyond dispute.

Pissing into Sydney harbour will increase its temperature and add to its ammonium levels. I am resolutely against against pissing into the harbour - but not for these reasons. If these were the only arguments against it, I'd encourage the practice for its convenience value, if nothing else.

You think that 'significant' is too vague a term for a survey? Maybe, but that's nitpicking to the n'th degree.

I think you mean it's and inconvenient question.

A 10% drop in economic activity is a recession. A 10% drop in the rate of acceleration of economic activity isn't.
A 90% increase in the number of Melesseusites (followers of the god of honey... Wink

or Minites (followers of Min, the god of lettuce, among other things Wink

) in Australia is no cause for concern.

A 90% increase of Mohammedans or Vodouisants is.

I think you meant its an inconvenient question?

Whilst we are talking about inconvenient questions, how about inconvenient answers?

A Recession
The standard/accepted version of a Recession is
1) Two consecutive quarters of negative GDP.

A Depression
The standard/accepted versions of a Depression are -
1) a decline in real GDP exceeding 10%
or
2) a recession lasting 2 or more years

For most accepted purposes, GDP is the measure of Economic Activity.

You don't sell real estate do you? If you do, I may go against one of my current rules and buy some, from you?

Btw, if you apply similar rules to Climate Change, I can see how you would get a little confused?

Thank you. I did mean an, rather than and. I am grateful for the correction.
I also confess to not seeing the relevance of the rest of your post to what I was trying to illustrate, viz, the relative nature of the meaning of 'serious' influence.

Back to top

IP Logged

Foolosophy

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1171
Australia
Gender: female

Re: Climate Science
Reply #379 - Mar 18^th, 2011 at 9:32pm

Soren wrote on Mar 18^th, 2011 at 9:16pm:

perceptions_now wrote on Mar 18^th, 2011 at 5:02pm:

Soren wrote on Mar 18^th, 2011 at 2:45pm:

[quote author=muso link=1272798405/360#373 date=1300416267][quote author=soren2 link=1272798405/360#366 date=1300326846][quote author=muso link=1272798405/360#364 date=1300320458]By the way, I'm impressed that you're asking questions on statistics.

Thank you. I did mean an, rather than and. I am grateful for the correction.
I also confess to not seeing the relevance of the rest of your post to what I was trying to illustrate, viz, the relative nature of the meaning of 'serious' influence.

You dont understand the science behind AGW?

Its high school level science - you may have to hit the book over the weekend to refresh your memory

I can tutor you if you wish ($210/hr - inc GST)

Back to top

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Climate Science
Reply #380 - Mar 18^th, 2011 at 11:51pm

Foolosophy wrote on Mar 18^th, 2011 at 9:32pm:

You dont understand the science behind AGW?

Its high school level science - you may have to hit the book over the weekend to refresh your memory

I can tutor you if you wish ($210/hr - inc GST)

He doesn't like science. He's a philosopher. He's proud of the fact that he never contaminated his brain with science. Tongue

NewsFlash

Soren = Foolosopher

Back to top

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

IP Logged

Foolosophy

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1171
Australia
Gender: female

Re: Climate Science
Reply #381 - Mar 19^th, 2011 at 12:12am

muso wrote on Mar 18^th, 2011 at 11:51pm:

Foolosophy wrote on Mar 18^th, 2011 at 9:32pm:

You dont understand the science behind AGW?

Its high school level science - you may have to hit the book over the weekend to refresh your memory

I can tutor you if you wish ($210/hr - inc GST)

He doesn't like science. He's a philosopher. He's proud of the fact that he never contaminated his brain with science. Tongue

NewsFlash

Soren = Foolosopher

really? a philospher hey?

Well according to the ancient Greek philosophers, everybody is a philosopher.

And wasnt it Luqwig Wittgenstein that said "there are no philosophical problems to ponder - they are merely linguistic riddles"

Back to top

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Climate Science
Reply #382 - Mar 19^th, 2011 at 8:31am

Foolosophy wrote on Mar 18^th, 2011 at 9:32pm:

You dont understand the science behind AGW?

Its high school level science - you may have to hit the book over the weekend to refresh your memory

I can tutor you if you wish ($210/hr - inc GST)

Foolosophy - how is the equation for radiative forcing for CO2 derived?

Some people don't believe that CO2 causes warming. After all, radiative forcing is the basis of the greenhouse effect, so let's start with 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 Science
Reply #383 - Mar 19^th, 2011 at 8:43am

Foolosophy wrote on Mar 19^th, 2011 at 12:12am:

And wasnt it Luqwig Wittgenstein that said "there are no philosophical problems to ponder - they are merely linguistic riddles"

I posted something about Daoism on another thread. As soon as you invent a word or thought, it's like throwing a tiny pebble into the vast pool of reality - You produce semantics or little ripples in the Dao. You can never achieve total accuracy with words.

How much of philosophy is the study of man-made ripples?

Back to top

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

IP Logged

Foolosophy

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1171
Australia
Gender: female

Re: Climate Science
Reply #384 - Mar 19^th, 2011 at 10:48am

muso wrote on Mar 19^th, 2011 at 8:31am:

Foolosophy wrote on Mar 18^th, 2011 at 9:32pm:

You dont understand the science behind AGW?

Its high school level science - you may have to hit the book over the weekend to refresh your memory

I can tutor you if you wish ($210/hr - inc GST)

Foolosophy - how is the equation for radiative forcing for CO2 derived?

Some people don't believe that CO2 causes warming. After all, radiative forcing is the basis of the greenhouse effect, so let's start with that.

Are you happy with my hourly rate?

I am sure you can look up the various derivations available in the literature base

Iw ill however provide you with a FREE clue - the radiative forcing for CO2 is not linear with respect to concentration (logarithmic) and can be initially derived by assuming a first order relationship.

The data on CO2 is comprehensive and has been for many decades.

Back to top

IP Logged

perceptions_now

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth WA
Gender: male

Re: Climate Science
Reply #385 - Mar 19^th, 2011 at 12:59pm

Soren wrote on Mar 18^th, 2011 at 9:16pm:

perceptions_now wrote on Mar 18^th, 2011 at 5:02pm:

Soren wrote on Mar 18^th, 2011 at 2:45pm:

muso wrote on Mar 18^th, 2011 at 12:44pm:

Soren wrote on Mar 17^th, 2011 at 11:54am:

muso wrote on Mar 17^th, 2011 at 10:07am:

By the way, I'm impressed that you're asking questions on statistics.

Thanks. I think it's a linguistic question, really. After all, statistics is the art of interpreting numbers (in a way physics or chemistry aren't).

For example (and I mean for example only)
The Japanese earthquake has a "significant' effect on stockmarkets around the world - they have been dropping by about 2-6 %. If human CO2 emission's impact is around that level of significance (and raised no other considerations), then the do absolutely nothing about it approach would be beyond dispute.

Pissing into Sydney harbour will increase its temperature and add to its ammonium levels. I am resolutely against against pissing into the harbour - but not for these reasons. If these were the only arguments against it, I'd encourage the practice for its convenience value, if nothing else.

You think that 'significant' is too vague a term for a survey? Maybe, but that's nitpicking to the n'th degree.

I think you mean it's and inconvenient question.

A 10% drop in economic activity is a recession. A 10% drop in the rate of acceleration of economic activity isn't.
A 90% increase in the number of Melesseusites (followers of the god of honey... Wink

or Minites (followers of Min, the god of lettuce, among other things Wink

) in Australia is no cause for concern.

A 90% increase of Mohammedans or Vodouisants is.

I think you meant its an inconvenient question?

Whilst we are talking about inconvenient questions, how about inconvenient answers?

A Recession
The standard/accepted version of a Recession is
1) Two consecutive quarters of negative GDP.

A Depression
The standard/accepted versions of a Depression are -
1) a decline in real GDP exceeding 10%
or
2) a recession lasting 2 or more years

For most accepted purposes, GDP is the measure of Economic Activity.

You don't sell real estate do you? If you do, I may go against one of my current rules and buy some, from you?

Btw, if you apply similar rules to Climate Change, I can see how you would get a little confused?

Thank you. I did mean an, rather than and. I am grateful for the correction.

I also confess to not seeing the relevance of the rest of your post to what I was trying to illustrate, viz, the relative nature of the meaning of 'serious' influence.

No problem, however I should clarify that I regard the spelling and use of words, as relatively minor, in the grand scheme of things!

In respect of the balance of my post and its relevance to the rest of your post, which related to what was "serious" (as you put it) or "significant" (as muso put it), I was simply highlighting that what you thought was relatively not serious (a 10% drop in GDP), would actually have very serious Economic and person consequences.

That is but one example of where the access to & understanding of information may be affected by your perceptions or the perceptions of myself or others.

There are some 7 Billion humans currently on the planet, which means we probably have 7 billion opinions, on almost everything?

That said, I think there are actually two basic categories of people -
1) Those who have pretty much set ideas on most issues, particularly Political & they are not likely to shift from those ideas, short of having their own backs to the wall, when it becomes apparent that their beliefs may not be correct after all.
That is probably a large slice of the population, maybe 80-90%?

2) The remaining 10-20% will also have fairly fixed ideas, BUT they may be persuaded to change their perceptions, IF LOGICAL information is put to them, even if self-interest is not involved.

So, be they be perceived as "serious" or 'insignificant", that won't stop them from becoming what they will become.

There is currently a great deal of difference of perceptions on the issue of Climate Change, which will not affect the outcome of reality.

What will affect Reality, is if we (humans) decide that the risks involved in Climate Change are so enormously adverse for humanity if the scientific assumptions are correct, that we (humans) will accept that the costs of trying to mitigate those risks are less than the costs of trying to continue business as usual.

Which way will that decision go and what will be the consequences, both ways?

Now that is another $64 Trillion question!

And that's around 100% of Global GDP!

Back to top

IP Logged

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: Climate Science
Reply #386 - Mar 19^th, 2011 at 5:39pm

Thank you.

I confess I find all catastrophic climate change scenarios laughable.

I am, however, all for clean air and clean environment because these are GOOD THINGS. I am also for energy independence from the Middle East as a way of strangling any notions of a militant Islamic caliphate growing on the fat of oil money.
I am not for kneecapping the world economy for any reason a Bob Brown or a Christine Milne or a Sarah Hanson-Young (*shudder*) stand for. As a matter of fact I can't imagine myself standing with these clowns on anything. I think it is a matter of personal integrity to diasagree with them.

I am very respectful of ecologically careful and socially responsible people. However, I do think that many of these notions have been colonised by militantly stupid, anarchistic, anti-social ideologies.

Back to top

IP Logged

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: Climate Science
Reply #387 - Mar 19^th, 2011 at 5:45pm

Foolosophy wrote on Mar 18^th, 2011 at 7:04pm:

There is no escaping the effects of AGW - they will be global and will effect communities and nations in different ways

Humans will look back at the 20th and 21st century and ask "why were we so suicidal when we knew what was causing the warming of the planet and had solutions and DID NOTHING ABOUT IT"?

You are a fvking loony - and I say this because I care about you. You need to stop being such a complete parody.

Back to top

IP Logged

Foolosophy

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1171
Australia
Gender: female

Re: Climate Science
Reply #388 - Mar 19^th, 2011 at 6:26pm

Soren wrote on Mar 19^th, 2011 at 5:45pm:

Foolosophy wrote on Mar 18^th, 2011 at 7:04pm:

There is no escaping the effects of AGW - they will be global and will effect communities and nations in different ways

Humans will look back at the 20th and 21st century and ask "why were we so suicidal when we knew what was causing the warming of the planet and had solutions and DID NOTHING ABOUT IT"?

You are a fvking loony - and I say this because I care about you. You need to stop being such a complete parody.

The ENTIRE world scientific community (including the fossil fuel industry) ACCEPT that human activites such as fossil fule combustion and de-forestation etc are enhancing the global greenhouse effect and therefore impacting on changes in world climate patterns, rising sea levels, ice and glacial cover, cyclonic and flood frequency.intensity.

These are facts - non disputed realities

I suggest that you continue seeing your therapist and reading the crack pot lunatic views of deceptive spin doctors such as Lord Mockton and ANdrew Bolt.

I can see why you havent answered my question - WHAT IS YOUR SCIENTIFIC BACKGROUND?

lol

If anyone trully cared about the health and future of the planet and its inhabitants they would most certainly want genuine action to be taken in order to mitigate the catastrophic effects of AGW that awaits us.

The current path is totally unsustainable, wasteful and suicidal.

And Soren knows this deep down inside - its just that he cannot let go of his childhood fascist held ideals which are collapsing aorund his ears.

Remember what happend to Soren in Star Trek (Generations)?

It was all about Soren - all about his dream for Nirvanna - even if he sacrificed an entire world. The Nexus killed Soren in the end didnt it Soren?

Back to top

« Last Edit: Mar 19^th, 2011 at 6:43pm by Foolosophy »

IP Logged

Soren Gold Member Offline Posts: 25654 Gender:	Re: Climate Science Reply #389 - Mar 19^th, 2011 at 7:52pm bugger knows what you are on about, sister.
Back to top	IP Logged