Australian Politics Forum - Re: Climate Science

Foolosophy

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1171
Australia
Gender: female

Re: Climate Science
Reply #390 - Mar 19^th, 2011 at 8:20pm

Foolosophy wrote on 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

IP Logged

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: Climate Science
Reply #391 - Mar 19^th, 2011 at 8:39pm

Foolosophy wrote on Mar 19^th, 2011 at 8:20pm:

Foolosophy wrote on 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?

Great post, mother.

Back to top

IP Logged

perceptions_now

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth WA
Gender: male

Re: Climate Science
Reply #392 - Mar 19^th, 2011 at 9:50pm

Soren wrote on 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.

My pleasure!

However, I certainly don't find some of the catastrophic climate change scenarios laughable!

Far from laughable, some of these scenario's may well turn out to be future realities and they are more likely to become real, if proper mitigation measaures are not taken and sooner, rather than later.

That said and given the best scientific projections & the apparent determination of TPTB to continue business as usual, I suspect that future generations may well face some of those scenario's.

In fact, I would suggest that we are already experiencing some of the leading edges of those scenario's, which are set to become worse, as this century progresses, precisely because "fixed thinking" & "self-interest" will most likely win the short to medium term battle, until it's too late and our backs are then against the wall.

It's good that you are for clean air & for Energy indepence from Oil!

However, I'm not sure that we will have the luxury/opportunity to escape the grasp of Oil, without monumental difficulties over the next 100 years plus.

We are squeezed from all sides, in a situation where Supply is set to shrink quickly (starting already), but demand will still rise for some decades and the resultant Price increases will throttle the life out of the Global Economy, particularly when this will co-incide with other events such as the Baby Boomer Bust, Climate Change & the ever growing Debt monster!

Arising from this, we may well have little option but to accept a medium term transition use of Nuclear Power, to get us past the hump, to where a new equilibrium can be established and Nuclear Power can then be phased out.

During this transition, we must hope that all proper measures ARE TAKEN and the Nuclear transition doesn't finally bite us, on our own ass!

The less I have to do with Politicians in general, the better and that is of all persuasions!

You may be correct in some respects, but in many ways we are facing a set of circumstances that is unique in the history of humanity!

Back to top

IP Logged

muso Gold Member Offline Posts: 13151 Gladstone, Queensland Gender:	Re: Climate Science Reply #393 - Mar 20^th, 2011 at 6:50am perceptions_now wrote on Mar 19^th, 2011 at 9:50pm: The less I have to do with Politicians in general, the better and that is of all persuasions! [/color] On this issue, I echo your sentiments. Some good points raised.
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 #394 - Mar 20^th, 2011 at 7:11am

Foolosophy wrote on Mar 19^th, 2011 at 10:48am:

Are you happy with my hourly rate?

Yes, send the bill in to Soren.
Quote:

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.

I agree with you, but that part at least is not high school science. My question was aimed at that comment alone.

I understand the derivation of the equation, and the more you get into it, the more subtle the science becomes. You're correct in stating that it's a logarithmic relationship.

Now to reiterate my position, I think that it's blatantly obvious that various activities such as the burning of fossil fuels, clearing of tropical rainforest and cement manufacture have resulted in an increase of around 30% in atmospheric carbon dioxide since the onset of industrialisation.

I also understand how the increased radiative forcing as a result of that CO2 increase (and to a lesser extent that of methane, N2O etc) will result in an increase in global average temperatures, and that the temperature increase has, and will continue to result in (on average) higher water vapour concentrations in the atmosphere. So this increased additional water vapour concentration is a direct result of the increased radiative forcing from CO2.

I also understand from various sources, that the climate sensitivity (the equilibrium change in global mean near-surface air temperature that would result from a sustained doubling of the atmospheric (equivalent) CO2 concentration) is pretty close to 3 degrees. This is confirmed by observations from orbit among other things.

You might wonder why I'm taking you to task. All I'm doing is to correct minor inaccuracies in your post, because (on other forums) these can be used against you. On this forum, I don't think many posters understand the basics, so you're reasonably safe in that respect.

Let's try to avoid personal attacks on both sides. This thread is about the science, not Star Trek Generations, and not name calling.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Mar 20^th, 2011 at 7:21am by muso »

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

IP Logged

perceptions_now

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth WA
Gender: male

Re: Climate Science
Reply #395 - Mar 20^th, 2011 at 11:19am

You may be interested in the following -

IAEA update on Fukushima nuclear power plant

March 19, 2011

Summary of conditions at Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, as described by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA):

Located on the Eastern coast of Japan, the six nuclear power reactors at Daiichi are boiling water reactors (BWRs). A massive earthquake on 11 March severed off-site power to the plant and triggered the automatic shutdown of the three operating reactors - Units 1, 2, and 3. The control rods in those units were successfully inserted into the reactor cores, ending the fission chain reaction. The remaining reactors - Units 4, 5, and 6 -- had previously been shut down for routine maintenance purposes. Backup diesel generators, designed to start up after losing off-site power, began providing electricity to pumps circulating coolant to the six reactors.

Soon after the earthquake, a large tsunami washed over the reactor site, knocking out the backup generators. While some batteries remained operable, the entire site lost the ability to maintain proper reactor cooling and water circulation functions.

Here is the current status of the six reactors, based on documents and confirmed by Japanese officials:

Unit 1
On 18 March, Japan assigned an INES rating of 5 to this unit

Unit 2
On 18 March, Japan assigned an INES rating of 5 to this unit.

Unit 3
On 18 March, Japan assigned an INES rating of 5 to this unit.

Unit 4
On 18 March, Japan assigned an INES rating of 4 to this site.

Unit 5 and 6
Shut down before the earthquake, there are no immediate concerns about these reactors' cores or containment.

Link -
http://uk.ibtimes.com/articles/124580/20110319/iaea-fukushima-daiichi-nuclear-po...
================
The above is confirmed by info at the "official" IAEA" site -
http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/tsunamiupdate01.html
which also contains some additional info, including some relating to damage.

That said, it seems that each country may come to its "own conclusions" on how this event meets the INES (International Nuclear and radiological Event Scale) criteria -
http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Factsheets/English/ines.pdf

You may also be interested in some background info -

Japan Disaster Caps Decades of Faked Reports, Accidents
http://noir.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aFWC3RYALjeI

Back to top

IP Logged

Foolosophy

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1171
Australia
Gender: female

Re: Climate Science
Reply #396 - Mar 20^th, 2011 at 11:27am

muso wrote on Mar 20^th, 2011 at 7:11am:

Foolosophy wrote on Mar 19^th, 2011 at 10:48am:

Are you happy with my hourly rate?

Yes, send the bill in to Soren.
Quote:

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.

I agree with you, but that part at least is not high school science. My question was aimed at that comment alone.

Let's try to avoid personal attacks on both sides. This thread is about the science, not Star Trek Generations, and not name calling.

Perhaps you havent been keeping up with what students are doing in their high school science and mathetmatics classes.

They are introduced to relativity and also basic kinetics and thermodynamic principles in their chemistry and phsyics classes.

First order relationships such as how the radiative forcing of various atmospheric components varies with concentration is studied and is given as project work or examination questions.

Why are you so concerned about the insults and fould mouth abuse spat out by Soren?

It doesnt worry me - you do beleive in freedom of expression dont you?

And in any case, when one resorts to insults it almost certainly implies that either their lies are being exposed or that they dont have any counter arguments to defend their religious cult beliefs

Let it go I say - I could use a laugh in these times of Constant Andrew Bolt editorial excrement release and pending world radiation catastrophies.

Back to top

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Climate Science
Reply #397 - Mar 20^th, 2011 at 12:37pm

Foolosophy wrote on Mar 20^th, 2011 at 11:27am:

Why are you so concerned about the insults and fould mouth abuse spat out by Soren?

I'm not singling anybody out. Personal attacks are against the rules of this board.

----
The actual derivation of the radiative forcing equation is a tad complex for high school, although they could certainly apply the equations. I'd suggest that it's university material.

You need a pretty good understanding of atmospheric physics for that.

Anyway, I'll leave it with you.

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 #398 - Mar 20^th, 2011 at 12:39pm

perceptions_now wrote on Mar 20^th, 2011 at 11:19am:

You may be interested in the following -

IAEA update on Fukushima nuclear power plant

March 19, 2011

Summary of conditions at Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, as described by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA):

I've been following this closely. Let's keep this thread for climate science.

Back to top

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

IP Logged

perceptions_now

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth WA
Gender: male

Re: Climate Science
Reply #399 - Mar 20^th, 2011 at 1:08pm

muso wrote on Mar 20^th, 2011 at 12:39pm:

perceptions_now wrote on Mar 20^th, 2011 at 11:19am:

You may be interested in the following -

IAEA update on Fukushima nuclear power plant

March 19, 2011

Summary of conditions at Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, as described by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA):

I've been following this closely. Let's keep this thread for climate science.

OK!

Back to top

IP Logged

Foolosophy

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1171
Australia
Gender: female

Re: Climate Science
Reply #400 - Mar 20^th, 2011 at 5:38pm

muso wrote on Mar 20^th, 2011 at 12:37pm:

Foolosophy wrote on Mar 20^th, 2011 at 11:27am:

Why are you so concerned about the insults and fould mouth abuse spat out by Soren?

I'm not singling anybody out. Personal attacks are against the rules of this board.

----
The actual derivation of the radiative forcing equation is a tad complex for high school, although they could certainly apply the equations. I'd suggest that it's university material.

You need a pretty good understanding of atmospheric physics for that.

Anyway, I'll leave it with you.

I am not sure when you last looked at the VCE curriculm for Physics/Chemistry/Maths in Australia.

Although youre probably correct that the derivation isnt required as part of VCE standard science and maths, but certainly the equation is introduced.

Remember the change in temperature is proportional to the driving force due to CO2

and this driving force can be estimated by a simple first order logarithmic relationship with respect to CO2 concentraion.

The tricky aspects of climate prediction and general atmospheric dynamics is the coupling of atmospheric chemistry and atmospheric fluid dymanics. In other words you need to merge at least 2 disciplines in order to get accurate and reliable predictive models.

And then of course there is the myriad of positive and negative feedback loops that come into play.

You only have to look at the stored methane in the perma frost (clathrate release etc) so know that Global warming can trigger some major irreversible and catastrophic environmental events.

And the FOssil fuel Corporations know this from their own internal research and reports, The fact that they are trying to delay action on AGW is criminal to say the least. The latest estimate is that they are punping in several hundred million dollars per year to fund spin doctors and rogue reports etc in order to confuse the public about the reality of AGW.

I have grave fears for ASutralia in the coming century - and we are the lucky country.

Back to top

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Climate Science
Reply #401 - Mar 21^st, 2011 at 9:17am

Good to see that you're a bit better informed than most of the 'deep greens' around. What's your background? You can reply in private if you prefer.

Of course, you don't even need to go as far as a general circulation model to predict that there will be some warming as a result of an increase in CO2 concentration. A radiant heat transfer calculation is sufficient.

Examples of feedbacks for the benefit of other posters are water vapour (positive feedback) and aerosol (negative feedback) contributions.

Somewhere on the web there is an entire climatology textbook that's quite useful to those with a general science background. Found it - Here it is:

http://www.climate.be/textbook

Quote:

Goosse H., P.Y. Barriat, W. Lefebvre, M.F. Loutre and V. Zunz, Viewed 21/03/2011. Introduction to climate dynamics and climate modeling

Back to top

« Last Edit: Mar 21^st, 2011 at 9:26am by muso »

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 #402 - Mar 21^st, 2011 at 9:49am

muso wrote on Mar 21^st, 2011 at 9:17am:

Good to see that you're a bit better informed than most of the 'deep greens' around. What's your background? You can reply in private if you prefer.

Of course, you don't even need to go as far as a general circulation model to predict that there will be some warming as a result of an increase in CO2 concentration. A radiant heat transfer calculation is sufficient.

Examples of feedbacks for the benefit of other posters are water vapour (positive feedback) and aerosol (negative feedback) contributions.

Somewhere on the web there is an entire climatology textbook that's quite useful to those with a general science background. Found it - Here it is:

http://www.climate.be/textbook

Quote:

Goosse H., P.Y. Barriat, W. Lefebvre, M.F. Loutre and V. Zunz, Viewed 21/03/2011. Introduction to climate dynamics and climate modeling

Muso,
Well my background is not an ASIO secret. Although my PhD is not in climate science or any related fieds such as climatology or meteorology I consult in various industrial sectors - mainly the mining and fossil fuel sectors.

My main concerns with the effects of AGW are in two specific areas.

The first one is the various tipping points that could be triggered by critical global surface temperatures being breached. Some of these tipping points are irreversible

And secondly the sudden release of stored methane and carbon dioxide in the perma frost and ice caps/glaciers etc.

(and recently I have been reading recent research studies that link the spread of disease and parasites with AGW. So its not just about rising sea levels, bleaching of coral reef systems, increased cyclone frequency and intensity and floods etc)

Back to top

IP Logged

muso Gold Member Offline Posts: 13151 Gladstone, Queensland Gender:	Re: Climate Science Reply #403 - Mar 21^st, 2011 at 10:14pm You missed reduced calcification rates due to reducing ocean pH. It's a problem for any marine organism that relies on aragonite, as opposed to calcite. That is a far more insidious issue, especially considering the effects on fish otoliths (balance mechanism).
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 #404 - Mar 21^st, 2011 at 10:51pm

muso wrote on Mar 21^st, 2011 at 10:14pm:

You missed reduced calcification rates due to reducing ocean pH. It's a problem for any marine organism that relies on aragonite, as opposed to calcite. That is a far more insidious issue, especially considering the effects on fish otoliths (balance mechanism).

yes that is a huge problem - especially seeing as the bottom of the food chain is effected severely - it will reveberate throughout the ecosystem.

The future oceans may well comprise of massive swarms of large jelly fish

Back to top

IP Logged