Australian Politics Forum - Re: Climate Science

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Climate Science
Reply #405 - Mar 22^nd, 2011 at 7:58am

Foolosophy wrote on 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

- and possibly crustaceans, medium term at least. By the way, did you have a sex change operation recently ?

Back to top

« Last Edit: Mar 22^nd, 2011 at 8:15am 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 #406 - Mar 22^nd, 2011 at 10:06am

muso wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2011 at 7:58am:

Foolosophy wrote on 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

- and possibly crustaceans, medium term at least. By the way, did you have a sex change operation recently ?

Somebody brought it to my attention that my avatar says male - a typo I'm afraid.

I corrected the gender error

I believe Soren is emotionally attracted to me now - alas I dont normally go out with specimens from other species. I know that he will be very dissappointed but there isnt anything I can do for him now
Wink

Back to top

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Climate Science
Reply #407 - Mar 23^rd, 2011 at 9:25am

Gizmo brought up the question of how do we know that CO2 is causing warming and not the other way around, and I introduced him to the concept of equilibria.

We should look at radiative forcing next. I covered the fact that Carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases absorb Long Wave Infrared radiation from the Earth, and that the absorbance depended on (the natural log of ) concentration.

I could explain how the radiative forcing equation is derived without going into too much of the mathematics.

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 Science
Reply #408 - Mar 30^th, 2011 at 11:37am

Climate science and climate predictions - there is scientific evidence for the inaccuracy of the prognosticators. Barely better than the proverbial dart-throwing chimpanzees :

Beginning in the 1980s, Tetlock examined 27,451 forecasts by 284 academics, pundits and other prognosticators. The study was complex, but the conclusion can be summarized simply: the experts bombed. Not only were they worse than statistical models, they could barely eke out a tie with the proverbial dart-throwing chimps.

The most generous conclusion Tetlock could draw was that some experts were less awful than others. Isaiah Berlin once quoted the Greek poet Archilochus to distinguish between two types of thinkers: “The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing.” Berlin admired both ways of thinking, but Tetlock borrowed the metaphor to account for why some experts fared better. The least accurate forecasters, he found, were hedgehogs: “thinkers who ‘know one big thing,’ aggressively extend the explanatory reach of that one big thing into new domains” and “display bristly impatience with those who ‘do not get it,’ ” he wrote. Better experts “look like foxes: thinkers who know many small things,” “are skeptical of grand schemes” and are “diffident about their own forecasting prowess.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/27/books/review/book-review-future-babble-by-dan-...

Back to top

IP Logged

astro_surf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2981

Re: Climate Science
Reply #409 - Mar 30^th, 2011 at 6:22pm

There is a huge difference between predicting human behavior and predicting physical properties

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_E._Tetlock

Political science is barely a science, certainly those lessons do not apply to the physical sciences, which do a very good job of making predictions. There is really no comparison here, certainly not the one you are attempting to make.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Mar 30^th, 2011 at 6:33pm by astro_surf »

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 11^th, 2011 at 11:23am:

So tell me, you'd like to see more and more craphouse coloured people in Australia right?&&Yeah good idea moron.&&

IP Logged

Foolosophy

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1171
Australia
Gender: female

Re: Climate Science
Reply #410 - Mar 30^th, 2011 at 7:46pm

astro_surf wrote on Mar 30^th, 2011 at 6:22pm:

There is a huge difference between predicting human behavior and predicting physical properties

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_E._Tetlock

Political science is barely a science, certainly those lessons do not apply to the physical sciences, which do a very good job of making predictions. There is really no comparison here, certainly not the one you are attempting to make.

Most disciplines can be considered a science - including art and music

There are some things that resist the scientific method. Pure mathematics for example resists the scientific method and yet is integrally linked to science - in fact it forms a fundamental basis for science

So your view of science may well be limited and one dimensional.

Likewise concepts such as Art and philosophy creep their way into science.

Human congnitative processes are dynamic in nature, not as static and departmentalised as you describe them

Back to top

IP Logged

astro_surf Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 2981	Re: Climate Science Reply #411 - Mar 31^st, 2011 at 3:21pm Uh, ok, whatever floats your boat. I still say physical properties are easier to predict than human behavior.
Back to top	Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 11^th, 2011 at 11:23am: So tell me, you'd like to see more and more craphouse coloured people in Australia right?&&Yeah good idea moron.&& IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Climate Science
Reply #412 - Mar 31^st, 2011 at 4:08pm

astro_surf wrote on Mar 31^st, 2011 at 3:21pm:

Uh, ok, whatever floats your boat. I still say physical properties are easier to predict than human behavior.

I understand what you're getting at. In the case of global temperature predictions and a wide range of consequences that derive from that, generally allowances are made for various discrete scenarios. ie - If we burn so much fossil fuel, then the CO2 levels in the atmosphere will increase by x amount.

The part that's difficult to predict is exactly what actions the various countries in the world will take, and at what stage. That's why we need a range of scenarios.

Given any particular scenario, it is much easier to predict. Soren's post conveniently hides the fact that many of these predictions relate to human factors, whereas climate 'models' just rely on scenarios. Climate predictions take the human factors out, and really that's what's needed.

A similar analogy is breakdown predictions in vehicles. Operators of heavy plant generally use wear-metal concentrations in lubricating oil to predict what is going to break down and repair it before it does.

The lab doesn't say "We predict that you are going to operate this equipment for 800 hours in the next month. " They might say "If you operate this for 800 hours in the next month, then the bearing race on x equipment will fail with a probability of 90%."

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 #413 - Mar 31^st, 2011 at 5:43pm

astro_surf wrote on Mar 31^st, 2011 at 3:21pm:

Uh, ok, whatever floats your boat. I still say physical properties are easier to predict than human behavior.

But that is not what you said.

Science does not stand alone - it permeates many aspects of human acitivity and thought

Likewise Science is influenced by everything else as well

You will be surprised how much ART is in Science

In fact Einstein continually claimed that simplicity and asthetic qualities surfaced in Physical equations all the time.

Look at the Euler formula - perhaps the most asthetically balanced equation in Mathematics/Science

The constants in this equation are all irrational numbers that go on forever and yet using them in this way and adding one gives a zero result.

Its proof and derivation is also magnificent.

Back to top

IP Logged

Soren Gold Member Offline Posts: 25654 Gender:	Re: Climate Science Reply #414 - Apr 1^st, 2011 at 8:53am Here's an excellent summary of the science around AGW. It is in layman's language, it is coherent and balanced. I would be interested in any intelligent comments or alerts to errors. http://www.quadrant.org.au/magazine/issue/2011/3/the-intelligent-voter-s-guide-t...
Back to top	IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Climate Science
Reply #415 - Apr 1^st, 2011 at 4:12pm

Soren wrote on Apr 1^st, 2011 at 8:53am:

Here's an excellent summary of the science around AGW. It is in layman's language, it is coherent and balanced.

I would be interested in any intelligent comments or alerts to errors.

http://www.quadrant.org.au/magazine/issue/2011/3/the-intelligent-voter-s-guide-t...

Some parts are not bad. I'll go through the erroneous sections some time this weekend, but here's one to start off on:

Quote:

The Al Gore movie implied that carbon dioxide levels were somehow driving temperature. At about the time the movie was made, clear evidence emerged that carbon dioxide levels rise and fall several hundreds of years after a rise or fall in temperature. Carbon dioxide changes lag behind temperature changes. Historically, carbon dioxide has not been the significant driver of temperature that was once assumed. The erroneous assumption of an “exact fit” between carbon dioxide and temperature has contributed greatly to the present popular misunderstandings surrounding AGW.

That's the classic strawman that's used by denialists. What the science actually tells us is this:

Quote:

When the Earth comes out of an ice age, the warming is not initiated by CO2 but by changes in the Earth's orbit. The warming causes the oceans to give up CO2. The CO2 amplifies the warming and mixes through the atmosphere, spreading warming throughout the planet. So CO2 causes warming AND rising temperature causes CO2 rise.

Temperature can drive atmospheric CO2 increase by decreasing the solubility of CO2 in sea water and leading to increased frequency of bushfires etc. CO2 can also drive temperature increase by the process of radiative forcing. Mankind have been adding CO2 to the atmosphere at a rate of about 1% of the total inventory every year.

Back to top

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

IP Logged

astro_surf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2981

Re: Climate Science
Reply #416 - Apr 1^st, 2011 at 11:26pm

Foolosophy wrote on Mar 31^st, 2011 at 5:43pm:

astro_surf wrote on Mar 31^st, 2011 at 3:21pm:

Uh, ok, whatever floats your boat. I still say physical properties are easier to predict than human behavior.

But that is not what you said.

Um, no, it was exactly what I said. The poo I most definitely did not say is everything quoted below.

Quote:

Science does not stand alone - it permeates many aspects of human acitivity and thought

Likewise Science is influenced by everything else as well

You will be surprised how much ART is in Science

In fact Einstein continually claimed that simplicity and asthetic qualities surfaced in Physical equations all the time.

Look at the Euler formula - perhaps the most asthetically balanced equation in Mathematics/Science

http://www.mcglaun.com/euler.gif

The constants in this equation are all irrational numbers that go on forever and yet using them in this way and adding one gives a zero result.

Its proof and derivation is also magnificent.

I have no idea how you gleaned this particular tangent from anything I actually said.

Back to top

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 11^th, 2011 at 11:23am:

So tell me, you'd like to see more and more craphouse coloured people in Australia right?&&Yeah good idea moron.&&

IP Logged

Foolosophy

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1171
Australia
Gender: female

Re: Climate Science
Reply #417 - Apr 1^st, 2011 at 11:41pm

astro_surf wrote on Apr 1^st, 2011 at 11:26pm:

Foolosophy wrote on Mar 31^st, 2011 at 5:43pm:

astro_surf wrote on Mar 31^st, 2011 at 3:21pm:

Uh, ok, whatever floats your boat. I still say physical properties are easier to predict than human behavior.

But that is not what you said.

Um, no, it was exactly what I said. The poo I most definitely did not say is everything quoted below.

Quote:

Science does not stand alone - it permeates many aspects of human acitivity and thought

Likewise Science is influenced by everything else as well

You will be surprised how much ART is in Science

In fact Einstein continually claimed that simplicity and asthetic qualities surfaced in Physical equations all the time.

Look at the Euler formula - perhaps the most asthetically balanced equation in Mathematics/Science

http://www.mcglaun.com/euler.gif

The constants in this equation are all irrational numbers that go on forever and yet using them in this way and adding one gives a zero result.

Its proof and derivation is also magnificent.

I have no idea how you gleaned
this particular tangent from anything I actually said.

I

glea

n whatever I like

Back to top

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Climate Science
Reply #418 - Apr 3^rd, 2011 at 8:45am

Quote:

an-made emissions are likely to cause a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide during this century and this increase will continue to have a warming effect on global temperatures. One of the disappointing distortions of the climate science debate is the claim that sceptics deny this relationship. What sceptics are sceptical about is the strength of this AGW effect.

Actually no. So called 'sceptics' (choose whatever spelling you want Brit or US) claim a wide range of things.

Quote:

The start of our interglacial was dramatic and occurred over a human lifetime.

Incorrect
Quote:

The eccentricity of the Earth’s orbit is currently small and decreasing. This will continue for 30,000 years, which means that our current interglacial is likely to be exceptionally prolonged. By some lucky happenstance our civilisation sits in an astronomical sweet spot, and we probably have hundreds of generations to prepare for the likely return of an ice age.

Speculative. Do you want to get your Captain Nemo videos out again?

Quote:

Climate scientists who argue for a strong AGW effect have tended to rely on less reliable proxy evidence such as tree rings (which may reflect a number of influences, for example the availability of such key nutrients as water) when claiming that recent temperatures are “hotter than ever”.

Totally incorrect and off the wall.

C Quote:

arbon dioxide is transparent to most incoming solar radiation. But it is opaque to certain wavelengths of infrared or “black body” radiation and blocks the escape of this radiation into space from the sun-warmed surface of our planet. Hence the greenhouse effect. In the absence of positive or negative feedbacks, the doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide would eventually raise global average temperatures by about 1 degree. The main qualifiers here are “eventually” and the role of feedbacks.

I presume he means 1 degree F. That would be about right. 0.7 degrees C or about 1.26 degrees F.
Quote:

A majority of Western climate scientists, in predicting severe global warming, argue that there are positive feedbacks causing a strong AGW effect. As increased levels of carbon dioxide heat the atmosphere, atmospheric water vapour (humidity) increases. This water vapour is also a greenhouse gas, and is already far more plentiful than carbon dioxide. Increasing it will amplify the warming caused by increased carbon dioxide—perhaps by up to 5 degrees or more for a doubling of carbon dioxide, according to some general circulation models relied upon by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Again, assuming F degrees, that's about right. 3 Celsius degrees is 5.4 degrees F, so it's probably understated. In fact, I'd go so far to say that most of not all climate models are bunched much closer around 3 degrees. 3 degrees C is the mean rather than the implied outlier.

Quote:

However, other climate scientists argue that the feedbacks can be negative, so there is only a weak AGW effect. The relationship between a warming atmosphere and increased water vapour is complex. Increased water vapour will eventually condense, warming the air around it, as latent heat is released by the change from a gaseous to a liquid state. The condensed vapour may become low-level cloud, which has a cooling effect (as it reflects incoming radiation), or high-level cirrus cloud, which has an overall greenhouse effect.

First all. all climate scientists are aware of positive and negative feedbacks. Virtually all, including Richard Lindzen understand the net effect to be positive. The second part is talking about Richard Lindzen's Iris effect, which not even Richard Lindzen believes these days.

Overall it goes downhill from there. The only climate scientist referenced is Richard Lindzen, (ok and Michael Mann from an adversarial position) and it spends an enormous amount of verbage on two people who are not climate scientists in any way shape or form -

Quote:

McIntyre was not an academic. He teamed up with Ross McKitrick, a professor of economics at the University of Guelph..

Here it focuses on trying to invalidate a single study by Michael Mann from 1999 (based on limited data) as if nothing has transpired since then.

In summary, it's not in the slightest bit impartial. It's quite biased.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Apr 3^rd, 2011 at 8:56am 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:	Re: Climate Science Reply #419 - Apr 3^rd, 2011 at 9:53am AGW is NOT some sort of simple linear porgression with time or increasing CO2 concentration. there are critical tipping points to consider there are irreversible consequences there are negative and postive feedback loops there is the insanity of man to consider
Back to top	IP Logged