Australian Politics Forum - Arctic Ice continues to shrink

namnugenot

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 639
NSW
Gender: male

Re: Arctic Ice continues to shrink
Reply #570 - Aug 10^th, 2012 at 12:24am

rabbitoh07 wrote on Aug 10^th, 2012 at 12:12am:

namnugenot wrote on Aug 9^th, 2012 at 11:55pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Aug 9^th, 2012 at 11:43pm:

namnugenot wrote on Aug 9^th, 2012 at 9:50pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Aug 9^th, 2012 at 7:51pm:

namnugenot wrote on Aug 5^th, 2012 at 6:43pm:

Very pretty graphs...I don't have any on me but you get a lovely star and smiley face.

Alas what they don't show is causation so I'm going to have to give you an F.

So what is your explanation for why arctic ice is shrinking?

Care to share your "causation" hypothesis?

I'm supposed to draw a line between the dots of arctic ice shrinkage and increasing CO2 and according to Upton this is further limited to anthropogenic CO2. Even though ice core data supports that CO2 tended to lag temperature rise showing that in the past temperature drove up CO2 rather than the other way around. CO2 was still rising after temperature began to fall. This makes sense because the oceans have about 50 times the CO2 as the atmosphere and an increase of water temperature means that oceans become emitters. Upton will tell you there is a close correlation between CO2 and temperature however this fails to explain temperature for the majority of time life has been present in large quantities on the planet, 7000ppm during the Cambrian and an average of about 2000ppm from then over about the last 550 million years. The permafrost also emits large amounts of CO2 and methane when it thaws. The graphs provided they are accurate prove nothing other than there is less ice. There are any number of things operating at the same time that have the tendency to both deplete and aggregate the mass of ice. To think otherwise is applying a simple cause and effect senario to extremely complex systems. Levels of salinity, changes in currents and prevailing winds as well as climatic variation can all have effects. It is not up to me to provide alternative hypotheses for someone who posts a couple of graphs covering a geological fraction of an eyeblink when they have not made any sort of a case for causation themselves. The earth has never been static before us and no doubt will not be after us so why should it be so while we are here?

So what is your explanation for why arctic ice is shrinking?

Care to share your "causation" hypothesis?

Is it magic?

It shrinks every summer too funnily enough.

It is shrinking summer and winter.

Please tell us why all of the world's scientists are wrong but you and Alan Jones are right.

What is your secret?

Arctic sea ice extent for July 2012 was the second lowest in the satellite record, behind 2011.
(- National Snow and Ice Data Centre)

Satellite records...my...I guess that goes back a way.
When your talking about the world's scientists you might like to go and have a look the survey they took and the methods they employed to come up with that particular pile of horse nuggets.

On another subject I know the bunnies are going to choke come the finals...because deep down they know they're not good enough.

Back to top

IP Logged

progressiveslol

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 17029

Re: Arctic Ice continues to shrink
Reply #571 - Aug 10^th, 2012 at 12:48am

namnugenot wrote on Aug 10^th, 2012 at 12:24am:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Aug 10^th, 2012 at 12:12am:

namnugenot wrote on Aug 9^th, 2012 at 11:55pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Aug 9^th, 2012 at 11:43pm:

namnugenot wrote on Aug 9^th, 2012 at 9:50pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Aug 9^th, 2012 at 7:51pm:

namnugenot wrote on Aug 5^th, 2012 at 6:43pm:

Very pretty graphs...I don't have any on me but you get a lovely star and smiley face.

Alas what they don't show is causation so I'm going to have to give you an F.

So what is your explanation for why arctic ice is shrinking?

Care to share your "causation" hypothesis?

I'm supposed to draw a line between the dots of arctic ice shrinkage and increasing CO2 and according to Upton this is further limited to anthropogenic CO2. Even though ice core data supports that CO2 tended to lag temperature rise showing that in the past temperature drove up CO2 rather than the other way around. CO2 was still rising after temperature began to fall. This makes sense because the oceans have about 50 times the CO2 as the atmosphere and an increase of water temperature means that oceans become emitters. Upton will tell you there is a close correlation between CO2 and temperature however this fails to explain temperature for the majority of time life has been present in large quantities on the planet, 7000ppm during the Cambrian and an average of about 2000ppm from then over about the last 550 million years. The permafrost also emits large amounts of CO2 and methane when it thaws. The graphs provided they are accurate prove nothing other than there is less ice. There are any number of things operating at the same time that have the tendency to both deplete and aggregate the mass of ice. To think otherwise is applying a simple cause and effect senario to extremely complex systems. Levels of salinity, changes in currents and prevailing winds as well as climatic variation can all have effects. It is not up to me to provide alternative hypotheses for someone who posts a couple of graphs covering a geological fraction of an eyeblink when they have not made any sort of a case for causation themselves. The earth has never been static before us and no doubt will not be after us so why should it be so while we are here?

So what is your explanation for why arctic ice is shrinking?

Care to share your "causation" hypothesis?

Is it magic?

It shrinks every summer too funnily enough.

It is shrinking summer and winter.

Please tell us why all of the world's scientists are wrong but you and Alan Jones are right.

What is your secret?

Arctic sea ice extent for July 2012 was the second lowest in the satellite record, behind 2011.
(- National Snow and Ice Data Centre)

Satellite records...my...I guess that goes back a way.
When your talking about the world's scientists you might like to go and have a look the survey they took and the methods they employed to come up with that particular pile of horse nuggets.

On another subject I know the bunnies are going to choke come the finals...because deep down they know they're not good enough.

That is the concensus, therefore its true. The question asked for the concensus was about all the other teams bar the rabbitohs, therefore the rabittohs could not be the winner, or to put it like another concensus we know of, the question asked was of Cronulla and all other teams ignored, therefore Cronulla have already won the grand final.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Aug 10^th, 2012 at 12:56am by progressiveslol »

IP Logged

MOTR

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6646

Re: Arctic Ice continues to shrink
Reply #572 - Aug 10^th, 2012 at 5:24am

namnugenot wrote on Aug 9^th, 2012 at 11:51pm:

MOTR wrote on Aug 9^th, 2012 at 11:07pm:

Are you seriously going to pretend that the AGW hypothesis hasn't been well and truely outlined in this forum.

I'm not sure what you are getting at with that last question. The summer melt is due to orbital factors. The increase is summer melt is due to warmer temperatures driven by an amplified greenhouse effect. Obviously the melt is affected by numerous other factors, however, the trend is driven by anthropogenic warming.

That is my causation hypothesis. Care to share yours.

No you have said over and over again it is CO2 as a stand alone hypothesis to the exclusion of any other possible causation as a driver of possible climate change including natural variability. You have not given even superficial attention to other possible causation. You continually adopt methodology and reasoning, if you can call it that, that disregards data that does not agree with your hypothesis. The ice core data that shows an association between CO2 and temperature but does not do so over the rest of the climate record shows CO2 being driven by temperature not the other way around. CO2 at the moment is still historically very low, and certainly lower than the 7000ppm of the Cambrian and the average of about 2000ppm since then. Three times it has been hotter that it is now in about the last 500k years all without us and the average over this period is about 4 degrees cooler than it is now. We are in fact very fortunate to live in a warm era. You say this is due to orbital forcings and yet there is considerable disagreement even between followers of Milankovitch showing them to have a purely interpretive application like reading palms. The only forcings that are taking place now are with data. And then you accuse others of cherry picking.
For the shrinking of the arctic ice you put up graphs for a couple of decades and that is supposed to be the end of it? Is it your hypothesis that the earth is unchanging?
Do you know what type of rock is on the top of Mt Everest?

Another no wrapped up in a rambling Gish gallop. At the top you have accused me of ignoring other possible causations. I'm quite happy to explore other plausible causations. What is the most likely one outside anthropogenic warming?

You also accuse me of believing that a lack of another plausible causation proves the AGW hypothesis. I certainly don't accept this as absolute proof. I do, however, believe the evidence for AGW is overwhelming and in the absence of a credible alternative it becomes rational to act on the assumption that our actions are driving climate change.

Now let's get to the crux of the problem. I believe you are not prepared to offer an alternative hypothesis for the melt because any remotely plausible hypothesis would have to involve some sort of warming. Warming that you are not prepared to concede.

Back to top

Hunt says Coalition accepts IPCC findings

"What does this mean? It means that we need to do practical things that actually reduce emissions."

IP Logged

namnugenot

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 639
NSW
Gender: male

Re: Arctic Ice continues to shrink
Reply #573 - Aug 10^th, 2012 at 8:36am

MOTR wrote on Aug 10^th, 2012 at 5:24am:

namnugenot wrote on Aug 9^th, 2012 at 11:51pm:

MOTR wrote on Aug 9^th, 2012 at 11:07pm:

Are you seriously going to pretend that the AGW hypothesis hasn't been well and truely outlined in this forum.

I'm not sure what you are getting at with that last question. The summer melt is due to orbital factors. The increase is summer melt is due to warmer temperatures driven by an amplified greenhouse effect. Obviously the melt is affected by numerous other factors, however, the trend is driven by anthropogenic warming.

That is my causation hypothesis. Care to share yours.

No you have said over and over again it is CO2 as a stand alone hypothesis to the exclusion of any other possible causation as a driver of possible climate change including natural variability. You have not given even superficial attention to other possible causation. You continually adopt methodology and reasoning, if you can call it that, that disregards data that does not agree with your hypothesis. The ice core data that shows an association between CO2 and temperature but does not do so over the rest of the climate record shows CO2 being driven by temperature not the other way around. CO2 at the moment is still historically very low, and certainly lower than the 7000ppm of the Cambrian and the average of about 2000ppm since then. Three times it has been hotter that it is now in about the last 500k years all without us and the average over this period is about 4 degrees cooler than it is now. We are in fact very fortunate to live in a warm era. You say this is due to orbital forcings and yet there is considerable disagreement even between followers of Milankovitch showing them to have a purely interpretive application like reading palms. The only forcings that are taking place now are with data. And then you accuse others of cherry picking.
For the shrinking of the arctic ice you put up graphs for a couple of decades and that is supposed to be the end of it? Is it your hypothesis that the earth is unchanging?
Do you know what type of rock is on the top of Mt Everest?

Another no wrapped up in a rambling Gish gallop. At the top you have accused me of ignoring other possible causations. I'm quite happy to explore other plausible causations. What is the most likely one outside anthropogenic warming?

You also accuse me of believing that a lack of another plausible causation proves the AGW hypothesis. I certainly don't accept this as absolute proof. I do, however, believe the evidence for AGW is overwhelming and in the absence of a credible alternative it becomes rational to act on the assumption that our actions are driving climate change.

Now let's get to the crux of the problem. I believe you are not prepared to offer an alternative hypothesis for the melt because any remotely plausible hypothesis would have to involve some sort of warming. Warming that you are not prepared to concede.

Again you answered nothing. You never answer anything, I just want you to put up that overwhelming evidence. I'm the uneducated one remember? So educate me. Note I can already cut and paste.
You claim CO2 and temperature are closely coorrelated and that there are no negative feedbacks for increased CO2.

So what was the ballpark figure for temperature for the Cambrian at 7000ppm and for the average since then of around 2000ppm consistent with your claims?

Back to top

IP Logged

MOTR

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6646

Re: Arctic Ice continues to shrink
Reply #574 - Aug 10^th, 2012 at 8:34pm

At last, something that makes sense.

Firstly, I'd love to explore plausable alternative hypotheses with you, but it seems neither of us can find one.

Secondly, you accuse me of claiming that CO2 driven temperature increases have no negative feedbacks. I know there are negative feedbacks so I'm not expecting you to find a quote where I said otherwise.

Thirdly, you claim the Cambrian period is inconsistent with the AGW hypothesis because "higher CO2 in the past disproves CO2 warming" is essentially a straw man argument. It pretends the AGW hypothesis assumes CO2 is the only driver of climate. Anyone who has delved even a little bit into the science knows this is a complete misrepresentation of the scientific consensus.

Tragically, your sarcastic presentation of yourself as an uneducated simpleton is apt and deep down you know it.

Back to top

Hunt says Coalition accepts IPCC findings

"What does this mean? It means that we need to do practical things that actually reduce emissions."

IP Logged

namnugenot

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 639
NSW
Gender: male

Re: Arctic Ice continues to shrink
Reply #575 - Aug 10^th, 2012 at 10:42pm

MOTR wrote on Aug 10^th, 2012 at 8:34pm:

At last, something that makes sense.

Firstly, I'd love to explore plausable alternative hypotheses with you, but it seems neither of us can find one.

Secondly, you accuse me of claiming that CO2 driven temperature increases have no negative feedbacks. I know there are negative feedbacks so I'm not expecting you to find a quote where I said otherwise.

Thirdly, you claim the Cambrian period is inconsistent with the AGW hypothesis because "higher CO2 in the past disproves CO2 warming" is essentially a straw man argument. It pretends the AGW hypothesis assumes CO2 is the only driver of climate. Anyone who has delved even a little bit into the science knows this is a complete misrepresentation of the scientific consensus.

Tragically, your sarcastic presentation of yourself as an uneducated simpleton is apt and deep down you know it.

I have alternative plausible explanations but again you have to stump up with something of you own and stop being a lazy p*k leaching the intellect of others. Show me one post where you have seriously considered any other factor in the current context of warming. Show me one post where you have seriously explored negative feedbacks.
And still you don't answer the little thing I ask as what was the temperature at 7000ppm and 2000ppm. Which is as expected because that would show conclusively that temperatures were not that much higher and this takes away somewhat from your hysterical, unscientific, exaggerated and fear-mongering claims.
You also say that there are other drivers of climate and yet all we hear is CO2 from you. You show shrinking ice, big deal.
It is not a misrepresentation of the scientific consensus it is the defining tenor of the AGW "scientific" consensus.
And like I care what a dogma driven steaming fat little pile thinks. The very fact that you have answered nothing is vindication enough for me.

Back to top

IP Logged

Upton Sinclair

Senior Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 496

Re: Arctic Ice continues to shrink
Reply #576 - Aug 10^th, 2012 at 11:21pm

namnugenot wrote on Aug 10^th, 2012 at 10:42pm:

Show me one post where you have seriously considered any other factor in the current context of warming. Show me one post where you have seriously explored negative feedbacks.

Show me one post where a denier has come up with anything close to an alternative hypothesis to explain even a fraction of the observed phenomena that confirm AGW:

My breath is bated in anticipation of your considered response.

Back to top

"I am not asking the Australian people to take me on trust, but on the record of a lifetime,"
--Tony Abbott

IP Logged

namnugenot

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 639
NSW
Gender: male

Re: Arctic Ice continues to shrink
Reply #577 - Aug 11^th, 2012 at 12:17am

Upton Sinclair wrote on Aug 10^th, 2012 at 11:21pm:

namnugenot wrote on Aug 10^th, 2012 at 10:42pm:

Show me one post where you have seriously considered any other factor in the current context of warming. Show me one post where you have seriously explored negative feedbacks.

Show me one post where a denier has come up with anything close to an alternative hypothesis to explain even a fraction of the observed phenomena that confirm AGW:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/Fingerprints_1024.jpg

My breath is bated in anticipation of your considered response.

But your mountain is still snow capped!
You still havn't come up with a temperature for 7000ppm and 2000ppm either grandpa.

Back to top

IP Logged

MOTR

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6646

Re: Arctic Ice continues to shrink
Reply #578 - Aug 11^th, 2012 at 7:04am

namnugenot wrote on Aug 10^th, 2012 at 10:42pm:

MOTR wrote on Aug 10^th, 2012 at 8:34pm:

At last, something that makes sense.

Firstly, I'd love to explore plausable alternative hypotheses with you, but it seems neither of us can find one.

Secondly, you accuse me of claiming that CO2 driven temperature increases have no negative feedbacks. I know there are negative feedbacks so I'm not expecting you to find a quote where I said otherwise.

Thirdly, you claim the Cambrian period is inconsistent with the AGW hypothesis because "higher CO2 in the past disproves CO2 warming" is essentially a straw man argument. It pretends the AGW hypothesis assumes CO2 is the only driver of climate. Anyone who has delved even a little bit into the science knows this is a complete misrepresentation of the scientific consensus.

Tragically, your sarcastic presentation of yourself as an uneducated simpleton is apt and deep down you know it.

I have alternative plausible explanations but again you have to stump up with something of you own and stop being a lazy p*k leaching the intellect of others. Show me one post where you have seriously considered any other factor in the current context of warming. Show me one post where you have seriously explored negative feedbacks.
And still you don't answer the little thing I ask as what was the temperature at 7000ppm and 2000ppm. Which is as expected because that would show conclusively that temperatures were not that much higher and this takes away somewhat from your hysterical, unscientific, exaggerated and fear-mongering claims.
You also say that there are other drivers of climate and yet all we hear is CO2 from you. You show shrinking ice, big deal.
It is not a misrepresentation of the scientific consensus it is the defining tenor of the AGW "scientific" consensus.
And like I care what a dogma driven steaming fat little pile thinks. The very fact that you have answered nothing is vindication enough for me.

Mate, what's wrong with listening to what the scientists are saying. They obviously know a lot more about this than either of us. You really have a chip on your shoulder, don't you.

Just in this thread alone I've discussed orbital forcings, the NAO, cosmic rays and natural emitters of CO2. Now if you think I haven't considered other causes for the melt deeply enough, how about you nominate one that we can discuss. You just tell me what you think is the most likely reason for the intensification of the melt and I'll outline my thinking. If my thinking is muddled I'd appreciate it being cleared up.

As for the Cambrian period, I'm really struggling to see how you can draw such strong conclusions from this period of time. Firstly there was no continental land mass located at the north pole so the feedback effects are going to be significantly different. Do you want to assume that the effect of continental drift on ocean currents and global temperatures is insignificant. Even without this difficulty how much do we actually know about the climate of this period.

Was CO2 as high as 7000ppm, what temperature proxies do we have and how accurate are they? What influence were orbital forcings having at the time? If you're happy to explore these things why not take a trip back to the Cambrian period and see if there is anything that we can take from it to inform our understanding of today's climate.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Aug 11^th, 2012 at 7:22am by MOTR »

Hunt says Coalition accepts IPCC findings

"What does this mean? It means that we need to do practical things that actually reduce emissions."

IP Logged

MOTR Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 6646	Re: Arctic Ice continues to shrink Reply #579 - Aug 11^th, 2012 at 11:44am
Back to top	Hunt says Coalition accepts IPCC findings "What does this mean? It means that we need to do practical things that actually reduce emissions." IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Arctic Ice continues to shrink
Reply #580 - Aug 11^th, 2012 at 2:03pm

namnugenot wrote on Aug 11^th, 2012 at 12:17am:

But your mountain is still snow capped!
You still havn't come up with a temperature for 7000ppm and 2000ppm either grandpa.

It doesn't quite work that way. You're talking hundreds of millions of years ago. During most of the Mesozoic, for one thing there was significantly more vegetation than there is today. The carbon sinks were larger. For another thing, the sun's irradiance has also changed significantly. Estimates show that the sun only had 70% of its current output during the Pre Cambrian.

To determine climatical variations during that period is far from exact and estimates vary by several magnitudes.

It's quite illuminating that you would base your assumptions on such tenuous and tentative paleoclimate considerations when you don't accept basic atmospheric science.

Apart from that, you're comparing chalk and cheese.

Back to top

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

IP Logged

namnugenot

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 639
NSW
Gender: male

Re: Arctic Ice continues to shrink
Reply #581 - Aug 11^th, 2012 at 3:45pm

muso wrote on Aug 11^th, 2012 at 2:03pm:

namnugenot wrote on Aug 11^th, 2012 at 12:17am:

But your mountain is still snow capped!
You still havn't come up with a temperature for 7000ppm and 2000ppm either grandpa.

It doesn't quite work that way. You're talking hundreds of millions of years ago. During most of the Mesozoic, for one thing there was significantly more vegetation than there is today. The carbon sinks were larger. For another thing, the sun's irradiance has also changed significantly. Estimates show that the sun only had 70% of its current output during the Pre Cambrian.

To determine climatical variations during that period is far from exact and estimates vary by several magnitudes.

It's quite illuminating that you would base your assumptions on such tenuous and tentative paleoclimate considerations when you don't accept basic atmospheric science.

Apart from that, you're comparing chalk and cheese.

I reject your assumption I do not accept basic atmospheric science. What I reject is that AGW, as it put into practice, is actual science. You see the beauty of AGW as a subject is that it is such a movable feast. It is an evolution of hypothesis and a selective and interpretive application of data to suit the observation that the earth is in a warming trend. It has been doing so for about the last 18k years and is not controversial or disputed by myself. To then in the circumstances point at a dimunition of arctic ice as the burning bush and say behold is the equivalent of cheap parlour tricks when there is natural variability within a number of timescales. I also dispute some of the body of work that proports to underline a warming where this is not supported by the data. To follow science you must be led by the data and not the other way around.
I also reject your view that the paleoclimate has nothing to offer science in illuminating the role of CO2. I will however be on fairly solid ground in saying ancient CO2 obeyed the same physical laws as modern CO2. There is also I think general scientific agreement that CO2 was much higher, although as with all proxies this is far from exact, over most of the course of time that life has been reasonably widespread over the planet. Even ice cores have been considered to have underestimated the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by looking at other proxies.
Interesting analogy with chalk and cheese. One is a product of natural processes and lasts almost indefinitely whereas cheese is hand fashioned with a limited life before it become smelly and less than appetizing and then you are forced to go off and make a new one and repeat the cycle. I put the geological (long) record in the first category and anthropogenic AGW in the latter.
However there is no monopoly on truth here and in the long run it is irrelevant.

Back to top

IP Logged

gizmo_2655

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male

Re: Arctic Ice continues to shrink
Reply #582 - Aug 11^th, 2012 at 4:09pm

namnugenot wrote on Aug 11^th, 2012 at 3:45pm:

muso wrote on Aug 11^th, 2012 at 2:03pm:

namnugenot wrote on Aug 11^th, 2012 at 12:17am:

But your mountain is still snow capped!
You still havn't come up with a temperature for 7000ppm and 2000ppm either grandpa.

It doesn't quite work that way. You're talking hundreds of millions of years ago. During most of the Mesozoic, for one thing there was significantly more vegetation than there is today. The carbon sinks were larger. For another thing, the sun's irradiance has also changed significantly. Estimates show that the sun only had 70% of its current output during the Pre Cambrian.

To determine climatical variations during that period is far from exact and estimates vary by several magnitudes.

It's quite illuminating that you would base your assumptions on such tenuous and tentative paleoclimate considerations when you don't accept basic atmospheric science.

Apart from that, you're comparing chalk and cheese.

I reject your assumption I do not accept basic atmospheric science. What I reject is that AGW, as it put into practice, is actual science. You see the beauty of AGW as a subject is that it is such a movable feast. It is an evolution of hypothesis and a selective and interpretive application of data to suit the observation that the earth is in a warming trend. It has been doing so for about the last 18k years and is not controversial or disputed by myself. To then in the circumstances point at a dimunition of arctic ice as the burning bush and say behold is the equivalent of cheap parlour tricks when there is natural variability within a number of timescales. I also dispute some of the body of work that proports to underline a warming where this is not supported by the data. To follow science you must be led by the data and not the other way around.
I also reject your view that the paleoclimate has nothing to offer science in illuminating the role of CO2. I will however be on fairly solid ground in saying ancient CO2 obeyed the same physical laws as modern CO2. There is also I think general scientific agreement that CO2 was much higher, although as with all proxies this is far from exact, over most of the course of time that life has been reasonably widespread over the planet. Even ice cores have been considered to have underestimated the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by looking at other proxies.
Interesting analogy with chalk and cheese. One is a product of natural processes and lasts almost indefinitely whereas cheese is hand fashioned with a limited life before it become smelly and less than appetizing and then you are forced to go off and make a new one and repeat the cycle. I put the geological (long) record in the first category and anthropogenic AGW in the latter.
However there is no monopoly on truth here and in the long run it is irrelevant.

What he said....

Back to top

"I just get sick of people who place a label on someone else with their own definition.

It's similar to a strawman fallacy"
Bobbythebat

IP Logged

MOTR

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6646

Re: Arctic Ice continues to shrink
Reply #583 - Aug 11^th, 2012 at 4:57pm

namnugenot wrote on Aug 11^th, 2012 at 3:45pm:

muso wrote on Aug 11^th, 2012 at 2:03pm:

namnugenot wrote on Aug 11^th, 2012 at 12:17am:

But your mountain is still snow capped!
You still havn't come up with a temperature for 7000ppm and 2000ppm either grandpa.

It doesn't quite work that way. You're talking hundreds of millions of years ago. During most of the Mesozoic, for one thing there was significantly more vegetation than there is today. The carbon sinks were larger. For another thing, the sun's irradiance has also changed significantly. Estimates show that the sun only had 70% of its current output during the Pre Cambrian.

To determine climatical variations during that period is far from exact and estimates vary by several magnitudes.

It's quite illuminating that you would base your assumptions on such tenuous and tentative paleoclimate considerations when you don't accept basic atmospheric science.

Apart from that, you're comparing chalk and cheese.

I reject your assumption I do not accept basic atmospheric science. What I reject is that AGW, as it put into practice, is actual science. You see the beauty of AGW as a subject is that it is such a movable feast. It is an evolution of hypothesis and a selective and interpretive application of data to suit the observation that the earth is in a warming trend. It has been doing so for about the last 18k years and is not controversial or disputed by myself. To then in the circumstances point at a dimunition of arctic ice as the burning bush and say behold is the equivalent of cheap parlour tricks when there is natural variability within a number of timescales. I also dispute some of the body of work that proports to underline a warming where this is not supported by the data. To follow science you must be led by the data and not the other way around.
I also reject your view that the paleoclimate has nothing to offer science in illuminating the role of CO2. I will however be on fairly solid ground in saying ancient CO2 obeyed the same physical laws as modern CO2. There is also I think general scientific agreement that CO2 was much higher, although as with all proxies this is far from exact, over most of the course of time that life has been reasonably widespread over the planet. Even ice cores have been considered to have underestimated the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by looking at other proxies.
Interesting analogy with chalk and cheese. One is a product of natural processes and lasts almost indefinitely whereas cheese is hand fashioned with a limited life before it become smelly and less than appetizing and then you are forced to go off and make a new one and repeat the cycle. I put the geological (long) record in the first category and anthropogenic AGW in the latter.
However there is no monopoly on truth here and in the long run it is irrelevant.

As close to a faith based position as you can find on this issue.

Got an alternative hypothesis yet, or are you still dodging that one.

Back to top

Hunt says Coalition accepts IPCC findings

"What does this mean? It means that we need to do practical things that actually reduce emissions."

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Arctic Ice continues to shrink
Reply #584 - Aug 11^th, 2012 at 6:31pm

namnugenot wrote on Aug 11^th, 2012 at 3:45pm:

[quote author=455D5B47280 link=1316224167/580#580 date=1344657832]
I reject your assumption I do not accept basic atmospheric science. What I reject is that AGW, as it put into practice, is actual science.

So explain your understanding of how carbon dioxide acts as a greenhouse gas. That's starting with basic atmospheric physics. I want to find out exactly where (and why) you depart from the science that is taught in every physics department in the world.

Quote:

You see the beauty of AGW as a subject is that it is such a movable feast. It is an evolution of hypothesis and a selective and interpretive application of data to suit the observation that the earth is in a warming trend.

Not really. The observations are just confirmation of the consequences of the physical science. Don't get me wrong. The observations are certainly useful confirmations but they confirm the initial hypothesis which comes from the physical properties of the Carbon dioxide molecule, as well as the water molecule, methane, ozone, nitrous oxide etc..

Quote:

It has been doing so for about the last 18k years and is not controversial or disputed by myself.

Incorrect. It was actually a cooling trend prior to industrialisation, but that's probably irrelevent anyway given that there is a physical basis to the science.

Quote:

I also reject your view that the paleoclimate has nothing to offer science in illuminating the role of CO2.{/quote]
I didn't actually say that if you read my post. We can actually learn quite a bit from the paleoclimate without going back 150 million years plus in geological time, which is where the elevated levels of CO2 that you mention come in to play.

[quote]
I will however be on fairly solid ground in saying ancient CO2 obeyed the same physical laws as modern CO2. There is also I think general scientific agreement that CO2 was much higher, although as with all proxies this is far from exact, over most of the course of time that life has been reasonably widespread over the planet.

Of course it did, but there are many other factors apart from CO2. MOTR touched on the distribution of continents and the effects of ocean currents. I brought up the subject of solar output. There are many other factors that come into play, including the fact that there is less vegetation and less carbon sink, and the fact that we don't quite understand the orbital characteristics of the Earth say 150 million years ago and that a lot of the finer detail is missing in the older paleoclimate data. Many more proxies are available for the Quaternary period, such as lacustrine varve deposits, isotope analysis of ocean sediments and less reliable proxies such as tree ring data for even more recent data.

Quote:

Even ice cores have been considered to have underestimated the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by looking at other proxies.

You've jumped several hundred million years ahead when talking about ice cores. They are only good for the last million years or so.

Quote:

However there is no monopoly on truth here and in the long run it is irrelevant.

The conservation of energy is a good start to understanding the implications of increased atmospheric CO2.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Aug 11^th, 2012 at 6:44pm by muso »

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

IP Logged