Australian Politics Forum - Fundamental Flaw in Climate explanation?

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Participate in my survey
Reply #105 - Jan 23^rd, 2012 at 11:12am

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2012 at 8:46am:

..It just seems too convenient that any result is 100 years or more in the future...

It depends what you mean by "result". There will certainly be effects long before that, and probably the most significant effect in the medium term will be due to the lowering of ocean pH.

I think I'll give up trying to explain. I would prefer that you or anybody else understood the mechanism rather than just saying "Trust me - I'm a scientist" Grin

If you do decide to think it through in more detail, let me know.

Back to top

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

IP Logged

gizmo_2655

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male

Re: Participate in my survey
Reply #106 - Jan 23^rd, 2012 at 11:52am

muso wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2012 at 11:12am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2012 at 8:46am:

..It just seems too convenient that any result is 100 years or more in the future...

It depends what you mean by "result". There will certainly be effects long before that, and probably the most significant effect in the medium term will be due to the lowering of ocean pH.

I think I'll give up trying to explain. I would prefer that you or anybody else understood the mechanism rather than just saying "Trust me - I'm a scientist" Grin

If you do decide to think it through in more detail, let me know.

By result I mean a slowing or cooling due to reduction of Co2 production....
Basically...we're supposed to shut down our industrial civilzation, in the hope that something will happen 50 to 100 years after we're dead (so we won't know whether or not it actually works)...

And isn't "Trust me - I'm a scientist" what the whole idea is based on????

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

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Participate in my survey
Reply #107 - Jan 23^rd, 2012 at 1:12pm

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2012 at 11:52am:

muso wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2012 at 11:12am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2012 at 8:46am:

..It just seems too convenient that any result is 100 years or more in the future...

It depends what you mean by "result". There will certainly be effects long before that, and probably the most significant effect in the medium term will be due to the lowering of ocean pH.

I think I'll give up trying to explain. I would prefer that you or anybody else understood the mechanism rather than just saying "Trust me - I'm a scientist" Grin

If you do decide to think it through in more detail, let me know.

1. By result I mean a slowing or cooling due to reduction of Co2 production....
Basically...we're supposed to shut down our industrial civilzation, in the hope that something will happen 50 to 100 years after we're dead (so we won't know whether or not it actually works)...

2. And isn't "Trust me - I'm a scientist" what the whole idea is based on????

1. Nobody is talking about shutting down anything. It's all about a shift to using renewable energy. We can have a successful economic system based on other energy forms. It doesn't have to be oil and coal. In fact we need to transition from oil and coal. If we just shut everything down, it would be chaos.

2. No, certainly not from my perspective. I have Scottish ancestry. I trust nobody. Grin

Back to top

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

IP Logged

gizmo_2655

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male

Re: Participate in my survey
Reply #108 - Jan 23^rd, 2012 at 3:00pm

muso wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2012 at 1:12pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2012 at 11:52am:

muso wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2012 at 11:12am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2012 at 8:46am:

..It just seems too convenient that any result is 100 years or more in the future...

It depends what you mean by "result". There will certainly be effects long before that, and probably the most significant effect in the medium term will be due to the lowering of ocean pH.

I think I'll give up trying to explain. I would prefer that you or anybody else understood the mechanism rather than just saying "Trust me - I'm a scientist" Grin

If you do decide to think it through in more detail, let me know.

1. By result I mean a slowing or cooling due to reduction of Co2 production....
Basically...we're supposed to shut down our industrial civilzation, in the hope that something will happen 50 to 100 years after we're dead (so we won't know whether or not it actually works)...

2. And isn't "Trust me - I'm a scientist" what the whole idea is based on????

1. Nobody is talking about shutting down anything. It's all about a shift to using renewable energy. We can have a successful economic system based on other energy forms. It doesn't have to be oil and coal. In fact we need to transition from oil and coal. If we just shut everything down, it would be chaos.

2. No, certainly not from my perspective. I have Scottish ancestry. I trust nobody. Grin

Well I don't see a solar blast furnace being very successful...
Simply put, at the moment, 100% renewable energy (which is what the Greens in particular are talking about) simply won't do the job of keeping our societies running......Maybe a combined renewable + coal/gas/oil or nuclear would work....

Me too, Irish/Welsh/Scottish.....I trust nothing at face value...

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

muso Gold Member Offline Posts: 13151 Gladstone, Queensland Gender:	Re: Fundamental Flaw in Climate explanation Reply #109 - Jan 24^th, 2012 at 3:17pm In case anybody wonders, I cleaned up Eddy's survey thread and put the off topic posts here. I've now locked it because he said he had printed out the results.
Back to top	« Last Edit: Jan 30^th, 2012 at 12:25pm by muso » 1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not IP Logged

bobbythefap1

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 7026
Listen now to the rain

Re: Participate in my survey
Reply #110 - Jan 30^th, 2012 at 10:00am

I believe that climate change is irrelevant.
We have spend so long arguing about this and that like two year olds that we completely forget what we KNOW oil is actually doing to our environment.
There’s way more than enough evidence not climate change related to stop using fossil fuels.
If people did some research they would see that clean renewable energy is not just some fairy tale that the oil cartels would have you believe. It’s easily attainable and we had the technology a century ago.
Another thing about oil. We should never depend on something so much that is controlled by a monopoly. It’s to dangerous, the oil cartels literally hold billions of life’s in their hands because without oil the modern world stops turning.

Back to top

A day without sunshine is like night.

IP Logged

Soren Gold Member Offline Posts: 25654 Gender:	Re: Fundamental Flaw in Climate explanation Reply #111 - Feb 1^st, 2012 at 9:23am BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Dec 26^th, 2011 at 5:41pm: WHAT ELSE IS NEW!?!?!
Back to top	IP Logged

Doctor Jolly

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 3808

Re: Fundamental Flaw in Climate explanation
Reply #112 - Feb 1^st, 2012 at 10:07am

Anyone along Australia's eastern seaboard is getting a good taste of what climate change will be like, and the correlation between sea temperature rise and weather patterns.

The El Nino and La Nina climate patterns cause only a 0.5 degree difference (on average) in sea temperative in the pacific off Australia's coast. And yet we can see how remarkable the difference is in weather pattern. A couple of years ago, during El Nino, severe drought. Now during La Nina, last years floods, and a very, very wet summer.

Thats only 0.5 degree's. Imagine the amplifying effect of 2 degrees!

Back to top

IP Logged

muso Gold Member Offline Posts: 13151 Gladstone, Queensland Gender:	Re: Fundamental Flaw in Climate explanation Reply #113 - Feb 1^st, 2012 at 10:08am With warming comes increased precipitation - but then that's not simplistic enough. This beer is cold, therefore no Global Warming. (hyuk hyuk)
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: Fundamental Flaw in Climate explanation
Reply #114 - Feb 2^nd, 2012 at 6:48pm

muso wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2012 at 7:43am:

Soren wrote on Feb 1^st, 2012 at 8:59pm:

Doctor Jolly wrote on Feb 1^st, 2012 at 10:07am:

Thats only 0.5 degree's. Imagine the amplifying effect of 2 degrees!

Exactly - imagine. Because that's the realm we are talking abut, the imagination.

If AGW theories were correct and if they had any predictive value, we would have had a steady increase in warming in the last 10+ years. We haven't. The steady increase on CO2 has not steadily amplified the warmth. Wha' happened? Where do I download the patch to fix this error? What's the current afterthought, the current 'oh, I forgot to mention that... ' fix?

10 years is too short a time period to pick any trend of this nature, although the underlying drop in outgoing LWIR emissions can be determined from satellite data. You can put your imagination away. It's there in black and white data.

10 years is less than the ENSO period. You do know what the ENSO period is, don't you?

Remember the bumpy road on a hill analogy? 10 years is just one of the bumps in the road.

What arelief!

What causes the bump in the temperature if there is no corresponding bump in CO2?

Who was the secret wizard, er, significant climate component that was so powerful that it was able to override the mighty Lord Sauron, er, steadily increasing human CO2 emissions, the single, overwhelming cause of us facing an uphill road with temperature?

Shurely shome mishtake.

Back to top

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Fundamental Flaw in Climate explanation
Reply #115 - Feb 3^rd, 2012 at 8:01am

Soren wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2012 at 6:48pm:

muso wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2012 at 7:43am:

Soren wrote on Feb 1^st, 2012 at 8:59pm:

Doctor Jolly wrote on Feb 1^st, 2012 at 10:07am:

Thats only 0.5 degree's. Imagine the amplifying effect of 2 degrees!

Exactly - imagine. Because that's the realm we are talking abut, the imagination.

If AGW theories were correct and if they had any predictive value, we would have had a steady increase in warming in the last 10+ years. We haven't. The steady increase on CO2 has not steadily amplified the warmth. Wha' happened? Where do I download the patch to fix this error? What's the current afterthought, the current 'oh, I forgot to mention that... ' fix?

10 years is too short a time period to pick any trend of this nature, although the underlying drop in outgoing LWIR emissions can be determined from satellite data. You can put your imagination away. It's there in black and white data.

10 years is less than the ENSO period. You do know what the ENSO period is, don't you?

Remember the bumpy road on a hill analogy? 10 years is just one of the bumps in the road.

What arelief!

What causes the bump in the temperature if there is no corresponding bump in CO2?

Who was the secret wizard, er, significant climate component that was so powerful that it was able to override the mighty Lord Sauron, er, steadily increasing human CO2 emissions, the single, overwhelming cause of us facing an uphill road with temperature?

Shurely shome mishtake.

Soren Lorenson You have not been listening.

Nobody is saying that natural processes don't exist. Nobody is saying that CO2 is the only driver - just those people who put up strawmen.

How many times do I have to explain the Solar cycle and the ENSO cycle to you? hmmm?

If you bothered to read that report on planetary temperatures, it would be obvious how it all fits together. Use your noggin.

How many times, do I have to show you this graph showing all the factors involved?

Now go back to the sticky thread and try to understand what you are arguing about, because right now, you are not trying.

That's a C minus Grin

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:	Re: Fundamental Flaw in Climate explanation Reply #116 - Feb 4^th, 2012 at 8:30am I created a separate topic for the Nuclear Power related posts, because it was getting a bit entangled. Off-Topic replies have been moved to this Topic.
Back to top	« Last Edit: Feb 4^th, 2012 at 8:51am by muso » 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: Fundamental Flaw in Climate explanation?
Reply #117 - Feb 4^th, 2012 at 8:56am

Mr Soren - before you come back with your stock reply to the word "Model", let me point out to you that this is historical data. Engineers used the term "model" for example to describe nomograms based on sound engineering data. For example a pressure relief system that relies on a hinged orifice can be modelled in terms of temperature, pressure, flow rate etc depending on the percentage opening of the valve.

It is possible to measure all these parameters, including such things as sulphates in the atmosphere, which originate from volcanic releases and have a net cooling effect.

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: Fundamental Flaw in Climate explanation?
Reply #118 - Feb 4^th, 2012 at 11:16am

muso wrote on Feb 4^th, 2012 at 8:56am:

Mr Soren - before you come back with your stock reply to the word "Model", let me point out to you that this is historical data. Engineers used the term "model" for example to describe nomograms based on sound engineering data. For example a pressure relief system that relies on a hinged orifice can be modelled in terms of temperature, pressure, flow rate etc depending on the percentage opening of the valve.

It is possible to measure all these parameters, including such things as sulphates in the atmosphere, which originate from volcanic releases and have a net cooling effect.

I have never said that things cannot be measured or modelled.

What I have said all along is that the global climate is too complex, with unknown factors and interactions, as well as not fully understood factors and interactions, to present current models as if they covered all variables. They don't.

The proof? The AGW theory's lack of predictive power.

Back to top

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Fundamental Flaw in Climate explanation?
Reply #119 - Feb 4^th, 2012 at 12:45pm

Anyway, you didn't comment on the central point I made, which was that there are other influences and we know their magnitude. I hope I addressed your ahem.... "Lord Sauron" post.
Quote:

What I have said all along is that the global climate is too complex, with unknown factors and interactions, as well as not fully understood factors and interactions....

Well, I think you've demonstrated that basic High School Science is too complex for you to recognise B/S when you read it.

Back to top

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

IP Logged