Australian Politics Forum - Fundamental Flaw in Climate explanation?

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Fundamental Flaw in Climate explanation
Reply #60 - Jan 5^th, 2012 at 10:45am

Soren wrote on Jan 5^th, 2012 at 9:02am:

Well, the main thrust of that eureka alert article is that they discovered submarine volcanic activity they'd though not possible. In other words, things have been happening all along that they'd thought impossible because these events didn't fit the earlier theory, which in the light of the discovery will now have to be revised and re-formulated.

This is happening ALL the time in science, except, it seems, in certain sections of climate science where there seems to me to be an unseemly certainty about the sufficiency and accuracy of models, even though all players are aware that overall, the grasp of how it all works is far from firm.

Some certainties are promoted, partly for political reasons, while some uncertainties are discounted, for the same reason, until facts, time and time again, force a rethink and grudging reformulation and adjustment. Submarine volcanoes are an example of this, rather than a conclusive rebuttal of AGW. As an unexpected discovery of an unexpoected phenomenon, they are one of the thousands of paper cuts over the last decade that have slowly bled confidence in AGW predictions.

I agree with Doctor Jolly, but add the point that the connection to vast impacts on natural CO2 levels is yours alone (albeit with some inspiration from the blogosphere ). There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that estimates of CO2 flux attributions have been impacted by this finding.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Jan 5^th, 2012 at 2:18pm by muso »

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

IP Logged

BatteriesNotIncluded

Gold Member

Offline

MediocrityNET: because
people died for this!

Posts: 26966

Re: Fundamental Flaw in Climate explanation
Reply #61 - Jan 5^th, 2012 at 10:14pm

muso wrote on Jan 5^th, 2012 at 8:41am:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 4^th, 2012 at 8:51pm:

Ay?!!?

Is this fair dinkum correct

?

The figures are pretty close to the mark.

The bit about emissions from Eyjafjallajokull being equivalent to those of a small European nation was all across the European media when I was on holiday there last year. It refers to what the emission rates from the volcano would have added up to extrapolated over a year. Of course, the eruption didn't last for a year (thankfully) or I would still be stuck in Europe.

It was a big joke about the EC presenting the volcano with a bill for carbon tax - if anybody could get close to it.

...yeh, well, that is certainly interesting!

Warren Buffet is now investing in solar power so I think, adding atleast those two facts up, we are witnessing a world that is turning!

Wink

Back to top

*Sure....they're anti competitive as any subsidised job is. It wouldn't be there without the tax payer. Very damned difficult for a brainwashed collectivist to understand that I know.... (swaggy) *

IP Logged

BatteriesNotIncluded

Gold Member

Offline

MediocrityNET: because
people died for this!

Posts: 26966

Re: Fundamental Flaw in Climate explanation
Reply #62 - Jan 5^th, 2012 at 10:16pm

muso wrote on Jan 5^th, 2012 at 10:45am:

Soren wrote on Jan 5^th, 2012 at 9:02am:

Well, the main thrust of that eureka alert article is that they discovered submarine volcanic activity they'd though not possible. In other words, things have been happening all along that they'd thought impossible because these events didn't fit the earlier theory, which in the light of the discovery will now have to be revised and re-formulated.

This is happening ALL the time in science, except, it seems, in certain sections of climate science where there seems to me to be an unseemly certainty about the sufficiency and accuracy of models, even though all players are aware that overall, the grasp of how it all works is far from firm.

Some certainties are promoted, partly for political reasons, while some uncertainties are discounted, for the same reason, until facts, time and time again, force a rethink and grudging reformulation and adjustment. Submarine volcanoes are an example of this, rather than a conclusive rebuttal of AGW. As an unexpected discovery of an unexpoected phenomenon, they are one of the thousands of paper cuts over the last decade that have slowly bled confidence in AGW predictions.

I agree with Doctor Jolly, but add the point that the connection to vast impacts on natural CO2 levels is yours alone (albeit with some inspiration from the blogosphere ). There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that estimates of CO2 flux attributions have been impacted by this finding.

Has soren added up all the naturally occuring and unaccounted for coal seam fires!??!

...because that could seemingly be seen to conspire against a few richies if they were to get wind of it couldn't it!!!?????!! Huh

Back to top

*Sure....they're anti competitive as any subsidised job is. It wouldn't be there without the tax payer. Very damned difficult for a brainwashed collectivist to understand that I know.... (swaggy) *

IP Logged

BatteriesNotIncluded Gold Member Offline MediocrityNET: because people died for this! Posts: 26966	Re: Fundamental Flaw in Climate explanation Reply #63 - Jan 5^th, 2012 at 10:18pm ...break out the crack fellas because I feel the need for a dodgy accounting party right now!!!
Back to top	Sure....they're anti competitive as any subsidised job is. It wouldn't be there without the tax payer. Very damned difficult for a brainwashed collectivist to understand that I know.... (swaggy) IP Logged

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: Fundamental Flaw in Climate explanation
Reply #64 - Jan 5^th, 2012 at 10:48pm

I do find it telling that you fellas continue whistling as if realisations that there are new, hitherto unthought-of (and therefore unaccounted-for) climate-impacting factors, like this business with unexpected submarine volcanic activity, should be bravely ignored even though (in your cases, because of) they show up the inherent poverty of modeling something on such a vast scale and level of complexity as the climate.

Your theories about AGW are inherently unfalsifiable, in your own minds. You have decided that it MUST be AGW and cannot even conceive of any possibility that your models and theories are incorrect.

Whistle on.

70% of the earth's surface is covered by oceans.
How many volcanoes are there under the oceans? Dunno.
How many are active? Dunno.
Can we simply extrapolate from the no. of terrestrial volcanoes when estimating the no. of submarine ones? Dunno. Probably not.
Are submarine volcanoes any less or more active? Dunno.
Can we waive away all these unquantified contributors to the global ledger of CO2? No (me). Yes (you).
What else don't we know? Dunno.

ANd this is just in realtion to the relatively small issue of volcanoes.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Jan 5^th, 2012 at 10:59pm by Soren »

IP Logged

Doctor Jolly Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 3808	Re: Fundamental Flaw in Climate explanation Reply #65 - Jan 6^th, 2012 at 8:06am Soren, please... Not knowing something, does not disprove something else.
Back to top	IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Fundamental Flaw in Climate explanation
Reply #66 - Jan 6^th, 2012 at 10:45am

Soren wrote on Jan 5^th, 2012 at 10:48pm:

I do find it telling that you fellas continue whistling as if realisations that there are new, hitherto unthought-of (and therefore unaccounted-for) climate-impacting factors, like this business with unexpected submarine volcanic activity, should be bravely ignored even though (in your cases, because of) they show up the inherent poverty of modeling something on such a vast scale and level of complexity as the climate.

Your theories about AGW are inherently unfalsifiable, in your own minds. You have decided that it MUST be AGW and cannot even conceive of any possibility that your models and theories are incorrect.

Whistle on.

70% of the earth's surface is covered by oceans.
How many volcanoes are there under the oceans? Dunno.
How many are active? Dunno.
Can we simply extrapolate from the no. of terrestrial volcanoes when estimating the no. of submarine ones? Dunno. Probably not.
Are submarine volcanoes any less or more active? Dunno.
Can we waive away all these unquantified contributors to the global ledger of CO2? No (me). Yes (you).
What else don't we know? Dunno.

ANd this is just in realtion to the relatively small issue of volcanoes.

I'm glad you realise that finally. The CO2 emitted by submarine vocanoes is definitely a relatively small issue. Volcanic activity is largely limited to the subsea plate boundaries, so your point about coverage by oceans is not relevant.

Some fluxes are more accurately known than others.

Soren, has it occurred to you than we can actually see where the CO2 is coming from as plain as your nose.

CO2 has very unique spectral qualities which means we can see exactly where it's being emitted from orbit. Now according to the Vulcan project (and GOSAT), it's pretty clear where it's coming from - unless you think there are a heck of a lot of volcanoes in China and the USA.

Mate, Colonel Mustard has just been photographed in the kitchen, knife in hand.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Jan 6^th, 2012 at 10:53am by muso »

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 #67 - Jan 7^th, 2012 at 9:51am

muso wrote on Jan 6^th, 2012 at 10:45am:

Soren wrote on Jan 5^th, 2012 at 10:48pm:

I do find it telling that you fellas continue whistling as if realisations that there are new, hitherto unthought-of (and therefore unaccounted-for) climate-impacting factors, like this business with unexpected submarine volcanic activity, should be bravely ignored even though (in your cases, because of) they show up the inherent poverty of modeling something on such a vast scale and level of complexity as the climate.

Your theories about AGW are inherently unfalsifiable, in your own minds. You have decided that it MUST be AGW and cannot even conceive of any possibility that your models and theories are incorrect.

Whistle on.

70% of the earth's surface is covered by oceans.
How many volcanoes are there under the oceans? Dunno.
How many are active? Dunno.
Can we simply extrapolate from the no. of terrestrial volcanoes when estimating the no. of submarine ones? Dunno. Probably not.
Are submarine volcanoes any less or more active? Dunno.
Can we waive away all these unquantified contributors to the global ledger of CO2? No (me). Yes (you).
What else don't we know? Dunno.

ANd this is just in realtion to the relatively small issue of volcanoes.

I'm glad you realise that finally.

Finally??? FFS!!!!! can't you mumpties hear anything other than that goddam buzz and bubble of antropogenic CO2 in your own heads??

With respect Muso, I have never said anywhere that the submarine volcanoes or any other single contributing factor is a refutation or proof in itself. I have said they are an example of the range of unknowns and of the lack of our full grasp of the complexity.

But you still go off every time in your supercilious fashion, like a middle school teacher in a labcoat with groovy badges from the Smithsonian.

BTW if it's such a fuggen breeze to find out out where the active volcanoes are, why is this so:
"Contrary to their expectations, scientists on a research cruise to the Arctic Ocean have found evidence that the Gakkel Ridge, the world's slowest spreading mid-ocean ridge, may be very volcanically active. "
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2001-11/nsf-hrm112601.php

It seems to me that the best way to find climate change news is to Google "contrary to expectations".

Back to top

« Last Edit: Jan 7^th, 2012 at 9:57am by Soren »

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Fundamental Flaw in Climate explanation
Reply #68 - Jan 7^th, 2012 at 10:17am

Soren,
Quote:

Finally??? FFS!!!!! can't you mumpties hear anything other than that goddam buzz and bubble of antropogenic CO2 in your own heads??

I meant that you've finally realised that it's an insignificant and totally irrelevant issue. (Don't get upset, that's a good thing. I'm lauding the fact that you understand that point)

Quote:

It seems to me that the best way to find climate change news is to Google "contrary to expectations".

That article has absolutely nothing to do with climate change. It's about submarine volcanics in the Arctic Ocean.

Quote:

BTW if it's such a fuggen breeze to find out out where the active volcanoes are, why is this so:

Show me where I said that.

Quote:

With respect Muso, I have never said anywhere that the submarine volcanoes or any other single contributing factor is a refutation or proof in itself. I have said they are an example of the range of unknowns and of the lack of our full grasp of the complexity.

Show me where I said or implied that. My point was that they don't need to be known to any great accuracy because they couldn't possibly be emitting any significant mass of CO2 to the atmosphere. Let's put it this way, we know how much CO2 human activity is emitting. In order for volcanic activity to match that rate would require a Pinatubo style eruption every 12 hours (give or take), which would rapidly throw us into another ice age because of the cooling effect of sulphates produced by the volcanoes.

You see, that's the other preposterous side to it. Volcanoes actually have much more of a cooling effect due to their sulphates and aerosols. An absence of volcanic activity (such as in the mid 20th century) can lead to warming. (aha you say - maybe we are overestimating volcanic activity)

Anyway, please remind me why you we talking about volcanic CO2 again? - Have you suddenly decided that the tiny proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere does actually have a substantial warming effect? Don't tell me that you have finally abandoned Soren's Law?

You see like other climate change deniers, you are not presenting a very cohesive argument, and what's left of your credibility is currently around about 398 parts per million (but not rising in your case).

As a philosopher you must realise by now that contradicting yourself is not really very good.

Quote:

But you still go off every time in your supercilious fashion, like a middle school teacher in a labcoat with groovy badges from the Smithsonian.

Thanks. I picture you more in the model of Diogenes, but let's not get too personal.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Jan 7^th, 2012 at 10:44am by muso »

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

IP Logged

BatteriesNotIncluded

Gold Member

Offline

MediocrityNET: because
people died for this!

Posts: 26966

Re: Fundamental Flaw in Climate explanation
Reply #69 - Jan 7^th, 2012 at 5:36pm

Soren wrote on Jan 5^th, 2012 at 10:48pm:

I do find it telling that you fellas continue whistling as if realisations that there are new, hitherto unthought-of (and therefore unaccounted-for) climate-impacting factors, like this business with unexpected submarine volcanic activity, should be bravely ignored even though (in your cases, because of) they show up the inherent poverty of modeling something on such a vast scale and level of complexity as the climate.

Your theories about AGW are inherently unfalsifiable, in your own minds. You have decided that it MUST be AGW and cannot even conceive of any possibility that your models and theories are incorrect.

Whistle on.

70% of the earth's surface is covered by oceans.
How many volcanoes are there under the oceans? Dunno.
How many are active? Dunno.
Can we simply extrapolate from the no. of terrestrial volcanoes when estimating the no. of submarine ones? Dunno. Probably not.
Are submarine volcanoes any less or more active? Dunno.
Can we waive away all these unquantified contributors to the global ledger of CO2? No (me). Yes (you).
What else don't we know? Dunno.

ANd this is just in realtion to the relatively small issue of volcanoes.

SOWING THE SEEDS OF DOUBT, LOL!

GO SOREN!!

Grin

Back to top

*Sure....they're anti competitive as any subsidised job is. It wouldn't be there without the tax payer. Very damned difficult for a brainwashed collectivist to understand that I know.... (swaggy) *

IP Logged

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: Fundamental Flaw in Climate explanation
Reply #70 - Jan 7^th, 2012 at 8:46pm

muso wrote on Jan 7^th, 2012 at 10:17am:

Quote:

BTW if it's such a fuggen breeze to find out out where the active volcanoes are, why is this so:
"Contrary to their expectations, scientists on a research cruise to the Arctic Ocean have found evidence that the Gakkel Ridge, the world's slowest spreading mid-ocean ridge, may be very volcanically active. "

Show me where I said that.

muso wrote on Jan 6^th, 2012 at 10:45am:

CO2 has very unique spectral qualities which means we can see exactly where it's being emitted from orbit. Now according to the Vulcan project (and GOSAT), it's pretty clear where it's coming from - unless you think there are a heck of a lot of volcanoes in China and the USA.

Are you suggesting that submarine volcanoes do not emit CO2.

Back to top

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Fundamental Flaw in Climate explanation
Reply #71 - Jan 7^th, 2012 at 9:26pm

Soren wrote on Jan 7^th, 2012 at 8:46pm:

muso wrote on Jan 7^th, 2012 at 10:17am:

Quote:

BTW if it's such a fuggen breeze to find out out where the active volcanoes are, why is this so:
"Contrary to their expectations, scientists on a research cruise to the Arctic Ocean have found evidence that the Gakkel Ridge, the world's slowest spreading mid-ocean ridge, may be very volcanically active. "

Show me where I said that.

muso wrote on Jan 6^th, 2012 at 10:45am:

CO2 has very unique spectral qualities which means we can see exactly where it's being emitted from orbit. Now according to the Vulcan project (and GOSAT), it's pretty clear where it's coming from - unless you think there are a heck of a lot of volcanoes in China and the USA.

Are you suggesting that submarine volcanoes do not emit CO2.

No. I'm stating that the CO2 they do emit is insignificant in the scheme of things. Human beings exhale CO2 too, but that is also insignificant in the scheme of things.

- And we don't know how many people are exercising at the moment and exhaling CO2 at an increased rate. Should we be worried because it's an unknown? Of course not, because it's insignificant in the scheme of things.

I don't know if you do budgets, but if you do, do you try to detail every single item of petty cash that you'll spend in the next year, or just allocate an estimate?

Back to top

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

IP Logged

BatteriesNotIncluded

Gold Member

Offline

MediocrityNET: because
people died for this!

Posts: 26966

Re: Fundamental Flaw in Climate explanation
Reply #72 - Jan 7^th, 2012 at 11:03pm

Soren wrote on Jan 7^th, 2012 at 9:51am:

muso wrote on Jan 6^th, 2012 at 10:45am:

Soren wrote on Jan 5^th, 2012 at 10:48pm:

I do find it telling that you fellas continue whistling as if realisations that there are new, hitherto unthought-of (and therefore unaccounted-for) climate-impacting factors, like this business with unexpected submarine volcanic activity, should be bravely ignored even though (in your cases, because of) they show up the inherent poverty of modeling something on such a vast scale and level of complexity as the climate.

Your theories about AGW are inherently unfalsifiable, in your own minds. You have decided that it MUST be AGW and cannot even conceive of any possibility that your models and theories are incorrect.

Whistle on.

70% of the earth's surface is covered by oceans.
How many volcanoes are there under the oceans? Dunno.
How many are active? Dunno.
Can we simply extrapolate from the no. of terrestrial volcanoes when estimating the no. of submarine ones? Dunno. Probably not.
Are submarine volcanoes any less or more active? Dunno.
Can we waive away all these unquantified contributors to the global ledger of CO2? No (me). Yes (you).
What else don't we know? Dunno.

ANd this is just in realtion to the relatively small issue of volcanoes.

I'm glad you realise that finally.

Finally??? FFS!!!!! can't you mumpties hear anything other than that goddam buzz and bubble of antropogenic CO2 in your own heads??

With respect Muso, I have never said anywhere that the submarine volcanoes or any other single contributing factor is a refutation or proof in itself. I have said they are an example of the range of unknowns and of the lack of our full grasp of the complexity.

But you still go off every time in your supercilious fashion, like a middle school teacher in a labcoat with groovy badges from the Smithsonian.

BTW if it's such a fuggen breeze to find out out where the active volcanoes are, why is this so:
"Contrary to their expectations, scientists on a research cruise to the Arctic Ocean have found evidence that the Gakkel Ridge, the world's slowest spreading mid-ocean ridge, may be very volcanically active. "
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2001-11/nsf-hrm112601.php

It seems to me that the best way to find climate change news is to Google "contrary to expectations".

-->>.. soren has a superiority complex and he votes liberal!

lol, just so "...NEXT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

Back to top

*Sure....they're anti competitive as any subsidised job is. It wouldn't be there without the tax payer. Very damned difficult for a brainwashed collectivist to understand that I know.... (swaggy) *

IP Logged

BatteriesNotIncluded

Gold Member

Offline

MediocrityNET: because
people died for this!

Posts: 26966

Re: Fundamental Flaw in Climate explanation
Reply #73 - Jan 7^th, 2012 at 11:05pm

Soren wrote on Jan 7^th, 2012 at 8:46pm:

muso wrote on Jan 7^th, 2012 at 10:17am:

Quote:

BTW if it's such a fuggen breeze to find out out where the active volcanoes are, why is this so:
"Contrary to their expectations, scientists on a research cruise to the Arctic Ocean have found evidence that the Gakkel Ridge, the world's slowest spreading mid-ocean ridge, may be very volcanically active. "

Show me where I said that.

muso wrote on Jan 6^th, 2012 at 10:45am:

CO2 has very unique spectral qualities which means we can see exactly where it's being emitted from orbit. Now according to the Vulcan project (and GOSAT), it's pretty clear where it's coming from - unless you think there are a heck of a lot of volcanoes in China and the USA.

Are you suggesting that submarine volcanoes do not emit CO2.

COAL SEAM FIRES IN CHINA CERTAINLY DO!!

I WONDER WHERE ELSE THEY COULD BE??? Undecided

Back to top

*Sure....they're anti competitive as any subsidised job is. It wouldn't be there without the tax payer. Very damned difficult for a brainwashed collectivist to understand that I know.... (swaggy) *

IP Logged

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: Fundamental Flaw in Climate explanation
Reply #74 - Jan 8^th, 2012 at 10:01am

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 7^th, 2012 at 11:03pm:

Soren wrote on Jan 7^th, 2012 at 9:51am:

muso wrote on Jan 6^th, 2012 at 10:45am:

Soren wrote on Jan 5^th, 2012 at 10:48pm:

I do find it telling that you fellas continue whistling as if realisations that there are new, hitherto unthought-of (and therefore unaccounted-for) climate-impacting factors, like this business with unexpected submarine volcanic activity, should be bravely ignored even though (in your cases, because of) they show up the inherent poverty of modeling something on such a vast scale and level of complexity as the climate.

Your theories about AGW are inherently unfalsifiable, in your own minds. You have decided that it MUST be AGW and cannot even conceive of any possibility that your models and theories are incorrect.

Whistle on.

70% of the earth's surface is covered by oceans.
How many volcanoes are there under the oceans? Dunno.
How many are active? Dunno.
Can we simply extrapolate from the no. of terrestrial volcanoes when estimating the no. of submarine ones? Dunno. Probably not.
Are submarine volcanoes any less or more active? Dunno.
Can we waive away all these unquantified contributors to the global ledger of CO2? No (me). Yes (you).
What else don't we know? Dunno.

ANd this is just in realtion to the relatively small issue of volcanoes.

I'm glad you realise that finally.

Finally??? FFS!!!!! can't you mumpties hear anything other than that goddam buzz and bubble of antropogenic CO2 in your own heads??

With respect Muso, I have never said anywhere that the submarine volcanoes or any other single contributing factor is a refutation or proof in itself. I have said they are an example of the range of unknowns and of the lack of our full grasp of the complexity.

But you still go off every time in your supercilious fashion, like a middle school teacher in a labcoat with groovy badges from the Smithsonian.

BTW if it's such a fuggen breeze to find out out where the active volcanoes are, why is this so:
"Contrary to their expectations, scientists on a research cruise to the Arctic Ocean have found evidence that the Gakkel Ridge, the world's slowest spreading mid-ocean ridge, may be very volcanically active. "
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2001-11/nsf-hrm112601.php

It seems to me that the best way to find climate change news is to Google "contrary to expectations".

-->>.. soren has a superiority complex and he votes liberal!

lol, just so "...NEXT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

Regarding you, being simply normal creates a sense of superiority, so I share that sense with countless others here.

Back to top

IP Logged