Australian Politics Forum - The Soren Challenge

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #120 - Oct 14^th, 2011 at 3:14pm

Soren wrote on Oct 14^th, 2011 at 2:03pm:

Hang on. Almost every weather event other than a gentle spring zephyr has been blamed on industrial man's impact on the climate over the last x decade/century. That little bit of CO2 change (from 0.0275 % to 0.375% - NOT all due to humans) has been made responsible for floods, blizzards, melting, freezing, wind, no wind.
If the atmospheric CO2 doubles from 0.0275% to 0.05 % by 2100 - what then? In the context of all the elements and interactions and balances and counterbalances and all the complexities hitherto poorly understood about the global climate, an increase by 0.027% of anything is not going to cause a massive change.

Ahem. All in context. You've now graduated from the strawman to Soren's Law.

Soren's Law: If a parameter is in small proportions relative to the whole then it automatically becomes insignificant.

This particular gem seems at least superficially to be abundantly clear to those lacking in rudimentary analytical faculties. (I also like your valiant application of the KISS principle by the way.)

However if we apply it to other situations then it becomes a bit more troublesome. A tiny quantity of "ricin" about the size of a pinhead casually introduced to your cup of cocoa for example will have a devastating effect on your demeanor, and in fact would probably completely ruin your day.

What you are basically stating is that if you were to suddenly remove the "tiny" proportion of carbon dioxide that is in the atmosphere by whatever means (use your imagination - God and a drinking straw comes to mind) then the laws of Physics will simply not apply because of Soren's law - because the carbon dioxide exists in such a tiny proportion that the Earth's temperature would not plummet to about 30 degrees colder on average than it is today.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Oct 14^th, 2011 at 3:21pm 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: The Soren Challenge
Reply #121 - Oct 14^th, 2011 at 8:11pm

It's all the greenhouse gases tht keep the earth warm, not the 0.03.5 of the atmospheric CO2.

The atmosphere of Mars is 95% CO2, yet it's a very cold place. Even allowing for the added distance, by your reckoning, it shouldn't be so cold with so much CO2 in the atmosphere. If 0.03% atmospheric CO2 here can make a difffrence of 30 degrees, 95% a bit further out in the solar system should make 95 x 0.03 less proportion of distance difference. But it doesn't. Why?

Because it's not that simple as add CO2=increased temperature.

Back to top

IP Logged

Emma

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 9853
OZ
Gender: female

Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #122 - Oct 14^th, 2011 at 8:14pm

Ahem. All in context. You've now graduated from the strawman to Soren's Law.

Soren's Law: If a parameter is in small proportions relative to the whole then it automatically becomes insignificant.

This particular gem seems at least superficially to be abundantly clear to those lacking in rudimentary analytical faculties. (I also like your valiant application of the KISS principle by the way.)

However if we apply it to other situations then it becomes a bit more troublesome. A tiny quantity of "ricin" about the size of a pinhead casually introduced to your cup of cocoa for example will have a devastating effect on your demeanor, and in fact would probably completely ruin your day. - MUSO.

I like it.!! Good argument. KISS
And was it I who was chanting my assumptions, or is this a private argument?? Cool

Like I like to do from time to time - remind people of words of wisdom.IMO
So:
Referring you all to Mr S Clemens' profound statement/observation .. or part there of ....regarding the hierarchy of lies...
'.... there are lies, damned lies and statistics.'

Back to top

live every day

IP Logged

Soren Gold Member Offline Posts: 25654 Gender:	Re: The Soren Challenge Reply #123 - Oct 14^th, 2011 at 9:07pm Except, of course, CO2 is not poisonous like ricin. Muso is lousy with analogies. There is a much greater concentration of CO2 in a can of Coke than in the atmosphere. Yet not even kids die from it. A mystery. .
Back to top	IP Logged

barnaby joe

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1992
euchareena

Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #124 - Oct 14^th, 2011 at 9:44pm

lol.

focusing on an irrelevant unequivalent part of the analogy

the point was that small amounts relative to a whole can make a difference or have an influence

adding small amount of ricin in your blood relative to the rest of your blood --> kills u

adding a small amount of c02 in atmosphere relative to all the other gases --> climate change

are you just playing philosophy games at this point soren Wink

Back to top

IP Logged

Emma

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 9853
OZ
Gender: female

Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #125 - Oct 14^th, 2011 at 10:29pm

" There is a much greater concentration of CO2 in a can of Coke than in the atmosphere. Yet not even kids die from it. A mystery." - Soren

Good grief!! do u really believe that S???

What an irrelevant aside.!! Talk about 'obfuscation and misdirection'...........that's a classic Soren. .

A good example of the tactics and language that all 'good' cons use --!!!

Tongue

Back to top

live every day

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #126 - Oct 14^th, 2011 at 10:41pm

Soren wrote on Oct 14^th, 2011 at 8:11pm:

It's all the greenhouse gases tht keep the earth warm, not the 0.03.5 of the atmospheric CO2.

The atmosphere of Mars is 95% CO2, yet it's a very cold place. Even allowing for the added distance, by your reckoning, it shouldn't be so cold with so much CO2 in the atmosphere. If 0.03% atmospheric CO2 here can make a difffrence of 30 degrees, 95% a bit further out in the solar system should make 95 x 0.03 less proportion of distance difference. But it doesn't. Why?

How about the fact that the Martian atmosphere is pretty close to a vacuum, has extremely little water vapour and the fact that comparing it to the Earth is like chalk and cheese. Soren, please - you are recycling this old argument yet again.

If we reduced the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere on Earth, what would happen?

Well it would start to get colder and the atmosphere would hold less moisture - water is a very significant Greenhouse gas. CO2 and water vapour go hand in hand. Increase the temperature on Earth and the CO2 increases and the water vapour increases.

By the same token, increase the CO2 and the temperature and thus the water vapour concentration increases.

Look, I'm sure that some 18th Century philosopher would be proud of you, but these days we do actually know a fair bit about the properties of matter, and the atmosphere.

- but of course I very much doubt if you want to acknowledge understanding in any way. It would spoil the sport.

Back to top

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

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #127 - Oct 14^th, 2011 at 10:42pm

Soren wrote on Oct 14^th, 2011 at 9:07pm:

Except, of course, CO2 is not poisonous like ricin. Muso is lousy with analogies. There is a much greater concentration of CO2 in a can of Coke than in the atmosphere. Yet not even kids die from it. A mystery.

.

There goes the Soren KISS principle again. Roll Eyes

Simplify to the point of absurdity.

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: The Soren Challenge Reply #128 - Oct 14^th, 2011 at 10:48pm Soren wrote on Oct 14^th, 2011 at 8:11pm: It's all the greenhouse gases tht keep the earth warm, not the 0.03.5 of the atmospheric CO2. Well we have the glimmer of understanding there. What are the Greenhouse gases then?
Back to top	1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not IP Logged

Emma

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 9853
OZ
Gender: female

Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #129 - Oct 14^th, 2011 at 11:02pm

I really wonder about the motivation of deniers.

I know there are many individual reasons why people might decide to reject the idea of climate change, ...(add your own) .... but finding an honestly held, informed, disinterested opponent seems impossible, from the evidence of this forum. Why?
Could it be that their position is untenable.?

Back to top

live every day

IP Logged

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #130 - Oct 15^th, 2011 at 7:40am

Emma wrote on Oct 14^th, 2011 at 10:29pm:

" There is a much greater concentration of CO2 in a can of Coke than in the atmosphere. Yet not even kids die from it. A mystery." - Soren

Good grief!! do u really believe that S???

What an irrelevant aside.!! Talk about 'obfuscation and misdirection'...........that's a classic Soren. .

A good example of the tactics and language that all 'good' cons use --!!!

Tongue

It is far better an example than Muso's stupid analogy with ricin.

Back to top

IP Logged

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #131 - Oct 15^th, 2011 at 7:41am

muso wrote on Oct 14^th, 2011 at 10:48pm:

Soren wrote on Oct 14^th, 2011 at 8:11pm:

It's all the greenhouse gases tht keep the earth warm, not the 0.03.5 of the atmospheric CO2.

Well we have the glimmer of understanding there. What are the Greenhouse gases then?

Don'tr try the condescening tactic, you do not have the ability to pull it off.

Back to top

IP Logged

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #132 - Oct 15^th, 2011 at 7:47am

Emma wrote on Oct 14^th, 2011 at 11:02pm:

I really wonder about the motivation of deniers.

I know there are many individual reasons why people might decide to reject the idea of climate change, ...(add your own) .... but finding an honestly held, informed, disinterested opponent seems impossible, from the evidence of this forum. Why?
Could it be that their position is untenable.?

Why not try taking them at their word? You have never tried that. Endlessly looking at hidden motives just hows how astrological and superstitioyus your thinking is. Here's the gist:

A change of 0.0275% or 0.05% in the CO2 composition of the atmosphere cannot be held responsible for the projected catastrophic climate change. It is too insignificant in such a huge and complex system as the global climate.

Now work your way though that, it's only two lines.

Back to top

IP Logged

barnaby joe Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 1992 euchareena	Re: The Soren Challenge Reply #133 - Oct 15^th, 2011 at 11:12am Quote: It is too insignificant why? the only 'evidence' you're basing this allegation on is the raw percentages. you haven't demonstrated why it is not enough. nearly all the scientists working in this subject have concluded that it is.
Back to top	IP Logged

Soren Gold Member Offline Posts: 25654 Gender:	Re: The Soren Challenge Reply #134 - Oct 15^th, 2011 at 11:54am barnaby joe wrote on Oct 15^th, 2011 at 11:12am: Quote: It is too insignificant why? the only 'evidence' you're basing this allegation on is the raw percentages. you haven't demonstrated why it is not enough. nearly all the scientists working in this subject have concluded that it is. Have they? How do you figure that?
Back to top	IP Logged