Australian Politics Forum - The Soren Challenge

Emma Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 9853 OZ Gender:	Re: The Soren Challenge Reply #240 - Oct 31^st, 2011 at 8:30pm You know?.. that sounds about right to me.
Back to top	live every day IP Logged

Emma

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 9853
OZ
Gender: female

Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #241 - Oct 31^st, 2011 at 8:40pm

'A is for Anthropogenic. Human generated (Gr, anthropos, human + L generatus, generate)

G is for global. L. globus, ball, round thingy, ie the entire Earth.

W is for warming. From Norse > OE. warm

Oh. An Tea is for Twinings'. - Soren

...........Teehee!!

Thanks Soren - I thought that was what A meant. So perhaps you will acknowledge that Climate Change (my preference as a moniker for your AGW ) IS occurring,
..... but your position is that it isn't caused, or exacerbated by any HUMAN shenanigans.!? ..Yes?

Does that about cover it?

Back to top

live every day

IP Logged

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #242 - Oct 31^st, 2011 at 8:49pm

muso wrote on Oct 31^st, 2011 at 6:36pm:

You know that bit about carbon dioxide is produced when you burn anything with carbon in it?

- and the bit about carbon dioxide absorbing in the Infrared?

- and the fact that atmospheric levels have increased by about 30% since we started burning coal and oil?

- and the fact that if we continue to burn fuels etc at the projected rate, the atmospheric concentration will effectively double by around 2050 (give or take) ?

That's it?? Is that all that has ever makes the climate change?
Every climate change event in the past was caused by changes in the atmospheric CO2??
Your own theory?

Back to top

« Last Edit: Nov 1^st, 2011 at 8:27am by Soren »

IP Logged

barnaby joe Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 1992 euchareena	Re: The Soren Challenge Reply #243 - Nov 1^st, 2011 at 7:55am the devil is in the details, soren
Back to top	IP Logged

Soren Gold Member Offline Posts: 25654 Gender:	Re: The Soren Challenge Reply #244 - Nov 1^st, 2011 at 8:06am Very good. Is the devil in ALL the details? Or just some of the details? (BTW I though this was the AGW argument room. Exorcism is further down the corridor...)
Back to top	IP Logged

NorthOfNorth Gold Member Offline OzPolitic Posts: 17258 Gender:	Re: The Soren Challenge Reply #245 - Nov 1^st, 2011 at 8:12am Soren wrote on Nov 1^st, 2011 at 8:06am: Very good. Is the devil in ALL the details? Or just some of the details? Looks like you've got your very own Igor, Master
Back to top	Conviction is the art of being certain IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #246 - Nov 1^st, 2011 at 8:38am

Soren wrote on Oct 31^st, 2011 at 8:49pm:

muso wrote on Oct 31^st, 2011 at 6:36pm:

You know that bit about carbon dioxide is produced when you burn anything with carbon in it?

- and the bit about carbon dioxide absorbing in the Infrared?

- and the fact that atmospheric levels have increased by about 30% since we started burning coal and oil?

- and the fact that if we continue to burn fuels etc at the projected rate, the atmospheric concentration will effectively double by around 2050 (give or take) ?

That's it?? Is that all that has ever makes the climate change?
Every climate change event in the past was caused by changes in the atmospheric CO2??
Your own theory?

I must have missed that part. Did I actually say that carbon dioxide was the one and only variable that controls the climate, or are you trying to pull another swifty?

Keep those strawmen coming Soren, I like burning them down.

Back to top

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

IP Logged

barnaby joe Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 1992 euchareena	Re: The Soren Challenge Reply #247 - Nov 1^st, 2011 at 9:01am and my head id be a scratchin while my thoughts were busy hatchin if i only had a brain
Back to top	IP Logged

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #248 - Nov 1^st, 2011 at 9:01am

Quote:

AGW is not happening.
Even if it was, ETS/tax wouldn't be the answer.

Asked if Canada would participate in a carbon-trading scheme, he replied: "There's nothing to participate in. Where is it going on today?"

He spoke more generally about the ineffectiveness of so-called market mechanisms in dealing with greenhouse gas emissions: "Everyone just lines up to get credit. My province has a lot of forests -- where do we get credit for that? At the end of the day, it's like a pyramid marketing scheme. You don't have to sell this dog food, you just have to get 10 of your friends to sell it and get the royalties from that."

Instead, Mr Baird said, the Canadian government had decided to reduce greenhouse gases through regulation.

"We've taken the decision to use regulation as the centrepiece of our approach."

If he is right in his two judgments -- that Canada and the US will never embark on a carbon tax or ETS, and that an international carbon trading regime is impractical, impossible to implement meaningfully and subject to endless manipulation -- then it follows that the Australian approach of a carbon tax and purchase of offshore carbon credits stands no chance of succeeding.

Mr Baird was toodiplomatic to comment directly on the Australian scheme, but the implications of his analysis are inescapable
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/canada-blunts-carbon-tax-case/s...

So to modify the old joke, not only does Dublin not exist, but if you wanted to go there, you shouldn't start from here.

Back to top

IP Logged

barnaby joe Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 1992 euchareena	Re: The Soren Challenge Reply #249 - Nov 1^st, 2011 at 9:04am i wouldnt wanna go there anyway too many micks there
Back to top	IP Logged

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #250 - Nov 1^st, 2011 at 9:17am

muso wrote on Nov 1^st, 2011 at 8:38am:

Soren wrote on Oct 31^st, 2011 at 8:49pm:

muso wrote on Oct 31^st, 2011 at 6:36pm:

You know that bit about carbon dioxide is produced when you burn anything with carbon in it?

- and the bit about carbon dioxide absorbing in the Infrared?

- and the fact that atmospheric levels have increased by about 30% since we started burning coal and oil?

- and the fact that if we continue to burn fuels etc at the projected rate, the atmospheric concentration will effectively double by around 2050 (give or take) ?

That's it?? Is that all that has ever makes the climate change?
Every climate change event in the past was caused by changes in the atmospheric CO2??
Your own theory?

I must have missed that part. Did I actually say that carbon dioxide was the one and only variable that controls the climate, or are you trying to pull another swifty?

Keep those strawmen coming Soren, I like burning them down.

Very well, what are you going to do about all the other non-human variables that evidently influence the climate?

AGW implies that human CO2 is THE factor that tips climate one way or the other THIS time. SO just because you do not spell it out it doesn't mean that it is not the central thesis of AGW.

Muso, my point has always been that climate is too complex with too many variables and interactions, many/most of which we do not fully or even well understand and of all these various knows and unknowns, CO2 is only one. People latch onto it because it is one of the few measurable human contribution. But that in itself does not make antropogenic CO2 the bloody one true ring to rule them all. In my view it is a delusion of grandeur to imagine that we are 'changing the climate'. None of the past climatic changes were due to human activity, let alone antropogenetic CO2.

So all the AGW groupies can sing along with Liza, "Maybe this time, for the first time, I'll be lucky" with predicting that the flatulence will roon us all.

Back to top

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #251 - Nov 1^st, 2011 at 11:37am

Well, you're talking as if this is a fresh argument. It isn't, and I already addressed this many times over in past posts. If
you look again in the "sticky" section, you'll find that explanation. Nobody is claiming that it's all very simple:

The Italians have a saying - "Vino vecchio in bottiglie nuove" (Old wine in new bottles). In other words, you're going over old ground. It was old ground in 2009 when I posted this too.

muso wrote on Jul 24^th, 2009 at 3:01pm:

4. Recent warming cannot be explained by the Sun or natural factors alone

There are many factors which may contribute to climate change. Only when all of these factors are included do we get a satisfactory explanation of the magnitude and patterns of climate change over the last century.

Over the last 1,000 years most of the variability can probably be explained by cooling due to major volcanic eruptions and changes in solar heating.

In the 20th century the situation becomes more complicated. There is some evidence that increases in solar heating may have led to some warming early in the 20th century, but direct satellite measurements show no appreciable change in solar heating over the last three decades. Three major volcanic eruptions in 1963, 1982 and 1991 led to short periods of cooling. Throughout the century, CO2 increased steadily and has been shown to be responsible for most of the warming in the second half of the century.

As well as producing CO2, burning fossil fuels also produces small particles called aerosols which cool the climate by reflecting sunlight back into space. These have increased steadily in concentration over the 20th century, which has probably offset some of the warming we have seen.

Changes in solar activity do affect global temperatures, but research shows that, over the last 50 years, increased greenhouse gas concentrations have a much greater effect than changes in the Sun's energy.

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: The Soren Challenge
Reply #252 - Nov 1^st, 2011 at 12:53pm

You are looking at the last 1000 years (tree samples are available?) and then only at cooling. Then you are looking at the last 50-100 years (the time for which instrumental measuring has been available). But these may be unintentional/irrelevant details.

What I am saying is that there have been many climate changes over the last, say, 100,000 years (human presence), and even more over the last million or so years. Both global and local, both warming and cooling.

WIth the exception of the current change (if there is one), they were all due to something other than human CO2. That many climate changes, in both directions, none due to human CO2.

Now, that we can measure human CO2, it becomes the dominant cause of climate change to the extent that we are told we could actually calibrate it so much that just by regulating human CO2, we could regulate global temperature to stay under 2 degrees of warming in 100 years, if only we are prepared to give the Burmese and the Vietnamese and Chinese a few billion dollars every year.

The money transfer, and with it the transfer of sovereignty, may not be part of the scientific argument, but any scientific finding to which the 'correct' local and global political response is to transfer huge sums of money to the most corrupt jurisdictions on the planet is a suspect scientific finding. If it's just an add-on by the non-scientific hangers-on then the scientists should feel duty-bound to shake off in no uncertain terms. "Not in my name" would be a good tagline for the scientific fraternity. But they are going along with the wheeze because "there's gold in them thar" climate change funding bodies.

Back to top

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #253 - Nov 1^st, 2011 at 4:33pm

Soren wrote on Nov 1^st, 2011 at 12:53pm:

You are looking at the last 1000 years (tree samples are available?) and then only at cooling. Then you are looking at the last 50-100 years (the time for which instrumental measuring has been available). But these may be unintentional/irrelevant details.

What I am saying is that there have been many climate changes over the last, say, 100,000 years (human presence), and even more over the last million or so years. Both global and local, both warming and cooling.

WIth the exception of the current change (if there is one), they were all due to something other than human CO2. That many climate changes, in both directions, none due to human CO2.

Well obviously they were not due to anthropogenic CO2, because they didn't have an industrial revolution until well into the 19th Century. To claim that 100,000 years relates to human presence is pretty irrelevant, because it's all related to the mass of CO2 emitted, and has nothing to do with the presence of human beings on the orbis terrarum.

However, what this data serves to provide with is just a confirmation of the fact that there is an equilibrium between CO2 concentration and temperature. I think I've explained this ad nauseum too.

Our primary evidence is not from historical data. Our primary evidence is from the physical properties of CO2 and other Greenhouse gases and the fact that we can work out the effect by tracing the IR radiation from ground level and determining how much of the energy actually gets through at different levels all the way up. It's like accounting, in fact. The radiative forcing equation is just a way of measuring that, and there is a relationship between the CO2 concentration and the radiative forcing. The radiative forcing varies according to the log of the CO2 concentration.

Just how difficult do you think it would be to confirm IR absorption within the atmosphere? Given that more energy is retained by the Earth as a result, what do you think happens to this energy? Do you think it's inconsequential/ insignificant? Well those people who have taken the measurements and have done the sums think differently.

OK, there are variations that are due to orbital factors over a large timescale. These are pretty well established, and it's pretty dead cert that we didn't have a sudden increase in Solar activity over the last 50 years, because for one thing, we've been measuring the output of the sun during that period.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Nov 1^st, 2011 at 4:39pm 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: The Soren Challenge
Reply #254 - Nov 1^st, 2011 at 4:47pm

Soren wrote on Nov 1^st, 2011 at 12:53pm:

WIth the exception of the current change (if there is one), they were all due to something other than human CO2. That many climate changes, in both directions, none due to human CO2.

Now, that we can measure human CO2, it becomes the dominant cause of climate change to the extent that we are told we could actually calibrate it so much that just by regulating human CO2, we could regulate global temperature to stay under 2 degrees of warming in 100 years, if only we are prepared to give the Burmese and the Vietnamese and Chinese a few billion dollars every year.

The money transfer, and with it the transfer of sovereignty, may not be part of the scientific argument, but any scientific finding to which the 'correct' local and global political response is to transfer huge sums of money to the most corrupt jurisdictions on the planet is a suspect scientific finding. If it's just an add-on by the non-scientific hangers-on then the scientists should feel duty-bound to shake off in no uncertain terms. "Not in my name" would be a good tagline for the scientific fraternity. But they are going along with the wheeze because "there's gold in them thar" climate change funding bodies.

What I'd like to see happen is for every country in the world work on their own towards renewable energy production.

I've said before that I don't buy into transferring huge sums of money to so-called Third World countries - and the likes of China. We do enough of that anyway.

I'm not on that bandwagon, but I know for a fact that there is an atmospherics physics problem.

Back to top

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

IP Logged