Australian Politics Forum - The Soren Challenge

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #255 - Nov 1^st, 2011 at 8:55pm

muso wrote on 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.

What are all the non-human-CO2 forces that caused climate change, both warming and cooling over the millenia, doing NOW?

A 0.03% change of atmospheric CO2 (talking of change over a 300 year period, 1800-2100 and asuming that all atmospheric CO2 change is due to human over tha period) will render/has rendered them ineffectual?

Everything else for millenia - but now only CO2, the one ring to rule them all?

Back to top

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #256 - Nov 1^st, 2011 at 10:56pm

Soren wrote on Nov 1^st, 2011 at 8:55pm:

What are all the non-human-CO2 forces that caused climate change, both warming and cooling over the millenia, doing NOW?

They are doing exactly the same as they have always done.

Read carefully:

Now looking at a graph with an x-axis going from 0 to 100,000 years in the past, we see some fairly marked changes. The temperature goes up and down like a sauce bottle on Kevin Rudd's dinner table (and you'll probably spend the next post dissing that analogy as a distraction). We've all seen the peaks and troughs in temperature in such a graph. However let's spread the axis a bit until it's reading any section that's 200 years wide prior to 1800, and suddenly those marked peaks disappear, leaving a relatively flat baseline, at least compared to the past 50 years or so. Right, he says - so it's a question of scale? Yes it is. As a kid, did you ever record your voice and play it back slowly? Same thing. Those distinct words are now spread out into long whale-song like tones that sound remarkably monotonous.

The only rare exceptions to that have been during period of rapid releases of melt water which had been held up by a dam of ice. This resulted in a reasonable rapid change in temperature during several discrete episodes. However we are not dealing with anything quite so obvious in the past 50 years.

Can we see such graphs? Of course we can. The temperature and CO2 data for Law Dome and Vostok are available in tabular form on the www.

Quote:

A 0.03% change of atmospheric CO2 (talking of change over a 300 year period, 1800-2100 and asuming that all atmospheric CO2 change is due to human over tha period) will render/has rendered them ineffectual?

It's not a 0.03% change, it's about a 100% change in concentration (give or take) or a doubling.

A simple maths tutorial - Let's say that you drink beer with 5% alcohol, and you switch to drinking the same volume of wine with 15% alcohol.

Now In terms of your body, is that
1.. A 10% increase, or
2 A 300% increase in alcohol intake

Your stats are deliberately misleading.

Quote:

Everything else for millenia - but now only CO2, the one ring to rule them all?

You haven't been paying attention, have you? Read the section I wrote in 2009 again and then tell me if it reflects the above statement. (No it doesn't.)

Why are you continually manufacturing strawmen?

By this stage, I'm pretty sure that you're just trolling anyway but I'd be delighted to be proven wrong.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Nov 1^st, 2011 at 11:16pm 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 #257 - Nov 2^nd, 2011 at 10:46am

Just a reminder, from page one : http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1305800675/8#8

Re drinking and percentages: "normal" CO2 levels in the atmosphere: 0.0275%. Panic station CO2 levels: 0.05% That's an increase of 0.0225%, so I was very generous and gave you 0.03% increase. I am sorry if you have been discombobulated by the increase being expressed by the percentage change in CO2 levels in the atmosphere. So here it is, drink it in slowly: a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere means that an extra 0.025 - 0.03% of the atmosphere is CO2.

Re Trolling: I didn't start this thread and so I am just responding to the hecklers.Not buying what you arec selling is not trolling, Muso.

Re graphs and whatnot: my question was and remains: whatever the forces of nature caused past climate change or no change must be also at work now. WHat are they and how dod they work? We do not understand.
Your refernece to some sudden released water due to the disappearence of an ice plug is touching. "this lead to a rapid .... etc", you say. What led to it? Never mind the technical details, it is going to be another 'the legs of the elephant go all the way down" explanation. The central point I make over and over again: we do not understand very well or in some aspects, at all, how the climate works. We can't even tell how much we do not know. In this context, certainties attached to one element are foolish. If these certainties result in crazy and destructive policies, then an explanation must bedemanded for certainties. But these, of course cannot be given due to the Rumsfeld Principle.

Re: Kevin Rudd's sauce bottle- it occurs only once in this post and you have now passed it safely.

Back to top

IP Logged

Soren Gold Member Offline Posts: 25654 Gender:	Re: The Soren Challenge Reply #258 - Nov 2^nd, 2011 at 11:49am The Warmist argument: The denier response: All the wamists are old biddies and queens or biddies/Bob Browns at heart. The deniers are all blokes or blokes at heart. As the yoof of today would say it, warmism is gay.
Back to top	IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #259 - Nov 2^nd, 2011 at 4:23pm

Soren wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2011 at 10:46am:

Re graphs and whatnot: my question was and remains: whatever the forces of nature caused past climate change or no change must be also at work now. WHat are they and how dod they work? We do not understand.

Again - you didn't understand my explanation. It's all to do with timescale. An elephant looks smooth until you look at it close up. Climate data looks like it's changing at an alarming rate if you fail to notice that it's on a 100,000 year scale. Again, maybe you'll "get it" second time round, but if you look at it on a 200 year scale, it appears relatively flat.

Quote:

Your refernece to some sudden released water due to the disappearence of an ice plug is touching. "this lead to a rapid .... etc", you say. What led to it? Never mind the technical details, it is going to be another 'the legs of the elephant go all the way down" explanation.

Orbital changes giving rise to periodical fluctuations in solar radiation leading to glaciations/ interglacials. Here: (yet again)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles

What led to the ice plug disappearing? Eventually something has got to give. You get to the stage where the ice has melted to the point where it has insufficient integrity to hold back the dammed water, and it breaks. It's one of these cataclysmic events that cause short duration changes in climate.

Quote:

The central point I make over and over again: we do not understand very well or in some aspects, at all, how the climate works. We can't even tell how much we do not know. In this context, certainties attached to one element are foolish. If these certainties result in crazy and destructive policies, then an explanation must bedemanded for certainties. But these, of course cannot be given due to the Rumsfeld Principle.

You could say the same thing (and more) about the human body, but that doesn't mean that we can't make intelligent accurate predictions based on data.

We understand how the climate works a lot more than you understand or are led to believe. I don't think it's a crazy and destructive policy to cease reliance on oil and to take actions to make it more attractive to use renewable energy. After all, apart from this tiresome and unsettling technical climate stuff that wannabe 19th century Danish philosophers don't quite manage to come to grips with, there is the more tangible aspect that we're going to run out of these resources sooner or later.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Nov 2^nd, 2011 at 5:01pm 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 #260 - Nov 2^nd, 2011 at 4:30pm

Soren wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2011 at 11:49am:

The Warmist argument:

All the wamists are old biddies and queens or biddies/Bob Browns at heart. The deniers are all blokes or blokes at heart. As the yoof of today would say it, warmism is gay.

There goes the Soren KISS principle again, or was that a pathetic attempt at smokescreening any nasty technical discussion that sounds too convincing for some.

Come off it - cheersquad mentality/ jingoism? Do you really think that's an appropriate response to a technical explanation? - or is it just your distorted idea of humour? Roll Eyes

- and as for the gay slurs, maybe you should try that comment with Arnold Schwarzenneger and see how you fly. He has a way of sorting the manly men from the girly men. Grin

Back to top

« Last Edit: Nov 2^nd, 2011 at 4:59pm by muso »

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 #261 - Nov 2^nd, 2011 at 5:31pm i laughed at the monkees parody. that was pretty funny.
Back to top	IP Logged

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #262 - Nov 3^rd, 2011 at 9:01am

muso wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2011 at 4:23pm:

Soren wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2011 at 10:46am:

Re graphs and whatnot: my question was and remains: whatever the forces of nature caused past climate change or no change must be also at work now. WHat are they and how dod they work? We do not understand.

Again - you didn't understand my explanation. It's all to do with timescale. An elephant looks smooth until you look at it close up. Climate data looks like it's changing at an alarming rate if you fail to notice that it's on a 100,000 year scale. Again, maybe you'll "get it" second time round, but if you look at it on a 200 year scale, it appears relatively flat.

I understand your answer all too well - it is an answer to a question I haven't asked. It the answer you keep giving, no maytter what the question as it is the only answer you have.

My question is : all the other factors that caused climate changes over the last few hundred millenia - what are they doing now?
Does human CO2 override them all?
How?

Back to top

IP Logged

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #263 - Nov 3^rd, 2011 at 9:04am

muso wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2011 at 4:23pm:

Soren wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2011 at 10:46am:

[quote]
The central point I make over and over again: we do not understand very well or in some aspects, at all, how the climate works. We can't even tell how much we do not know. In this context, certainties attached to one element are foolish. If these certainties result in crazy and destructive policies, then an explanation must bedemanded for certainties. But these, of course cannot be given due to the Rumsfeld Principle.

You could say the same thing (and more) about the human body, but that doesn't mean that we can't make intelligent accurate predictions based on data.

Indeed. But 'stop exhailing' is never the cure we prescribe to patients.

Back to top

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #264 - Nov 3^rd, 2011 at 9:32am

Soren wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2011 at 9:01am:

muso wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2011 at 4:23pm:

Soren wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2011 at 10:46am:

Re graphs and whatnot: my question was and remains: whatever the forces of nature caused past climate change or no change must be also at work now. WHat are they and how dod they work? We do not understand.

Again - you didn't understand my explanation. It's all to do with timescale. An elephant looks smooth until you look at it close up. Climate data looks like it's changing at an alarming rate if you fail to notice that it's on a 100,000 year scale. Again, maybe you'll "get it" second time round, but if you look at it on a 200 year scale, it appears relatively flat.

I understand your answer all too well - it is an answer to a question I haven't asked. It the answer you keep giving, no maytter what the question as it is the only answer you have.

My question is : all the other factors that caused climate changes over the last few hundred millenia - what are they doing now?
Does human CO2 override them all?
How?

I think I've answered that. Those factors are still at play, still changing the climate at a barely perceptable rate on the scale of several human lifespans. They are still functioning normally. Thank you very much for asking.

Very occasionally, you get major stratospheric volcanoes. We had one in 1992 in Indonesia. That caused a bit of a blip on the chart. There was a really major one 70,000 years ago that nearly made human beings extinct.

Yes, these natural inputs are in perfectly good health, pretty well understood and accounted for. (Thank you for asking)

Now have I answered your question?

Back to top

« Last Edit: Nov 3^rd, 2011 at 9:39am 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 #265 - Nov 3^rd, 2011 at 9:35am

Soren wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2011 at 9:04am:

muso wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2011 at 4:23pm:

Soren wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2011 at 10:46am:

[quote]
The central point I make over and over again: we do not understand very well or in some aspects, at all, how the climate works. We can't even tell how much we do not know. In this context, certainties attached to one element are foolish. If these certainties result in crazy and destructive policies, then an explanation must bedemanded for certainties. But these, of course cannot be given due to the Rumsfeld Principle.

You could say the same thing (and more) about the human body, but that doesn't mean that we can't make intelligent accurate predictions based on data.

Indeed. But 'stop exhailing' is never the cure we prescribe to patients.

Let me fix your analogy We'd tell the patient to stop hyperventilating.

Continuing to burn carbon and hydrocarbons at the current rate is not the cure we prescribe for the climate either.

At least we're agreed that we can make some decisions on complex systems.

Back to top

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

IP Logged

Soren Gold Member Offline Posts: 25654 Gender:	Re: The Soren Challenge Reply #266 - Nov 4^th, 2011 at 12:27pm Oh?! SO we are not going for zero emission? A little fart, a little burp, the occasional sigh (non-deep, of course) are OK?? That would be such a relief for the blue-in-the-face community. How many of each are permitted? What about pets? Please advise and regards.
Back to top	IP Logged

barnaby joe Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 1992 euchareena	Re: The Soren Challenge Reply #267 - Nov 4^th, 2011 at 2:26pm Quote: Oh?! SO we are not going for zero emission? who are you pretending thought that we actually were?
Back to top	IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #268 - Nov 4^th, 2011 at 2:39pm

Soren wrote on Nov 4^th, 2011 at 12:27pm:

Oh?! SO we are not going for zero emission? A little fart, a little burp, the occasional sigh (non-deep, of course) are OK?? That would be such a relief for the blue-in-the-face community. How many of each are permitted?
What about pets?

Please advise and regards.

Soren Soren, the things I have to explain to you.

Look, if you find a website that suggests you must stop breathing for the good of the environment, please ignore it. I know that you could easily be sucked into that particular scam based on your rather R/S BS meter, but please trust me on that one at least. (on the other hand...........nah- scratch that thought - just keep breathing for now)

As it stands today, a level of approximately 20% of current emissions would be just 'sustainable'. Our exhaled breath is a drop in the ocean compared to burning oil and coal.

So feel free to continue farting as you've been doing on this forum for the last few years, and do so with a clear conscience. Let your wind go free.

Back to top

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

IP Logged

Soren Gold Member Offline Posts: 25654 Gender:	Re: The Soren Challenge Reply #269 - Nov 4^th, 2011 at 4:30pm Or as Kafka put is so poetically: 'This feeling: "here I shall not anchor" — and instantly to feel the billowing, supporting swell around me!"7
Back to top	IP Logged