Home Articles Forum Wiki Poll Garden Contact

 
 
 
  
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
 
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

  Australian Politics Forum › Member Run Boards › Environment › The Soren Challenge
(Moderators: Bobby., Sir_Bobby)
‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›
Pages: 1 
Send Topic Print
The Soren Challenge (Read 45064 times)
perceptions_now
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth  WA
Gender: male
The Soren Challenge
May 19th, 2011 at 8:24pm  
perceptions_now wrote on May 17th, 2011 at 1:45pm:
Soren wrote on May 17th, 2011 at 11:04am:
GREENS leader Bob Brown says the coal mining industry should foot the bill for the Queensland floods because it helped cause them.

”It’s the single biggest cause, burning coal, for climate change and it must take its major share of responsibility for the weather events we are seeing unfolding now,” he said.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/breaking-news/coal-miners-to-blame-for-quee...



But not even the saucy IPCC head buys it:

SPECIFIC natural disasters such as Cyclone Yasi and the Brisbane floods could not be directly linked to man-made climate change, the world’s leading climate change authority said yesterday.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change chairman Rajendra Pachauri said the general observation that climate change was bringing about an increase in extreme weather events was valid but scientists needed to provide much finer detail.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/summer-of-disaster-not-climate-...


Pachauri is a BOB BROWN DENIER!!!! Off with his comb-over!!


That would be quite correct!

Just as it would be a very large stretch to attribute a specific environmental factor, to the obesity of one specific person.

However, as time goes bye, the overall impact of the past & current environment, on human obesity, is becoming more apparent.

That analogy, is similar to how I would also view local, short term  weather events and longer term Climate Change!

Climate Change, can also be compared (in some ways) to another rare/unique event called Peak Oil.

In 1956, Peak Oil was a rare phenomenon, only put up as a "theory" by one person, M. King. Hubbert.

Hubbert's Peak Oil theory was derided by most and confirmation of the fist part of that theory was still 14 years in the future, when the USA finally hit the Peak of the Oil Production in 1970 and US Oil Production is still in decline today, some 40 years later.

Around 2004-2006, depending on what statistic you believe, we also effectively hit Peak Oil, Globally, as predicted in Hubbert's Theory!  

However, Hubbert's theory became much more than theory, well before Global Oil finally Peaked and if governments (local & Global) had moved early enough (say 20 years ago), then we would not be faced with a looming catastrophe, of such a magnitude.

The same goes for Climate Change, it has grown from small beginnings, to a point where the majority of Climate scientists are in broad agreement that our climate is heading for undesirable changes and that certain human related issues are contributing to that change.

So, again we have a choice, we can bury our heads in the sand and say they (the scientists) are wrong. We can take our chances and do nothing, like we did with Peak Oil and if we are right this time, then we will save a few $'s, lets say 5-10% of GDP.

However, if we do bury our heads, do nothing and it turns out that the majority of scientists were correct after all, then we have a far worse situation, than we currently have with Peak Oil.

If the scientists are correct and we do nothing in the way of mitigation, then the day will finally arrive, like Peak Oil, when it becomes obvious the Hubbert & the Climate scientists were correct and because the Climate Change timelines are so long, we will have consigned humanity to an unimaginably difficult future of great hardship.

Forget everything else about who is correct & who is not, about this ideology or that one,
the crucial question is what will be the cost to us and our children, in the longer term, if we take the Peak Oil line, we are wrong and do not take whatever actions are possible to mitigate the worst effects of the GHG/Climate Change problem?  


====================
So, what are the relative costs to humanity, of doing something or doing nothing?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
perceptions_now
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth  WA
Gender: male
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #1 - May 21st, 2011 at 8:25pm  
So, the challenge goes unanswered!

Don't like the odds?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Soren
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 25654
Gender: male
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #2 - May 21st, 2011 at 8:45pm  
We may run out of oil one day. We will never run out of climate.

Do you feel challenged?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
perceptions_now
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth  WA
Gender: male
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #3 - May 21st, 2011 at 11:36pm  
Soren wrote on May 21st, 2011 at 8:45pm:
We may run out of oil one day. We will never run out of climate.

Do you feel challenged?



The challenge is for you, sweetie!

And, the questions are -
What will be the cost to us and our children, in the longer term, if we take the Peak Oil line, we are wrong and do not take whatever actions are possible to mitigate the worst effects of the GHG/Climate Change problem?

What are the relative costs to humanity, of doing something or doing nothing?


In terms of Peak Oil, it isn't so much that we may run out of oil one day, that is actually a certainty, it's more about what happens to Global Economics & Politics, when -
The Peak Oil moment arrives  and the flow of new capacity, is insufficient to offset the loss of capacity to depletion and therefore the usual increase in Demand is not able to be met?

And, the start of the effects of that moment, can be seen in what has happened after 2005, when the Peak Oil moment did arrive!  

Btw, you were nearly right with your line, "We will never run out of climate". But it should have read -
Climate will never run out!
The difference is relatively small, the main thing is, it may just leave out "we".
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Soren
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 25654
Gender: male
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #4 - May 22nd, 2011 at 1:03pm  
We will think of something else long before we run out oil or climate.

We can be sure of one thing - we will not run out of creativity.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
perceptions_now
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth  WA
Gender: male
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #5 - May 22nd, 2011 at 6:23pm  
Soren wrote on May 22nd, 2011 at 1:03pm:

We will think of something else long before we run out oil
or climate.


We can be sure of one thing - we will not run out of creativity.



That's your answer, in place of "good Public policy", we will go will a "wing & a prayer" and hope that the "innovation cavalry" come riding over the hill, just in the nick of time, AGAIN?

You will note that I said, "in the nick of time" and that's because if we were going to "think of something else long before we run out", then we would have already done it!

As I have repeatedly said, in respect of Energy, Oil Production already effectively Peaked back in 2005 and short of another major Recession that will become glaringly obvious to almost all, over the next couple of years.

That said, I expect we will shortly see "the Recession we had to have", as Paul Keating would have put it!  

As I have also said many times, we don't have to run out of Oil, for it to be a major problem.

In fact, Oil becomes a major problem when -
The flow of new capacity, is insufficient to offset the loss of capacity to depletion and therefore the usual increase in Demand is not able to be met?

And, the start of the effects of that moment, can be seen in what has happened after 2005, when the Peak Oil moment did arrive!

Since then, it has been reflected in higher Energy & Food prices, it was reflected in the current GFC starting & it is still being reflected, as the Global Economy again sinks into recession, as many governments & central banks are now broke and can not continue their Keynesian efforts.  

In respect of the Climate, I say again, the Climates time will never run out, but ours may well, unless we ALL take whatever mitigation measures are possible.

Again, forget everything else about who is correct & who is not, about this ideology or that one, the crucial question is what will be the cost to us and our children, in the longer term, if we take the Peak Oil line, we are wrong and do not take whatever actions are possible to mitigate the worst effects of the GHG/Climate Change problem?  

So, Soren, what are the relative costs to humanity, of doing something or doing nothing? What cost/s would you deem necessary, to save not only your own future, but that of your children, their children and of future generations?

We fought wars for much less, what price would be too great too bear, for the survival of the human species?

The clock is ticking and time is shorter, than many may think!
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
perceptions_now
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth  WA
Gender: male
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #6 - May 23rd, 2011 at 9:55pm  
perceptions_now wrote on May 22nd, 2011 at 6:23pm:
Soren wrote on May 22nd, 2011 at 1:03pm:

We will think of something else long before we run out oil
or climate.


We can be sure of one thing - we will not run out of creativity.



That's your answer, in place of "good Public policy", we will go will a "wing & a prayer" and hope that the "innovation cavalry" come riding over the hill, just in the nick of time, AGAIN?

You will note that I said, "in the nick of time" and that's because if we were going to "think of something else long before we run out", then we would have already done it!

As I have repeatedly said, in respect of Energy, Oil Production already effectively Peaked back in 2005 and short of another major Recession that will become glaringly obvious to almost all, over the next couple of years.

That said, I expect we will shortly see "the Recession we had to have", as Paul Keating would have put it!  

As I have also said many times, we don't have to run out of Oil, for it to be a major problem.

In fact, Oil becomes a major problem when -
The flow of new capacity, is insufficient to offset the loss of capacity to depletion and therefore the usual increase in Demand is not able to be met?

And, the start of the effects of that moment, can be seen in what has happened after 2005, when the Peak Oil moment did arrive!

Since then, it has been reflected in higher Energy & Food prices, it was reflected in the current GFC starting & it is still being reflected, as the Global Economy again sinks into recession, as many governments & central banks are now broke and can not continue their Keynesian efforts.  

In respect of the Climate, I say again, the Climates time will never run out, but ours may well, unless we ALL take whatever mitigation measures are possible.

Again, forget everything else about who is correct & who is not, about this ideology or that one, the crucial question is what will be the cost to us and our children, in the longer term, if we take the Peak Oil line, we are wrong and do not take whatever actions are possible to mitigate the worst effects of the GHG/Climate Change problem?  

So, Soren, what are the relative costs to humanity, of doing something or doing nothing? What cost/s would you deem necessary, to save not only your own future, but that of your children, their children and of future generations?

We fought wars for much less, what price would be too great too bear, for the survival of the human species?

The clock is ticking and time is shorter, than many may think!


No response hey, did you feel challenged, sweetie?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
It_is_the_Darkness
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 4000
in a ReTardis
Gender: male
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #7 - May 24th, 2011 at 1:08am  
ALL OUT THERMO-NUCLEAR WAR was a very real possibility that nearly happened. Lunatics like Ronny Reagan wanted a big gun on the moon (Death Star) to point back at earth and satellites for Star Wars attacks. The utter madness of it all.

So to say that the WORLD ISN'T POISENING ITSELF INTO ILL HEALTH is just another denial. It can happen.

War or Suicide. Too much or too little??
Military who over-do it or Medical who don't do enough??
Back to top
 
SUCKING ON MY TITTIES, LIKE I KNOW YOU WANT TO.
 
IP Logged
 
Soren
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 25654
Gender: male
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #8 - May 25th, 2011 at 9:04pm  
perceptions_now wrote on May 23rd, 2011 at 9:55pm:
perceptions_now wrote on May 22nd, 2011 at 6:23pm:
Soren wrote on May 22nd, 2011 at 1:03pm:

We will think of something else long before we run out oil
or climate.


We can be sure of one thing - we will not run out of creativity.



That's your answer, in place of "good Public policy", we will go will a "wing & a prayer" and hope that the "innovation cavalry" come riding over the hill, just in the nick of time, AGAIN?

You will note that I said, "in the nick of time" and that's because if we were going to "think of something else long before we run out", then we would have already done it!

As I have repeatedly said, in respect of Energy, Oil Production already effectively Peaked back in 2005 and short of another major Recession that will become glaringly obvious to almost all, over the next couple of years.

That said, I expect we will shortly see "the Recession we had to have", as Paul Keating would have put it!  

As I have also said many times, we don't have to run out of Oil, for it to be a major problem.

In fact, Oil becomes a major problem when -
The flow of new capacity, is insufficient to offset the loss of capacity to depletion and therefore the usual increase in Demand is not able to be met?

And, the start of the effects of that moment, can be seen in what has happened after 2005, when the Peak Oil moment did arrive!

Since then, it has been reflected in higher Energy & Food prices, it was reflected in the current GFC starting & it is still being reflected, as the Global Economy again sinks into recession, as many governments & central banks are now broke and can not continue their Keynesian efforts.  

In respect of the Climate, I say again, the Climates time will never run out, but ours may well, unless we ALL take whatever mitigation measures are possible.

Again, forget everything else about who is correct & who is not, about this ideology or that one, the crucial question is what will be the cost to us and our children, in the longer term, if we take the Peak Oil line, we are wrong and do not take whatever actions are possible to mitigate the worst effects of the GHG/Climate Change problem?  

So, Soren, what are the relative costs to humanity, of doing something or doing nothing? What cost/s would you deem necessary, to save not only your own future, but that of your children, their children and of future generations?

We fought wars for much less, what price would be too great too bear, for the survival of the human species?

The clock is ticking and time is shorter, than many may think!


No response hey, did you feel challenged, sweetie?



The relative costs to humanity are... well... relative. Do you feel comforted?

DO you have any other vague questions? I have a vague answer for them all:
"Well, perhaps. It depends, doesn't it?"

Remember - I do not believe we can change the climate.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
perceptions_now
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth  WA
Gender: male
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #9 - May 26th, 2011 at 12:04am  
Soren wrote on May 25th, 2011 at 9:04pm:
perceptions_now wrote on May 23rd, 2011 at 9:55pm:
perceptions_now wrote on May 22nd, 2011 at 6:23pm:
Soren wrote on May 22nd, 2011 at 1:03pm:

We will think of something else long before we run out oil
or climate.


We can be sure of one thing - we will not run out of creativity.



That's your answer, in place of "good Public policy", we will go will a "wing & a prayer" and hope that the "innovation cavalry" come riding over the hill, just in the nick of time, AGAIN?

You will note that I said, "in the nick of time" and that's because if we were going to "think of something else long before we run out", then we would have already done it!

As I have repeatedly said, in respect of Energy, Oil Production already effectively Peaked back in 2005 and short of another major Recession that will become glaringly obvious to almost all, over the next couple of years.

That said, I expect we will shortly see "the Recession we had to have", as Paul Keating would have put it!  

As I have also said many times, we don't have to run out of Oil, for it to be a major problem.

In fact, Oil becomes a major problem when -
The flow of new capacity, is insufficient to offset the loss of capacity to depletion and therefore the usual increase in Demand is not able to be met?

And, the start of the effects of that moment, can be seen in what has happened after 2005, when the Peak Oil moment did arrive!

Since then, it has been reflected in higher Energy & Food prices, it was reflected in the current GFC starting & it is still being reflected, as the Global Economy again sinks into recession, as many governments & central banks are now broke and can not continue their Keynesian efforts.  

In respect of the Climate, I say again, the Climates time will never run out, but ours may well, unless we ALL take whatever mitigation measures are possible.

Again, forget everything else about who is correct & who is not, about this ideology or that one, the crucial question is what will be the cost to us and our children, in the longer term, if we take the Peak Oil line, we are wrong and do not take whatever actions are possible to mitigate the worst effects of the GHG/Climate Change problem?  

So, Soren, what are the relative costs to humanity, of doing something or doing nothing? What cost/s would you deem necessary, to save not only your own future, but that of your children, their children and of future generations?

We fought wars for much less, what price would be too great too bear, for the survival of the human species?

The clock is ticking and time is shorter, than many may think!


No response hey, did you feel challenged, sweetie?



The relative costs to humanity are... well... relative. Do you feel comforted?

DO you have any other vague questions? I have a vague answer for them all:
"Well, perhaps. It depends, doesn't it?"

Remember - I do not believe we can change the climate.



Well sweetie, at least I put forward facts and a cogent argument, in support of what I say.

All you seem capable of is one liners, a broad statement that you don't believe in Climate Change, but nothing in the way of substantiation or any cogent facts to back your assertions!

In short, you are prepared to gamble the future of humanity, on a wing & a prayer!

That's not smart, that's dumb!
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Flying Binghi
Senior Member
****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 252
Australia
Gender: male
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #10 - May 26th, 2011 at 12:38am  
.


Quote:
 Climate Change, can also be compared (in some ways) to another rare/unique event called Peak Oil.



The climate always changes, always has, always will.

perceptions-now, how can you compare our ever changing climate with peak oil ? it dont make sense.. Huh





.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
perceptions_now
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth  WA
Gender: male
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #11 - May 26th, 2011 at 12:30pm  
Flying Binghi wrote on May 26th, 2011 at 12:38am:
.


Quote:
 Climate Change, can also be compared (in some ways) to another rare/unique event called Peak Oil.



The climate always changes, always has, always will.

perceptions-now, how can you compare our ever changing climate with peak oil ? it dont make sense.. Huh

.


Well, if you had kept reading, you may have got more of an idea?

perceptions_now wrote on May 19th, 2011 at 8:24pm:
perceptions_now wrote on May 17th, 2011 at 1:45pm:

Climate Change, can also be compared (in some ways) to another rare/unique event called Peak Oil.

In 1956, Peak Oil was a rare phenomenon, only put up as a "theory" by one person, M. King. Hubbert.

Hubbert's Peak Oil theory was derided by most and confirmation of the fist part of that theory was still 14 years in the future, when the USA finally hit the Peak of the Oil Production in 1970 and US Oil Production is still in decline today, some 40 years later.

Around 2004-2006, depending on what statistic you believe, we also effectively hit Peak Oil, Globally, as predicted in Hubbert's Theory!  

However, Hubbert's theory became much more than theory, well before Global Oil finally Peaked and if governments (local & Global) had moved early enough (say 20 years ago), then we would not be faced with a looming catastrophe, of such a magnitude.

The same goes for Climate Change, it has grown from small beginnings, to a point where the majority of Climate scientists are in broad agreement that our climate is heading for undesirable changes and that certain human related issues are contributing to that change.

So, again we have a choice, we can bury our heads in the sand and say they (the scientists) are wrong. We can take our chances and do nothing, like we did with Peak Oil and if we are right this time, then we will save a few $'s, lets say 5-10% of GDP.

However, if we do bury our heads, do nothing and it turns out that the majority of scientists were correct after all, then we have a far worse situation, than we currently have with Peak Oil.

If the scientists are correct and we do nothing in the way of mitigation, then the day will finally arrive, like Peak Oil, when it becomes obvious the Hubbert & the Climate scientists were correct and because the Climate Change timelines are so long, we will have consigned humanity to an unimaginably difficult future of great hardship.

Forget everything else about who is correct & who is not, about this ideology or that one,
the crucial question is what will be the cost to us and our children, in the longer term, if we take the Peak Oil line, we are wrong and do not take whatever actions are possible to mitigate the worst effects of the GHG/Climate Change problem?  


====================
So, what are the relative costs to humanity, of doing something or doing nothing?


The thing is that the Politicians, TPTB and many of the Public didn't believe Peak Oil or didn't want to believe.

However, if those in a position to get the full range of information had viewed the Peak Oil situation properly, then the Global Economy should have started a transition away from Oil & other Fossil Fuels, a good 20-30 years ago and therefore given us sufficient chance of changing the Global Economy in time, without forcing us to go thru, what is now happening and will happen in future.

The same applies to Climate Change, which is now at a similar point to where Peak Oil was shortly after Hubbert make his announcements, back in the 1950's.

The difference being, instead of there being some 50 years between Hubberts announcements and the actual date of Global Peak Oil, the time span between the earlier Climate change announcements and its final confirmation may be on a longer timespan, perhaps 50-100 years.

However, the end results, of both, will show that if mitigation of risks had started early enough or at least earlier, then the worst aspects of both may have been avaodable.

Perhaps, we will not be able to "completely control" the climate changes, but we certainly have changed the shape of the planets total Environment, so we may well be able to give it a big shake/shape going in the other direction on Climate???

In any event & whatever the final outcome, its time that we took the bull by the horns (Peak Oil & Climate Change) and at least made the effort.

As I said earlier, we have fought wars, when there was much less at stake, than the survival of the human species!
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Soren
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 25654
Gender: male
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #12 - May 26th, 2011 at 12:43pm  
perceptions_now wrote on May 26th, 2011 at 12:04am:


Well sweetie, at least I put forward facts and a cogent argument, in support of what I say.

[/quote]


I am sorry, I missed the facts and the cogent argument you say you have posted. All I could see was a silly comparison with peak oil - which we both had a giggle at.

So please remind me where the facts and cogent argument can be found and I will respond to them.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Soren
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 25654
Gender: male
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #13 - May 26th, 2011 at 12:47pm  
If Peak Oil is our guide to action, then do nothing (that is organised or imposed by government) is just the ticket.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
perceptions_now
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth  WA
Gender: male
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #14 - May 26th, 2011 at 1:33pm  
Soren wrote on May 26th, 2011 at 12:43pm:
perceptions_now wrote on May 26th, 2011 at 12:04am:


Well sweetie, at least I put forward facts and a cogent argument, in support of what I say.




I am sorry, I missed the facts and the cogent argument you say you have posted. All I could see was a silly comparison with peak oil - which we both had a giggle at.

So please remind me where the facts and cogent argument can be found and I will respond to them.

[/quote]

Yes, I'm sure you miss the facts, all of those ones, YOU DON'T WANT TO SEE!

In terms of you responding to any cogent argument or set of facts, let's just face one fact, your not going to, because you have no cogent argument or set of facts, to reply with!

In fact, if you had one, you would already have done so.

You remind me of people like Maqqa & a few others, all full of yourself, but there is no substance there!
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
perceptions_now
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth  WA
Gender: male
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #15 - May 26th, 2011 at 1:36pm  
Soren wrote on May 26th, 2011 at 12:47pm:
If Peak Oil is our guide to action, then do nothing (that is organised or imposed by government) is just the ticket.



You would rely on governments, Labor or Liberal?

Then you are a bigger fool!
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Soren
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 25654
Gender: male
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #16 - May 26th, 2011 at 5:04pm  
do nothing (that is organised or imposed by government) = do not do anything that is organised or imposed by the government
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
perceptions_now
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth  WA
Gender: male
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #17 - May 26th, 2011 at 7:34pm  
Soren wrote on May 26th, 2011 at 5:04pm:
do nothing (that is organised or imposed by government) = do not do anything that is organised or imposed by the government



Then, you solution is to rely on the Private sector?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Soren
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 25654
Gender: male
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #18 - May 26th, 2011 at 9:33pm  
perceptions_now wrote on May 26th, 2011 at 7:34pm:
Soren wrote on May 26th, 2011 at 5:04pm:
do nothing (that is organised or imposed by government) = do not do anything that is organised or imposed by the government



Then, you solution is to rely on the Private sector?



If AGW is like peak oil. I wouldn't worry. The government is certainly not going to invent a solution.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
perceptions_now
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth  WA
Gender: male
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #19 - May 26th, 2011 at 10:14pm  
Soren wrote on May 26th, 2011 at 9:33pm:
perceptions_now wrote on May 26th, 2011 at 7:34pm:
Soren wrote on May 26th, 2011 at 5:04pm:
do nothing (that is organised or imposed by government) = do not do anything that is organised or imposed by the government



Then, you solution is to rely on the Private sector?



If AGW is like peak oil. I wouldn't worry.
The government is certainly not going to invent a solution.




So, let me get this straight, is this what you're saying?
1) That Peak Oil is not a problem and neither is Climate Change?

2) Even if Peak Oil &/or Climate Change did become a problem, Governments couldn't provide any solutions and therefore any solutions would have to come from the Private sector?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Soren
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 25654
Gender: male
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #20 - May 26th, 2011 at 10:22pm  
Got it.

Well done!


...
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
It_is_the_Darkness
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 4000
in a ReTardis
Gender: male
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #21 - May 27th, 2011 at 10:45am  
I would have thought that Climate Change was not a Political issue in the first place - more an Environmental one?
Back to top
 
SUCKING ON MY TITTIES, LIKE I KNOW YOU WANT TO.
 
IP Logged
 
Soren
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 25654
Gender: male
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #22 - May 27th, 2011 at 10:52am  
It_is_the_Darkness wrote on May 27th, 2011 at 10:45am:
I would have thought that Climate Change was not a Political issue in the first place - more an Environmental one?



Nah. It was invented, like the internet, by AL Gore, taking an idea from Margaret Thatcher (who came up whith the wheeze as a way of crushing the miners in England).
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
perceptions_now
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth  WA
Gender: male
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #23 - May 27th, 2011 at 11:21am  
Soren wrote on May 27th, 2011 at 10:52am:
It_is_the_Darkness wrote on May 27th, 2011 at 10:45am:
I would have thought that Climate Change was not a Political issue in the first place - more an Environmental one?



Nah. It was invented, like the internet, by AL Gore, taking an idea from Margaret Thatcher (who came up whith the wheeze as a way of crushing the miners in England).


So, Climate Change was invented by Al Gore & it has no basis in fact?

And Peak Oil, is that the same, no basis in fact, it was invented by someone with vested interests?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Soren
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 25654
Gender: male
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #24 - May 27th, 2011 at 11:39am  
1. Yes. CO2 is miniscule in the scheme of things, proportionatly to other things that make up the climate. Human emissions of CO2 are only part of that total. In any case, there is good use for CO2 on this earth as life here is carbon-based.

2. Peak Oil is a completely different thing, as we clarified already, since oil is something that you can run out of. Climate isn't. Since the peak oil panic about 30 years ago, we have discovered and extracted natural gas in great quantities.




Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
perceptions_now
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth  WA
Gender: male
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #25 - May 27th, 2011 at 6:23pm  
Soren wrote on May 27th, 2011 at 11:39am:
1. Yes. CO2 is miniscule in the scheme of things, proportionatly to other things that make up the climate. Human emissions of CO2 are only part of that total. In any case, there is good use for CO2 on this earth as life here is carbon-based.

2. Peak Oil is a completely different thing, as we clarified already, since oil is something that you can run out of. Climate isn't. Since the peak oil panic about 30 years ago, we have discovered and extracted natural gas in great quantities.



We are making progress, that's good!

That said, a little clarification on the Peak Oil issue?

You seemed to suggest yesterday that Peak Oil wasn't a problem, but this morning you hedged your bets, suggesting it could run out, but that Natural Gas may save the day?
So, is Peak Oil &/or Peak Energy a problem?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Soren
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 25654
Gender: male
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #26 - May 28th, 2011 at 11:56pm  
I was hedging?

Peak oil is not a problem - see increased natuaral gas production.


We will never run out of oil or gas, just as we have never run out of wood (yes, yes, one in renewable and the other two aren't but that's not important right now). WHat is important is that we do not rely on wood any more, even though for millenia it was the sole source of energy.

We just got onto something better. And not because we were running out of wood.  SO, you see, all this peak oil nonsense is, well, nonsense.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Emma
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 9853
OZ
Gender: female
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #27 - May 29th, 2011 at 3:18am  
So what was the challenge again Soren??
What is it you wish a discussion on? - it doesn't seem to appear at the beginning of the thread - something about climate change, ?  fossil fuel? and what??
Some thing you say is nonsense.

Human impact on climate?
Well - that is obvious - so that cant be it. Roll Eyes Huh
I must have missed something somewhere.

As someone you no doubt approve of used to say  - Please explain? Kiss Kiss
Back to top
 
live every day
 
IP Logged
 
Soren
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 25654
Gender: male
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #28 - May 29th, 2011 at 10:29am  
Emma wrote on May 29th, 2011 at 3:18am:
So what was the challenge again Soren??
What is it you wish a discussion on? - it doesn't seem to appear at the beginning of the thread - something about climate change, ?  fossil fuel? and what??
Some thing you say is nonsense.

Human impact on climate?
Well - that is obvious - so that cant be it. Roll Eyes Huh
I must have missed something somewhere.

As someone you no doubt approve of used to say  - Please explain? Kiss Kiss



Excellent questions, I was wondering myself.  You'd better ask the guy who posed the challenge and started the thread.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Emma
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 9853
OZ
Gender: female
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #29 - May 29th, 2011 at 6:28pm  
Dang it!!  Did it again -  sorry Soren for mistaking you for Perceptions Now.

But my questions remain PN.  What the....? Smiley
Back to top
 
live every day
 
IP Logged
 
perceptions_now
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth  WA
Gender: male
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #30 - May 29th, 2011 at 7:48pm  
Emma wrote on May 29th, 2011 at 6:28pm:
Dang it!!  Did it again -  sorry Soren for mistaking you for Perceptions Now.

But my questions remain PN.  What the....? Smiley


Well, Soren has spent this long just trying to decide IF there ARE ANY PROBLEMS.

But, the origin of the discussion was -
Forget everything else about who is correct & who is not, about this ideology or that one, the crucial question is what will be the cost to us and our children, in the longer term, if we take the Peak Oil line, we are wrong and do not take whatever actions are possible to mitigate the worst effects of the GHG/Climate Change problem?  

So, what are the relative costs to humanity, of doing something or doing nothing?


Well, according to Soren, It now seems that Peak Oil is NOT a problem, even though it is a finite resource, which means you can run out of it, but all is ok because there is plenty of Natural Gas, which is strange because that is also a finite resource, which will also run out!

And, also according to Soren, it seems that Climate Change is NOT a problem, because human CO2 is only a small part of all the CO2, which is in turn a miniscule part of the total Climate.
I don't propose to argue that now, but as an analogy, I will say there is usually very little in the winning margin of most Melbourne Cups, perhaps a nose after 3200 metres, but that tiny winning margin means an enormous difference for the horses & the owners.

That said, I believe Soren is wrong on both counts, I have already laid out a huge amount of information to back up my belief, which I don't propose to re-address in this post, but I will restate my main original question, which was -
So, what are the relative costs to humanity, of doing something or doing nothing?

In other words, what are the costs, benefits & losses involved, in being correct &/or incorrect, if we move on my senario's, versus moving on Soren's assumptions?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Soren
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 25654
Gender: male
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #31 - May 29th, 2011 at 8:05pm  
Emma wrote on May 29th, 2011 at 6:28pm:
sorry Soren for mistaking you for Perceptions Now.



Oy! Don't you try covering up incompetence with isolence, you hear!

Angry
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Soren
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 25654
Gender: male
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #32 - May 29th, 2011 at 8:17pm  
perceptions_now wrote on May 29th, 2011 at 7:48pm:
Emma wrote on May 29th, 2011 at 6:28pm:
Dang it!!  Did it again -  sorry Soren for mistaking you for Perceptions Now.

But my questions remain PN.  What the....? Smiley


Well, Soren has spent this long just trying to decide IF there ARE ANY PROBLEMS.

But, the origin of the discussion was -
Forget everything else about who is correct & who is not, about this ideology or that one, the crucial question is what will be the cost to us and our children, in the longer term, if we take the Peak Oil line, we are wrong and do not take whatever actions are possible to mitigate the worst effects of the GHG/Climate Change problem?  

So, what are the relative costs to humanity, of doing something or doing nothing?


Well, according to Soren, It now seems that Peak Oil is NOT a problem, even though it is a finite resource, which means you can run out of it, but all is ok because there is plenty of Natural Gas, which is strange because that is also a finite resource, which will also run out!

And, also according to Soren, it seems that Climate Change is NOT a problem, because human CO2 is only a small part of all the CO2, which is in turn a miniscule part of the total Climate.
I don't propose to argue that now, but as an analogy, I will say there is usually very little in the winning margin of most Melbourne Cups, perhaps a nose after 3200 metres, but that tiny winning margin means an enormous difference for the horses & the owners.

That said, I believe Soren is wrong on both counts, I have already laid out a huge amount of information to back up my belief, which I don't propose to re-address in this post, but I will restate my main original question, which was -
So, what are the relative costs to humanity, of doing something or doing nothing?

In other words, what are the costs, benefits & losses involved, in being correct &/or incorrect, if we move on my senario's, versus moving on Soren's assumptions?



Look, this is just Pascal's wager for self-obcessed newpaper readers. 10-20 thousand years ago sea levels were about a 150 meters BELOW where they are now. You could walk to Tasmania. You could walk from Siberia to Alaska.

Then the ice started to melt. Tasmanian Aborigines were running around wailing about what they did to bring it about and what the cost of halting it or at least stabilising it at 50 mettres would be. They killed off all sorts of fauna, burnt vast tracts of land.

None of it worked. It wasn't about them, you see. The sea levels rose more than a 100 metres without any antropogenic CO2.

I know this is unblievable but there it is. You are important. But not that important.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Emma
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 9853
OZ
Gender: female
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #33 - May 29th, 2011 at 9:47pm  
OK - I got it. Roll Eyes

I'm with you PN on this -  But I don't think Soren could even start to answer your q re comparative outcomes.!!!
Not within his capabilities.  And probably a few climate scientists might hazard a guess, but  -  that would be alll it was.
We face NEW ground here, as a race.
What went before may be of some use - instructive, - but in no way speaks to what is happening NOW!!!.

Ludicrous to compare a handful of aboriginals  20,000 yrs ago - to NOW, vis a vis impact on the environment.  In fact it backfires on him, because even the relatively small numbers of aboriginal people in Australia, vast as it is, made a recognisable impact on the environment.  

So - Soren can only mouth the usual blah.
It actually makes me feel ashamed to hear some of the shite that appears on Ozpo.   A good example - we Australians seemed absorbed and obsessed with enforcing the white australia policy, even though that was abandoned more than 40 yrs ago. LIVING IN THE PAST!
Hear the Chief Commissioner for Human Rights in the UN last night?  - or was it the night before?.  Embarrassed
Oh time keeps on slippin' - slippin' - slippin' - in to the future.

So Perception s Now -  I think massive measures MUST be undertaken - YESTERDAY.
Start now ?? we may save some or enable enough time to find alternatives.  MAY........ Morons that think our technology will save us, don't understand that it may save some- but it almost CERTAINLY will not be them.!!

I'm one of the 'it's too late , alrready!!'  Brigade. Sorry PN, but without sacrifices we - the developed world, - don't want to take - (thats obvious!!!!   Angry)   -  very LITTLE will change to the better for the overall outlook  -  people can't even agree about the need for a carbon tax!! and that has got to be the EASIEST way to move towards a better future. Angry Sad
.
Back to top
 
live every day
 
IP Logged
 
Soren
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 25654
Gender: male
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #34 - May 30th, 2011 at 1:48pm  
....coldest May in Sydney in more than 40 years.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/weather/wet-and-wild-week-ahead-for-sydney-20110530-1fbcl.html#ixzz1NnuLSriO


Is this climate or weather?

If a coldest month of X is still weather, how many months/years does it take for weather data to become climate?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
perceptions_now
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth  WA
Gender: male
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #35 - May 30th, 2011 at 5:12pm  
Soren wrote on May 30th, 2011 at 1:48pm:
....coldest May in Sydney in more than 40 years.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/weather/wet-and-wild-week-ahead-for-sydney-20110530-1fbcl.html#ixzz1NnuLSriO


Is this climate or weather?

If a coldest month of X is still weather, how many months/years does it take for weather data to become climate?




I'll answer yours, If you finally answer mine -
So, what are the relative costs to humanity, of doing something or doing nothing?

In other words, what are the costs, benefits & losses involved, in being correct &/or incorrect, if we move on my senario's, versus moving on Soren's assumptions?

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Soren
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 25654
Gender: male
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #36 - May 31st, 2011 at 11:51am  
You repeat the same stupid question with the built-in assumption that whatever is happening (or not) to the climate is our making.

I keep answering by pointing out that your question has this built-in assumption. So your stupid opening gambit about "Forget everything else about who is correct & who is not, about this ideology or that one" is crap because it removes the very basis of your question. Your question would make sense only if we BOTH accepted AGW.

SO if we DO forget about the whole issue of AGW and ask your qeustion - shall we do something about it now or not - we are staring at an exceedingly stupid question because the 'it' has been removed by your "Forget everything else about who is correct & who is not".

This is what you are asking me: Should we do something about non-existing AGW? Should we blow billions on non-existing AGW now or in 20 years? What are the relative costs of not acting on something that is not happening versus acting on something that is not happening?


My answer: there, there; there, there.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
perceptions_now
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth  WA
Gender: male
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #37 - Jun 1st, 2011 at 9:49pm  
Soren wrote on May 31st, 2011 at 11:51am:
You repeat the same stupid question with the built-in assumption that whatever is happening (or not) to the climate is our making.

I keep answering by pointing out that your question has this built-in assumption. So your stupid opening gambit about "Forget everything else about who is correct & who is not, about this ideology or that one" is crap because it removes the very basis of your question. Your question would make sense only if we BOTH accepted AGW.

SO if we DO forget about the whole issue of AGW and ask your qeustion - shall we do something about it now or not - we are staring at an exceedingly stupid question because the 'it' has been removed by your "Forget everything else about who is correct & who is not".

This is what you are asking me: Should we do something about non-existing AGW? Should we blow billions on non-existing AGW now or in 20 years? What are the relative costs of not acting on something that is not happening versus acting on something that is not happening?


My answer: there, there; there, there.



The origin of the discussion was -
Forget everything else about who is correct & who is not, about this ideology or that one, the crucial question is what will be the cost to us and our children, in the longer term
, if we take the Peak Oil line, we are wrong and do not take whatever actions are possible to mitigate the worst effects of the GHG/Climate Change problem?  

So, what are the relative costs to humanity, of doing something or doing nothing?

In other words, what are the costs, benefits & losses involved, in being correct &/or incorrect, if we move on my senario's, versus moving on Soren's assumptions?


As usual, you are confused or mis-directing.

The crucial questions are very straight forward -
1) What are the likely costs, benefits & losses involved, IF humanity were to proceed on MY scenario that Climate Change is a reality and it turned out that my Climate Change scenario was -
a) Correct!
b) Incorrect!

2) What are the likely costs, benefits & losses involved, IF humanity were to proceed on YOUR scenario that Climate Change is NOT a reality and it turned out that Climate Change scenario was -
a) Correct!
b) Incorrect!


Now that should be understandable, even by Maqqa???
Back to top
« Last Edit: Jun 1st, 2011 at 10:25pm by perceptions_now »  
 
IP Logged
 
Emma
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 9853
OZ
Gender: female
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #38 - Jun 1st, 2011 at 10:56pm  
Why ask Soren?

He's just expressing his view ( however duh ! it is.)  Perhaps he has environmental science credentials? Some gravitas .. (love  that word) ..other than a personal opinion that I am unaware of??.  If so - he hasn't shown it.!  

I really understand your point PN   Tongue Just - no-one can really answer your questions.... unless you tune in to Light.
Who would you trust to tell you the truth?
Smiley Smiley
The crucial questions are very straight forward -
1) What are the likely costs, benefits & losses involved, IF humanity were to proceed on MY scenario that Climate Change is a reality and it turned out that my Climate Change scenario was -
a) Correct!
b) Incorrect!

2) What are the likely costs, benefits & losses involved, IF humanity were to proceed on YOUR scenario that Climate Change is NOT a reality and it turned out that Climate Change scenario was -
a) Correct!
b) Incorrect!

So, realistically, MY answer to your questions - all of them - would be  -  UNKNOWN.

But-  I much PREFER your position,  to that of Soren.  Always better to go down fighting,  ..  than in a drunken daze of denial and doggy doo. Roll Eyes
Back to top
 
live every day
 
IP Logged
 
Soren
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 25654
Gender: male
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #39 - Jun 2nd, 2011 at 10:17am  
Emma wrote on Jun 1st, 2011 at 10:56pm:
So, realistically, MY answer to your questions - all of them - would be  -  UNKNOWN.

But-  I much PREFER your position,  to that of Soren.  



Great. You know that those monsters and catastrophies are in your head - but you prefer the little frisson of excitement that comes with dark imaginings.


Quote:
Always better to go down fighting,  ..  than in a drunken daze of denial and doggy doo. Roll Eyes




That's what Don Quixote said as he lowered his cardboard visor and spurred his trusted Rosinante on a charge against the windmills, shouting about the honour and duty of fighting malvolent giants.

...

He knew he wasn't crazy but poreferred the hop[eless romance of chivalry to drab reality. I have sympathy for DOn Quixote. But I emphasise again, he knew he was acting crazy.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
perceptions_now
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth  WA
Gender: male
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #40 - Jun 2nd, 2011 at 11:30am  
Soren wrote on Jun 2nd, 2011 at 10:17am:
Emma wrote on Jun 1st, 2011 at 10:56pm:
So, realistically, MY answer to your questions - all of them - would be  -  UNKNOWN.

But-  I much PREFER your position,  to that of Soren.  



Great. You know that those monsters and catastrophies are in your head - but you prefer the little frisson of excitement that comes with dark imaginings.


Quote:
Always better to go down fighting,  ..  than in a drunken daze of denial and doggy doo. Roll Eyes




That's what Don Quixote said as he lowered his cardboard visor and spurred his trusted Rosinante on a charge against the windmills, shouting about the honour and duty of fighting malvolent giants.

http://0.tqn.com/d/puzzles/1/0/x/R/004.jpg

He knew he wasn't crazy but poreferred the hop[eless romance of chivalry to drab reality. I have sympathy for DOn Quixote. But I emphasise again, he knew he was acting crazy.



As usual, you & your ilk do not address the crucial questions, because the answers are not pretty and you may need to change your perceptions of reality, if you understand these issues!

1) What are the likely costs, benefits & losses involved, IF humanity were to proceed on MY scenario that Climate Change is a reality and it turned out that my Climate Change scenario was -
a) Correct!
b) Incorrect!

2) What are the likely costs, benefits & losses involved, IF humanity were to proceed on the scenario that Climate Change is NOT a reality and it turned out that Climate Change scenario was -
a) Correct!
b) Incorrect!


I wonder why?


Perhaps, it will come to you, if you swot up on it, for a while?

But, perhaps not, as you have been swoting & sweating at it for some time already sweetie and you are no closer to being educated?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Equitist
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 9632
NSW
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #41 - Jun 2nd, 2011 at 11:34am  



I'm not inclined to enter into this debate ATM - but I just wanted to say that this is a fantastic work of art: -

...
Back to top
 
Lamenting the shift in the Australian psyche, away from the egalitarian ideal of the fair-go - and the rise of short-sighted pollies, who worship the 'Growth Fairy' and seek to divide and conquer!
 
IP Logged
 
Soren
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 25654
Gender: male
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #42 - Jun 2nd, 2011 at 12:00pm  
AGW is real and we do
something - cost is equal to the cost of what we are doing. Whether it is effective is unknown as the effects of AGW are unknown.
nothing - cost is equal to the effects of AGW (unknown).



AGW is not real and we do
Something - cost is equal to the cost of whatever we are doing but it is all pointless waste as far as the climate is concerned
nothing - no cost.



A sober assessment indicates that it is better to wait and see what happoens and spend the money on coping with any change that may eventuate than to start spending in advance on a change that we do not fully understand either in scope or whether it is going to happen at all.

It is certainly much more prudent to explore ways of capturing and storing CO2 than to cripple industry and global development.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
perceptions_now
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth  WA
Gender: male
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #43 - Jun 2nd, 2011 at 2:22pm  
Soren wrote on Jun 2nd, 2011 at 12:00pm:
AGW is real and we do
something - cost is equal to the cost of what we are doing. Whether it is effective is unknown as the effects of AGW are unknown.
nothing - cost is equal to the effects of AGW (unknown).



AGW is not real and we do  
Something  - cost is equal to the cost of whatever we are doing but it is all pointless waste as far as the climate is concerned
nothing - no cost.



A sober assessment indicates that it is better to wait and see what happoens and spend the money on coping with any change that may eventuate than to start spending in advance on a change that we do not fully understand either in scope or whether it is going to happen at all.

It is certainly much more prudent to explore ways of capturing and storing CO2 than to cripple industry and global development.






1) What are the likely costs, benefits & losses involved, IF humanity were to proceed on MY scenario that Climate Change is a reality and it turned out that my Climate Change scenario was -
a) Correct!


We, the current batch of humans, would have done whatever we could to prevent a catastrophe and we would have done so on the user pays principle. At least, we would not have completely postponed any costs, exclusively to future generations, so that we could continue to pander to our own immediate whims!

There is no denying that the costs of taking action now, would be significant and when combined with what is already happening relevant to -
1) Demographics - The Baby Boomer Bust.
2) Peak Energy.
3) Massive Global Debt overload.
those costs would most likely make the upcoming Depression, very long & even more painfull.
In relative GDP terms, if all countries chipped in now, then the cost could perhaps be at least 5% of GDP.

However, an overrider is that it must be an all in approach, if some of the larger Economies such as the USA, China, India, Europe and even Australia do not play ball fairly, then whatever is done is likely not to bear fruit and failure will have severe costs!  

b) Incorrect!

Then we will unnecessarily have exacerbated a Depression, into a severe Depression.

2) What are the likely costs, benefits & losses involved, IF humanity were to proceed on the scenario that Climate Change is NOT a reality and it turned out that Climate Change scenario was -
a) Correct!

Then we will unnecessarily have exacerbated a Depression, into a severe Depression.

b) Incorrect!

IF action does not start fairly soon on both Climate Change & Peak Energy, then the results would be -
* The entire Global Economy may vanish!
* A catastrophe, in human loss of life, on a Biblical scale!

The basic difference between the two approaches, is that if we accept there may be a Threat, then we will have simply followed good business practices and acted on the SWOT approach, which is simply a strategic planning method used to evaluate the Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats involved in any project, Private business venture and Governments, at all levels.

We will have detected possible Threats, such as Climate Change & Peak Energy and done our Due Diligence, to see that future generations had a reasonable chance of living a life worth living.

In other words, we (collectively) will simply have done what good businesses, governments & individuals should do, every day and what most actually do.

We have assessed the Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities & Threats, several significant Threats have appeared and we have treated them according to their priority. These threats, whilst some may say they are not overwhelming, nor perhaps even likely, they are of such a size, if they become reality, that we CAN NOT IGNORE THEM.

So, we do what good business pratice dictates, we look at insurance to cover the RISK of SYSTEMIC MELTDOWN, by getting everyone to pitch in a bit every year,  as preventative measures and we take all possible mitigation measures, to try to prevent the systemic meltdown of the Business/Government/Global Economy.    

The likely outcomes of two scenario's is the same, we simply make a bad scenario worse.

If we assume that Climate Change is real, it turns out to be real, we take proper Business Risk mitgation and everyone joins in, then humanity & the Economy, still has hope.

If we assume that Climate Change is NOT real,  but it turns out to be real, we continue with Business as usual and do nothing, then humanity & the Economy, losses all hope and we really are doomed.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Soren
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 25654
Gender: male
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #44 - Jun 2nd, 2011 at 8:33pm  
Can you do the 'AGW is not real" scenarios as well?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
perceptions_now
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth  WA
Gender: male
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #45 - Jun 2nd, 2011 at 9:13pm  
Soren wrote on Jun 2nd, 2011 at 8:33pm:
Can you do the 'AGW is not real" scenarios as well?



It's already been done.

2) What are the likely costs, benefits & losses involved, IF humanity were to proceed on the scenario that Climate Change is NOT a reality and it turned out that Climate Change scenario was -
a) Correct!

Then we will unnecessarily have exacerbated a Depression, into a severe Depression.

However, it probably should have read -
Then we will still have a Depression,  due to the other major factors also in the system -
1) Demographics - The Baby Boomer Bust.
2) Peak Energy.
3) Massive Global Debt overload.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
perceptions_now
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth  WA
Gender: male
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #46 - Jun 2nd, 2011 at 9:19pm  
I post this here, because it's relevant!

perceptions_now wrote on Jun 2nd, 2011 at 9:18pm:
perceptions_now wrote on Jun 2nd, 2011 at 6:50pm:
perceptions_now wrote on Jun 2nd, 2011 at 2:23pm:
I post this here, because it's relevant!

1) What are the likely costs, benefits & losses involved, IF humanity were to proceed on MY scenario that Climate Change is a reality and it turned out that my Climate Change scenario was -
a) Correct!


We, the current batch of humans, would have done whatever we could to prevent a catastrophe and we would have done so on the user pays principle. At least, we would not have completely postponed any costs, exclusively to future generations, so that we could continue to pander to our own immediate whims!

There is no denying that the costs of taking action now, would be significant and when combined with what is already happening relevant to -
1) Demographics - The Baby Boomer Bust.
2) Peak Energy.
3) Massive Global Debt overload.
those costs would most likely make the upcoming Depression, very long & even more painfull.
In relative GDP terms, if all countries chipped in now, then the cost could perhaps be at least 5% of GDP.

However, an overrider is that it must be an all in approach, if some of the larger Economies such as the USA, China, India, Europe and even Australia do not play ball fairly, then whatever is done is likely not to bear fruit and failure will have severe costs!  

b) Incorrect!

Then we will unnecessarily have exacerbated a Depression, into a severe Depression.

2) What are the likely costs, benefits & losses involved, IF humanity were to proceed on the scenario that Climate Change is NOT a reality and it turned out that Climate Change scenario was -
a) Correct!

Then we will unnecessarily have exacerbated a Depression, into a severe Depression.

b) Incorrect!

IF action does not start fairly soon on both Climate Change & Peak Energy, then the results would be -
* The entire Global Economy may vanish!
* A catastrophe, in human loss of life, on a Biblical scale!

The basic difference between the two approaches, is that if we accept there may be a Threat, then we will have simply followed good business practices and acted on the SWOT approach, which is simply a strategic planning method used to evaluate the Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats involved in any project, Private business venture and Governments, at all levels.

We will have detected possible Threats, such as Climate Change & Peak Energy and done our Due Diligence, to see that future generations had a reasonable chance of living a life worth living.

In other words, we (collectively) will simply have done what good businesses, governments & individuals should do, every day and what most actually do.

We have assessed the Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities & Threats, several significant Threats have appeared and we have treated them according to their priority. These threats, whilst some may say they are not overwhelming, nor perhaps even likely, they are of such a size, if they become reality, that we CAN NOT IGNORE THEM.

So, we do what good business pratice dictates, we look at insurance to cover the RISK of SYSTEMIC MELTDOWN, by getting everyone to pitch in a bit every year,  as preventative measures and we take all possible mitigation measures, to try to prevent the systemic meltdown of the Business/Government/Global Economy.    

The likely outcomes of two scenario's is the same, we simply make a bad scenario worse.

If we assume that Climate Change is real, it turns out to be real, we take proper Business Risk mitgation and everyone joins in, then humanity & the Economy, still has hope.

If we assume that Climate Change is NOT real,  but it turns out to be real, we continue with Business as usual and do nothing, then humanity & the Economy, losses all hope and we really are doomed.


And, here was me, thinking that some of those on the Conservative Right, who seem to think that Business is their domain, may have commented, on what are standard business practices?

But, it's just further proof that the myth of Economic infallibility that many Conservatives raise, is just that, it's a myth!

If anyone ran a business, like some of you want to approach Climate Change & Peak Energy, then you would most likely be in the 50% of businesses that fail, in the first 12 months!  


No comment from the Conservative "think" tankers - Maqqa, Cods, LW & associates.

I'll take that as confirmation that the Conservative/Liberal Economic managers myth, is dead & buried!!!
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Soren
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 25654
Gender: male
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #47 - Jun 2nd, 2011 at 11:15pm  
The question then is about the risk assessment - how sure can we be/are we that AGW is a reality and if it is a reality, what is it's magnitude, longitude and impact.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Jun 3rd, 2011 at 9:04am by Soren »  
 
IP Logged
 
Emma
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 9853
OZ
Gender: female
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #48 - Jun 2nd, 2011 at 11:54pm  
Magnitude = Global
Lomgitude??
Definitely - UNKNOWN!! Grin Cheesy
Back to top
 
live every day
 
IP Logged
 
Soren
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 25654
Gender: male
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #49 - Jun 3rd, 2011 at 9:07am  
Emma wrote on Jun 2nd, 2011 at 11:54pm:
Magnitude = Global
Longitude??
Definitely - UNKNOWN!! Grin Cheesy



Longitude=length of time, arschloch (or trou du cul, if you prefer, arsehole).


Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
perceptions_now
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth  WA
Gender: male
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #50 - Jun 3rd, 2011 at 12:40pm  
Soren wrote on Jun 2nd, 2011 at 11:15pm:
The question then is about the risk assessment - how sure can we be/are we that AGW is a reality and if it is a reality, what is it's magnitude, longitude and impact.




Soren,
You just don't get it and you never will, not matter what information is provided, nor what events take place,  you just can not accept anything outside your mindset!

That said, you ask, "how can we be sure".
Now that sounds much like what business ask for, "we are looking for certainty".

Well, let me tell you & business, THERE ARE FEW CERTAINTIES IN LIFE, ONLY DEATH & TAXATION COME TO MIND.

But, there is another "Law of Nature", which is also a certainty and that is, "exponential growth, in any finite environment, is impossible".

The truth is, as I have said previously, it really doesn't make any difference whether Climate Change is caused by us humans, although I am of the opinion that it has been materially affected by human input and the majority of world scientists agree.

The truth is, that the magnitude of what is happening is enormous. In fact, the combination of events, including -
1) Demographics.
2) Peak Energy (primarily Oil).
3) Climate Change.
4) Massive Global Debt overload.
are actually a once in history confluence of events, which will never happen again!
At least, not for many millions of years!

The truth is, we are nearing the end of the natural "mild climate cycle",  from here on the natural climate would start to warm too much, to accommodate (feed & water) 7 Billion people, let alone any more. But, those extra GHG's we are pumping into the environment is most likely speeding the process and the result will see a shorter gap to reaching the top of this warming period.

But, whether we blame ourselves or not, we are now racing against the clock, to find ways of living with a much different world environment, whilst coping with a massive Decline in available Energy Supplies, particularly in the liquids for transport area, but also accross all sectors.

This is no Right Vs Left Political game, at the very least this event will be a long drawn out Economic turnturn of massive proportions, but it may well be a struggle for the very survival of the species?

I have previously raised the anaolgy of Wile E Coyote chasing the run runner towards a cliff, the road runner knows what's coming and he can stop faster than Wile E Coyote can.

The road runner hits his brakes, followed quickly by Wile E Coyote, but because of the small delay in applying the brakes and the longer braking time, Wile E Coyote is left "hanging ten" on the edge of the cliff.

The road runner reaches out to grab Wile E and save him, but then thinks, if he saves the Coyote, then Wile E will just revert to his old habit of trying to kill the road runner.

So, the road runner gives good old Wile E Coyote the slightest of nudges, which is just enough to make Wile E over balance and send
him over the edge of the cliff, to his death below!


...

The moral of the story being, it's those small nudges, you gotta watch out for!


Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Cliff Richard
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 558
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #51 - Jun 3rd, 2011 at 1:26pm  
perceptions now post generator

make a big long copy paste

throw in some graphs

a few million exclamation marks

i bet fewer people read his posts than they read yaddas posts
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
perceptions_now
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth  WA
Gender: male
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #52 - Jun 3rd, 2011 at 1:35pm  
Cliff Richard wrote on Jun 3rd, 2011 at 1:26pm:
perceptions now post generator

make a big long copy paste

throw in some graphs

a few million exclamation marks

i bet fewer people read his posts than they read yaddas posts


You did!

So, is the information correct?

If not, why?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Cliff Richard
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 558
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #53 - Jun 3rd, 2011 at 1:41pm  
i didnt read it no

but i have read them in the past and they all conform to a distinct and characteristic pattern that is supremely annoying
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
perceptions_now
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth  WA
Gender: male
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #54 - Jun 3rd, 2011 at 2:06pm  
Cliff Richard wrote on Jun 3rd, 2011 at 1:41pm:
i didnt read it no

but i have read them in the past and they all conform to a distinct and characteristic pattern that is supremely annoying


Cliff,
You must have read it, to have responded to me saying, you didn't read it.

Anyhow, believe it or not, it's up to you! 

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Soren
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 25654
Gender: male
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #55 - Jun 3rd, 2011 at 3:04pm  
perceptions_now wrote on Jun 3rd, 2011 at 12:40pm:
Soren wrote on Jun 2nd, 2011 at 11:15pm:
The question then is about the risk assessment - how sure can we be/are we that AGW is a reality and if it is a reality, what is it's magnitude, longitude and impact.




Soren,
You just don't get it and you never will, not matter what information is provided, nor what events take place,  you just can not accept anything outside your mindset!



Funny you should say that.


ALso,
Quote:
Climate Change is caused by us humans, although I am of the opinion that it has been materially affected by human input and the majority of world scientists agree.


caused and affected - vastly different things.

Quote:
1) Demographics.
2) Peak Energy (primarily Oil).
3) Climate Change.
4) Massive Global Debt overload.


No. 4 is far more pressing than 2. 1 is pressing only in some places and then in different directions (either too many young people or too many old people or too many boys etc). 1, 2 and 4 are the only ones on that list that are exclusively in our control.

3 is the least of our problems on your list, partly because it is very gradual and because it is  largely out of our control. 


Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
muso
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #56 - Jun 3rd, 2011 at 3:32pm  
It's perhaps beyond our control in that it will be difficult to control energy types and usage throughout the world.
Back to top
 
...
1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not 
 
IP Logged
 
perceptions_now
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth  WA
Gender: male
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #57 - Jun 3rd, 2011 at 3:49pm  
Soren wrote on Jun 3rd, 2011 at 3:04pm:
perceptions_now wrote on Jun 3rd, 2011 at 12:40pm:
Soren wrote on Jun 2nd, 2011 at 11:15pm:
The question then is about the risk assessment - how sure can we be/are we that AGW is a reality and if it is a reality, what is it's magnitude, longitude and impact.




Soren,
You just don't get it and you never will, not matter what information is provided, nor what events take place,  you just can not accept anything outside your mindset!



Funny you should say that.


ALso,
Quote:
Climate Change is
caused
by us humans, although I am of the opinion that it has been materially
affected
by human input and the majority of world scientists agree.


caused and affected - vastly different things.


Quote:
1) Demographics.
2) Peak Energy (primarily Oil).
3) Climate Change.
4) Massive Global Debt overload.


No. 4 is far more pressing than 2. 1 is pressing only in some places and then in different directions (either too many young people or too many old people or too many boys etc). 1, 2 and 4 are the only ones on that list that are exclusively in our control.

3 is the least of our problems on your list, partly because it is very gradual and because it is  largely out of our control.  





As has been said, Climate Change has been ongoing for a long period of time.

But our little 2 cents worth of recent input, is what is causing us (humans) a greater headache.

So, I view our input as a re-inforcing cause & affect, we input more into the Environment and that affects the changes a little more than would have been the case, without our 2 cents worth. 
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
perceptions_now
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth  WA
Gender: male
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #58 - Jun 3rd, 2011 at 4:03pm  
Soren wrote on Jun 3rd, 2011 at 3:04pm:
perceptions_now wrote on Jun 3rd, 2011 at 12:40pm:
Soren wrote on Jun 2nd, 2011 at 11:15pm:
The question then is about the risk assessment - how sure can we be/are we that AGW is a reality and if it is a reality, what is it's magnitude, longitude and impact.




Soren,
You just don't get it and you never will, not matter what information is provided, nor what events take place,  you just can not accept anything outside your mindset!



Funny you should say that.


ALso,
Quote:
Climate Change is caused by us humans, although I am of the opinion that it has been materially affected by human input and the majority of world scientists agree.


caused and affected - vastly different things.

Quote:
1) Demographics.
2) Peak Energy (primarily Oil).
3) Climate Change.
4) Massive Global Debt overload.


No. 4 is far more pressing than 2. 1 is pressing only in some places and then in different directions (either too many young people or too many old people or too many boys etc). 1, 2 and 4 are the only ones on that list that are exclusively in our control.

3 is the least of our problems on your list, partly because it is very gradual and because it is  largely out of our control.  





Actually 4 is largely caused by 1 & 2 initially, then most governments made it worse, by trying the short term Keynesian solution on what are long term problems and that just made 4 worse, in the longer term.

And 3 is likely to be the greater of those four problems, because of the very perception that it is a far off problem, when the reality is that the leading edges are already here.

Will it be out of our control, I hope not, but the tasks involved are so massive, only history will know the final outcome.
 
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Emma
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 9853
OZ
Gender: female
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #59 - Jun 3rd, 2011 at 10:59pm  
Magnitude = Global
Lomgitude??
Definitely - UNKNOWN!!   ( My Actual POST at 11.54pm)

Posted by: Soren Posted on: Today at 9:07am
jalane33 wrote on Yesterday at 11:54pm:

Magnitude = Global
Longitude??
Definitely - UNKNOWN!!  


Longitude=length of time, arschloch (or trou du cul, if you prefer, arsehole).

Ah a true Deceiver!! Angry
Liar  and arsehole be you. You have edited my post !. In your Post above, you made an edit, and put it down as my post.  Then you call me names -  you know - arschloch? .
Can't even admit to poor spelling, poor wee dear.   I OBJECT to your stupid games .

Do NOT EDIT my posts.  Angry AngryThat is poor form old chap, Don't YOU KNOW!!?? Cool Huh Roll Eyes
It must be against the rules,  - as if that means anything to you.  Perhaps I should return the favor? Yeah?  we could all go around editing other posters comments -- could be BAD!

I ask you to apologise to me, here on this thread, and promise all of us you WONT do it again.
Poor show Soren. Very poor indeed.
Back to top
 
live every day
 
IP Logged
 
Soren
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 25654
Gender: male
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #60 - Jun 5th, 2011 at 5:32pm  
I edited the typo in my own post, pr!ck. If you want to grin like an idiot because the letters n and m are next to each other, go ahead. You want me to apologise for a typo - bugger off.

Will this do? Good.

As you were.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Emma
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 9853
OZ
Gender: female
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #61 - Jun 6th, 2011 at 12:54am  
I edited the typo in my own post, pr!ck. If you want to grin like an idiot because the letters n and m are next to each other, go ahead. You want me to apologise for a typo - bugger off.

Will this do? Good.

As you were.

Think again arsewipe! Not good enuff - not a typo in MY POST!. In case you didn't understand, Prikk, I'll explain it to you.

You included in your post, an earlier one of mine.  BUT  your 'edit' of your own words, dickbrain, shouldn't have changed my post, should it?

You deny it???  It was the 'system' perhaps eh?  Not you - no way - CRAP.  Because you used it - the 'edited version' of my post, for grounds to ridicule -- see thats dirty pool!! Perhaps not surprising coming from the grotty little snot you are.

Still expect an acknowledgement and apology for your self-promotion, at the expense of others.
And hey, not just an apology to me!!! An apology to everyone who interacts with you would be most welcome, comprehend do you? SIGH  --- probably not -  that is probably too complicated for your head full of toads. Tongue

I BARE THE SOLES OF MY FEET TO YOU.  Smiley Grin
Back to top
 
live every day
 
IP Logged
 
Soren
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 25654
Gender: male
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #62 - Jun 6th, 2011 at 4:22pm  
Emma wrote on Jun 6th, 2011 at 12:54am:
I BARE THE SOLES OF MY FEET TO YOU.  Smiley Grin



Consider yourself mooned.

...
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Emma
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 9853
OZ
Gender: female
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #63 - Jun 6th, 2011 at 8:49pm  
Hheeheheheehehee hahauah ha Grin Grin Cheesy
ROTFLOL Grin
Brilliant. Grin
Back to top
 
live every day
 
IP Logged
 
Emma
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 9853
OZ
Gender: female
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #64 - Jun 6th, 2011 at 8:59pm  
BUT  U still haven't  made good boyo.
Smiley

I OBJECT.  I would expect a reply with some substance - given the gravity of your offense.! Angry  
IF U didn't!  what is your explanation??  Hmmm?

face the music Sorenarse  -  you changed my post.!!!

Don't you have some excuse or other ???  Don't have one do you ?
Moonie!!
Cheesy
Back to top
 
live every day
 
IP Logged
 
Soren
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 25654
Gender: male
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #65 - Jun 10th, 2011 at 11:23am  
Hello, what's this then?
AGW predictions unfulfilled again? Shurely shome mishtake.



...

Following a gradual rise of about 0.2 degrees from 1990 to 2000,  global temperatures have stopped increasing and  have actually fallen slightly. The only IPCC prediction which remains consistent with the current data is the lower prediction of a 0.7 degree rise from 1990 to 2030. The “Best” IPCC estimate and the higher 1.5 degree rise are ruled out by the data.

CO2 levels in the atmosphere have continued to rise over the last 10 years (see overlay to temperature comparison below in Figure 3) but temperatures have not risen since 2000. This implies that  CO2 is not the main driver of global temperatures on these time periods and that other natural mechanisms are at least as  important.  No evidence of any  positive temperature feedback  with increasing CO2  levels is found.

...

Talk about inconvenient!

References:

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_ipcc_first_assessment_1990_wg1.shtml
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt


SOurce:
http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=2208
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Emma
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 9853
OZ
Gender: female
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #66 - Jun 10th, 2011 at 9:27pm  
thats a graphfull.!!

But it seems CO2 increasing steeply does not show a reflected steep increase in ( i assume )- temp.  YET.

YET.  You are attempting to equate planetary time with human timescales.

Thats if you can ignore the real impacts currently being felt around the world.  Scientific averages aren't very helpful.
An analysis of median ranges in the specific areas of concern might provide more objective data, provided the whole analysis, when interpreted, isn't skewed.  Sad
Back to top
 
live every day
 
IP Logged
 
Soren
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 25654
Gender: male
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #67 - Jun 20th, 2011 at 9:22pm  
Is this true?



Today, infected by Malthusian ecology, the Left relentlessly preaches millennial doom and technological risk: the climate is heading for catastrophe; resources are running out; population is growing too fast; farming cannot keep up; habitat is being destroyed; poverty, hunger, pollution, disease and greed are only going to get worse. A dramatic change in human stewardship of the planet is needed.

Based on the trajectory of the past five decades, and even (or especially) if the world economy grows rapidly, this century is likely to see mild climate change, cheap and abundant resources, falling population, ample food, more wilderness, and the average person becoming gradually - though erratically - wealthier, healthier, happier, cleverer, cleaner, freer, kinder, more peaceful and more equal. Each of the past five decades has almost certainly seen records set for each of those adjectives for the world as a whole.


One of the policies they have adopted has taken 5 per cent of the world's grain crop and turned it into biofuel to power motor vehicles. This has driven up food prices, increased malnutrition and encouraged the destruction of rain forest, while enriching farmers.
Yet, given that the planting and harvesting of biofuels use about as much oil as the fuels they displace, it has had precisely zero effect on carbon emissions. Nonetheless, it is considered a green, progressive policy.

Another policy is to bribe rich landowners to festoon the most picturesque landscapes with concrete pads on which are placed gargantuan steel towers topped with wind turbines containing two-tonne magnets made of an alloy of neodymium, a rare earth metal mined in inner Mongolia by a process of boiling in acid that produces poisoned lakes filled with mildly radioactive and toxic tailings.


http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/left-activists-profits-of-doom/...
Back to top
« Last Edit: Jun 22nd, 2011 at 3:16pm by Soren »  
 
IP Logged
 
Emma
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 9853
OZ
Gender: female
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #68 - Jun 20th, 2011 at 11:21pm  
Soren wrote on Jun 20th, 2011 at 9:22pm:
Is this true?



Today, infected by Malthusian ecology, the Left relentlessly preaches millennial doom and technological risk: the climate is heading for catastrophe; resources are running out; population is growing too fast; farming cannot keep up; habitat is being destroyed; poverty, hunger, pollution, disease and greed are only going to get worse. A dramatic change in human stewardship of the planet is needed.

Based on the trajectory of the past five decades, and even (or especially) if the world economy grows rapidly, this century is likely to see mild climate change, cheap and abundant resources, falling population, ample food, more wilderness, and the average person becoming gradually - though erratically - wealthier, healthier, happier, cleverer, cleaner, freer, kinder, more peaceful and more equal. Each of the past five decades has almost certainly seen records set for each of those adjectives for the world as a whole.


One of the policies they have adopted has taken 5 per cent of the world's grain crop and turned it into biofuel to power motor vehicles. This has driven up food prices, increased malnutrition and encouraged the destruction of rain forest, while enriching farmers.
Yet, given that the planting and harvesting of biofuels use about as much oil as the fuels they displace, it has had precisely zero effect on carbon emissions. Nonetheless, it is considered a green, progressive policy.

Another policy is to bribe rich landowners to festoon the most picturesque landscapes with concrete pads on which are placed gargantuan steel towers topped with wind turbines containing two-tonne magnets made of an alloy of neodymium, a rare earth metal mined in inner Mongolia by a process of boiling in acid that produces poisoned lakes filled with mildly radioactive and toxic tailings.



You're taking a BOB each way. Wink

I'd essentially agree with yor first para, from
......... millennial doom and technological risk: the climate......to..A dramatic change in human stewardship of the planet is needed.

..............  but you know its NOT just an infection of lefty thinking. Seen the news lately?

Your second para - you are still living in the past.
Some World Authority recently announced that the human life span has a high likelihood of decreasing from this generation, given the range of hazards that confront human life , in this century.. (talking averages - like your average person, yeah?)
Who doesn't exist, by the way!!. Wink

I remember discussing this with a friend 10 yrs ago , and expressing same, and was met with the same view as your 2nd para.  Do not agree that the good times are gonna keep on rollin'.

Your last two paras are problematic.  One says the measures THEY have taken had zero impact on carbon -which is definitely better than a negative effect.  ( meaning - an increase in carbon!! ).....and your concerns for the people and environment?  Entirely valid, given the innumerable examples THEY have provided all over the world..
The other, that some inner mongolian lakes were/are poisoned to produce a number(?) of magnets to power a number(?)  of Wind Turbines on 'picturesque landscapes' owned by corrupt rich folk. ! Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes
You can add that to all the other poisoned earth ... poisoned by people  - for power!

What ARE you trying to say Soren? Smiley
 
Back to top
 
live every day
 
IP Logged
 
perceptions_now
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth  WA
Gender: male
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #69 - Jun 22nd, 2011 at 2:32pm  
Emma wrote on Jun 20th, 2011 at 11:21pm:
Soren wrote on Jun 20th, 2011 at 9:22pm:
Is this true?



Today, infected by Malthusian ecology, the Left relentlessly preaches millennial doom and technological risk: the climate is heading for catastrophe; resources are running out; population is growing too fast; farming cannot keep up; habitat is being destroyed; poverty, hunger, pollution, disease and greed are only going to get worse. A dramatic change in human stewardship of the planet is needed.

Based on the trajectory of the past five decades, and even (or especially) if the world economy grows rapidly, this century is likely to see mild climate change, cheap and abundant resources, falling population, ample food, more wilderness, and the average person becoming gradually - though erratically - wealthier, healthier, happier, cleverer, cleaner, freer, kinder, more peaceful and more equal. Each of the past five decades has almost certainly seen records set for each of those adjectives for the world as a whole.


One of the policies they have adopted has taken 5 per cent of the world's grain crop and turned it into biofuel to power motor vehicles. This has driven up food prices, increased malnutrition and encouraged the destruction of rain forest, while enriching farmers.
Yet, given that the planting and harvesting of biofuels use about as much oil as the fuels they displace, it has had precisely zero effect on carbon emissions. Nonetheless, it is considered a green, progressive policy.

Another policy is to bribe rich landowners to festoon the most picturesque landscapes with concrete pads on which are placed gargantuan steel towers topped with wind turbines containing two-tonne magnets made of an alloy of neodymium, a rare earth metal mined in inner Mongolia by a process of boiling in acid that produces poisoned lakes filled with mildly radioactive and toxic tailings.



You're taking a BOB each way. Wink

I'd essentially agree with yor first para, from
......... millennial doom and technological risk: the climate......to..A dramatic change in human stewardship of the planet is needed.

..............  but you know its NOT just an infection of lefty thinking. Seen the news lately?

Your second para - you are still living in the past.
Some World Authority recently announced that the human life span has a high likelihood of decreasing from this generation, given the range of hazards that confront human life , in this century.. (talking averages - like your average person, yeah?)
Who doesn't exist, by the way!!. Wink

I remember discussing this with a friend 10 yrs ago , and expressing same, and was met with the same view as your 2nd para.  Do not agree that the good times are gonna keep on rollin'.

Your last two paras are problematic.  One says the measures THEY have taken had zero impact on carbon -which is definitely better than a negative effect.  ( meaning - an increase in carbon!! ).....and your concerns for the people and environment?  Entirely valid, given the innumerable examples THEY have provided all over the world..
The other, that some inner mongolian lakes were/are poisoned to produce a number(?) of magnets to power a number(?)  of Wind Turbines on 'picturesque landscapes' owned by corrupt rich folk. ! Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes
You can add that to all the other poisoned earth ... poisoned by people  - for power!

What ARE you trying to say Soren? Smiley



Those are not Soren's words!
http://thegwpf.org/opinion-pros-a-cons/3266-matt-ridley-left-activists-profits-o...
Soren could at least have the courtesy of acknowledging the origin of the words.

Clearly, the article does not refer to the Labor Party, as they are just as intent on expanding the Australian Population and have no interest in Malthusian solutions, as are the Liberals & their intent is to benefit from the same set of masters (TPTB).

As for the past repeating in the future, that is plaining CRAP and doesn't even bear commenting on!

As far as Food Production going into Ethanol, instead of feeding people, that is plain stupidity, on a number of levels and it should be stopped. However, it should be noted that both the Left & Right of Politics (worldwide) have supported this wholely crazy idea!
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
gizmo_2655
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #70 - Jun 22nd, 2011 at 3:21pm  
Soren wrote on Jun 20th, 2011 at 9:22pm:
Is this true?



Today, infected by Malthusian ecology, the Left relentlessly preaches millennial doom and technological risk: the climate is heading for catastrophe; resources are running out; population is growing too fast; farming cannot keep up; habitat is being destroyed; poverty, hunger, pollution, disease and greed are only going to get worse. A dramatic change in human stewardship of the planet is needed.

Based on the trajectory of the past five decades, and even (or especially) if the world economy grows rapidly, this century is likely to see mild climate change, cheap and abundant resources, falling population, ample food, more wilderness, and the average person becoming gradually - though erratically - wealthier, healthier, happier, cleverer, cleaner, freer, kinder, more peaceful and more equal. Each of the past five decades has almost certainly seen records set for each of those adjectives for the world as a whole.


One of the policies they have adopted has taken 5 per cent of the world's grain crop and turned it into biofuel to power motor vehicles. This has driven up food prices, increased malnutrition and encouraged the destruction of rain forest, while enriching farmers.
Yet, given that the planting and harvesting of biofuels use about as much oil as the fuels they displace, it has had precisely zero effect on carbon emissions. Nonetheless, it is considered a green, progressive policy.

Another policy is to bribe rich landowners to festoon the most picturesque landscapes with concrete pads on which are placed gargantuan steel towers topped with wind turbines containing two-tonne magnets made of an alloy of neodymium, a rare earth metal mined in inner Mongolia by a process of boiling in acid that produces poisoned lakes filled with mildly radioactive and toxic tailings.



Of course....but that's the point isn't it???

The idea is to bring in ineffective 'green' power systems in various parts of the world ( Northern Europe at the moment) which will naturally fail during the coldest times of winter, causing massive death tolls among the poorest or most fragile sections of the population...because humans are less important than animals, and there are too many of them anyway..

The same reasoning is behind the biofuel idea, and the opposite method ( using extremes of heat and lack of cooling ) is behind the equatorial push to not use A/C units in summer...


This way they (enviromentalists) can get that 'warm fuzzy' feeling from 'protecting the planet', and at the same time combat their two pet hates...industrial technology and population numbers..

It'd be 'better' if the population was smaller, made up of just environmentalists, living in their vegan communities and communing with the trees and animals..

"I talk to the trees
But they don't listen to me
I talk to the stars
But they never hear me
The breeze hasn't time
To stop and hear what I say
I talk to them all in vain"
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
 
Emma
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 9853
OZ
Gender: female
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #71 - Jun 23rd, 2011 at 1:51am  
oooooh thats a goody gizmo.  Smiley

Really -- that IS the point.
Too many people, -  with way too many more popping up every minute.  So YES   I agree

It'd be 'better' if the population was smaller,
Back to top
 
live every day
 
IP Logged
 
Soren
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 25654
Gender: male
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #72 - Jun 23rd, 2011 at 10:40am  
Emma wrote on Jun 23rd, 2011 at 1:51am:
oooooh thats a goody gizmo.  Smiley

Really -- that IS the point.
Too many people, -  with way too many more popping up every minute.  So YES   I agree

It'd be 'better' if the population was smaller,



Yet I bet you are against war.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Cliff Richard
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 558
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #73 - Jun 23rd, 2011 at 1:10pm  
and pro mass immigration

and aid to africa
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Emma
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 9853
OZ
Gender: female
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #74 - Jun 23rd, 2011 at 7:13pm  
Soren wrote on Jun 23rd, 2011 at 10:40am:
Emma wrote on Jun 23rd, 2011 at 1:51am:
oooooh thats a goody gizmo.  Smiley

Really -- that IS the point.
Too many people, -  with way too many more popping up every minute.  So YES   I agree

It'd be 'better' if the population was smaller,



Yet I bet you are against war.



Would you then?.  So presumably  you are for War, Soren,.just  as  CR,  no credit to him, is against  'mass immigration' and 'aid to Africa'..

So this War you would approve of Soren??  who would you wage it against?  Where? why?  and How??
Do you know your enemy????

Sucker bet- I'm the RedCreature from Mars!!   War is my ruler!!!

I'm  AGAINST mass immigration, Sucker CR --  ESPECIALLY if  AID to Africa could enable them to stay where they are.!!!!

Tongue Tongue
Back to top
 
live every day
 
IP Logged
 
progressiveslol
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 17029
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #75 - Jul 7th, 2011 at 8:08pm  
Remember the hockey stick and the excuses of why they couldnt account for the lack of warming. Well isnt it funny how now we have been told the truth that the earth hasn't warmed since 1998 and has cooled slightly. Well bugger me, isnt that the same time period for the lack of warming in the manning fraud (climategate)
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
barnaby joe
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 1992
euchareena
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #76 - Jul 8th, 2011 at 8:43pm  
no i don't remember that stupid
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Emma
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 9853
OZ
Gender: female
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #77 - Jul 9th, 2011 at 3:42am  
huh?  Roll Eyes

Remember the HOCKEY STICK?????
I am afraid one of us is lost - and it 's not me.

Earth calling PGLOL
Back to top
 
live every day
 
IP Logged
 
muso
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #78 - Jul 9th, 2011 at 9:58pm  
I do remember a cricket bat in my dim and distant past, old boy. Maybe that's what you're thinking about.

Perhaps it concerns this article:
http://www.menzieshouse.com.au/2011/02/give-joe-hockey-the-stick.html

Give Joe Hockey The Stick

Quote:
Queensland economist Joseph Clark examines Joe Hockey's economic statements, and isn't impressed by what he finds:


If not, please feel free to elucidate in your own words without cutting and pasting.
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 #79 - Jul 11th, 2011 at 4:24pm  


Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Soren
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 25654
Gender: male
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #80 - Jul 29th, 2011 at 3:06pm  
The effect of atmospheric CO2 on the climate is oversestimated by models. Reality does not conform to models with multiple assumptions.



"Abstract: The sensitivity of the climate system to an imposed radiative imbalance remains
the largest source of uncertainty in projections of future anthropogenic climate change.
Here we present further evidence that this uncertainty from an observational perspective is
largely due to the masking of the radiative feedback signal by internal radiative forcing,
probably due to natural cloud variations. That these internal radiative forcings exist and
likely corrupt feedback diagnosis is demonstrated with lag regression analysis of satellite
and coupled climate model data, interpreted with a simple forcing-feedback model. While
the satellite-based metrics for the period 2000–2010 depart substantially in the direction of
lower climate sensitivity from those similarly computed from coupled climate models, we
find that, with traditional methods, it is not possible to accurately quantify this discrepancy
in terms of the feedbacks which determine climate sensitivity. It is concluded that
atmospheric feedback diagnosis of the climate system remains an unsolved problem, due
primarily to the inability to distinguish between radiative forcing and radiative feedback in
satellite radiative budget observations."http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/8/1603/pdf

(peer reviewed science journal)


Meaning?

Applied to long-term climate change, the research might indicate that the climate is less sensitive to warming due to increased carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere than climate modelers have theorized. A major underpinning of global warming theory is that the slight warming caused by enhanced greenhouse gases should change cloud cover in ways that cause additional warming, which would be a positive feedback cycle.

Instead, the natural ebb and flow of clouds, solar radiation, heat rising from the oceans and a myriad of other factors added to the different time lags in which they impact the atmosphere might make it impossible to isolate or accurately identify which piece of Earth’s changing climate is feedback from manmade greenhouse gases.

“There are simply too many variables to reliably gauge the right number for that,” Spencer said. “The main finding from this research is that there is no solution to the problem of measuring atmospheric feedback, due mostly to our inability to distinguish between radiative forcing and radiative feedback in our observations.”

http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/07/26/new-paper-on-the-misdiagnosis-o...

SO the models are unreliable. The settled science is unsettled: forcing and feedback are understood in theory but not distinguishable in practice.

As I dared to say repeatedly, the climate is far too complex and our knowledge of how it works in practice is too limited.

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
muso
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #81 - Jul 29th, 2011 at 8:08pm  
You mean this Roy Spencer? - the one who "modified" the satellite temperature dataset?

http://www.skepticalscience.com/roy-spencers-great-blunder-part-2.html


On Satellite Temperature data:

Quote:
Spencer was wrong — dead wrong — for a very long time, and his ‘blunder’ created one of the most enduring denier myths, that the satellite data didn’t show the global warming that the surface temperature data did. As RealClimate explained:

   We now know, of course, that the satellite data set confirms that the climate is warming , and indeed at very nearly the same rate as indicated by the surface temperature records. Now, there’s nothing wrong with making mistakes when pursuing an innovative observational method, but Spencer and Christie sat by for most of a decade allowing — indeed encouraging — the use of their data set as an icon for global warming skeptics. They committed serial errors in the data analysis, but insisted they were right and models and thermometers were wrong. They did little or nothing to root out possible sources of errors, and left it to others to clean up the mess, as has now been done.

   So after that history, we’re supposed to savor all Roy’s new cookery?

   That’s an awful lot to swallow.
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 #82 - Jul 29th, 2011 at 9:23pm  
No, I mean this paper:

Spencer, R.W.; Braswell, W.D. On the Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedbacks from Variations in Earth’s Radiant Energy Balance. Remote Sens. 2011, 3, 1603-1613.

And this Uni of Alabama press release:

http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/07/26/new-paper-on-the-misdiagnosis-o...



Peer reviewed. Scientific. You  knockin' it?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Emma
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 9853
OZ
Gender: female
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #83 - Jul 29th, 2011 at 11:00pm  
garbage in  garbage out

Anyone STILL think Abbott has any validity?????
See him lately? Like tonight? on ABC Lateline???

The Tweed Shire Council in Nthn NSW seems to believe him,  --- despite the fact that raising seas have substantially removed beach frontage, sufficient to undermine their SurfLife Saving Club etc -  But the lovely old councillors are trying to lobby for bulk dollars to build some sort of wall, break, whatever, to stop this.  !!!!!!! .
Talk about living some other reality.!!!

I think they ought to wake up to the water that has removed 30 metres of foreshore,   and MOVE their club INLAND.  How stupid can you get --- ohoohhooohh  get out the heavy moving equipment - get sand from somewhere, and build it back.

Just one example of coastal impacts of climate change - right here -  right now.
When will people in denial accept facts???

When Fwits  like Abbott - whose only agenda is Abbott - GO AWAY, and stop filling the media with GARBAGE,  - then maybe those with a intellectual difficulty in facing facts - will really trhink about it - rather than relying on Brother to form their ideas.!!!

Putrescience !!!  
Huh
Back to top
 
live every day
 
IP Logged
 
muso
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #84 - Jul 30th, 2011 at 8:17am  
Soren wrote on Jul 29th, 2011 at 9:23pm:
No, I mean this paper:

Spencer, R.W.; Braswell, W.D. On the Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedbacks from Variations in Earth’s Radiant Energy Balance. Remote Sens. 2011, 3, 1603-1613.

And this Uni of Alabama press release:

http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/07/26/new-paper-on-the-misdiagnosis-o...



Peer reviewed. Scientific. You  knockin' it?



What I'm saying is that this Neocon Creationist and protagonist of Intelligent Design, who stated that his sworn duty was to protect the US people from over-government, and who together with Johny Christy "adjusted" the satellite temperature data to make it appear that there was no warming, (long sentence) has very little credibility with anybody.

Anything he publishes should be taken with a pinch of salt, because he is clearly agenda-driven.  

Here's another of his initiatives. It's all a matter of faith, you see. God won't let Global Warming happen according to Roy:

http://www.cornwallalliance.org/articles/read/an-evangelical-declaration-on-glob...

Maybe you should add your name to the petition. (and pray a lot)
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 #85 - Jul 30th, 2011 at 12:47pm  
No. What you are saying is that peer reviewed articles are now not acceptable unless the author is deemed politically 'sound'. WHat you are saying is that what matters is who is speaking, not what is said, even in the peer reviewed scientific literature.



Remote Sensing, where the article appeared, is a peer reviewed journal based in Basel.
http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/8/1603/

If you think the data is crap, you can submit an article yourself. Info for authors, including the peer review process, here:
http://www.mdpi.com/authors/
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
barnaby joe
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 1992
euchareena
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #86 - Jul 30th, 2011 at 4:34pm  
i think its best in these instances to wait for data to be replicated by other researchers as its never a good idea to make any strong conclusions on the basis of a single study - if the study in question has been conscientiously produced, then other scientists will have little problem finding the same or similiar results at a later time
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
muso
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #87 - Jul 30th, 2011 at 10:03pm  
barnaby joe wrote on Jul 30th, 2011 at 4:34pm:
i think its best in these instances to wait for data to be replicated by other researchers as its never a good idea to make any strong conclusions on the basis of a single study - if the study in question has been conscientiously produced, then other scientists will have little problem finding the same or similiar results at a later time


Intelligent post.
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 #88 - Jul 30th, 2011 at 10:10pm  
Soren wrote on Jul 30th, 2011 at 12:47pm:
Remote Sensing, where the article appeared, is a peer reviewed journal based in Basel.
http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/8/1603/

If you think the data is crap, you can submit an article yourself. Info for authors, including the peer review process, here:
http://www.mdpi.com/authors/



There are many obscure articles submitted to open access journals. If it's such a major finding, why doesn't he publish in one of the mainstream journals? (because he can't get it peer reviewed by somebody from UAH ?)

Here's Kevin Trenberth's take on this article:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/07/misdiagnosis-of-surface-te...

Quote:
The paper has been published in a journal called Remote sensing which is a fine journal for geographers, but it does not deal with atmospheric and climate science, and it is evident that this paper did not get an adequate peer review. It should not have been published.

The paper’s title “On the Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedbacks from Variations in Earth’s Radiant Energy Balance” is provocative and should have raised red flags with the editors. The basic material in the paper has very basic shortcomings because no statistical significance of results, error bars or uncertainties are given either in the figures or discussed in the text. Moreover the description of methods of what was done is not sufficient to be able to replicate results. As a first step, some quick checks have been made to see whether results can be replicated and we find some points of contention.....
Back to top
« Last Edit: Jul 30th, 2011 at 10:18pm by muso »  
...
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 #89 - Jul 30th, 2011 at 10:26pm  
Like I said .........
Garbage In .....=  Garbage OUT! Cool
Back to top
 
live every day
 
IP Logged
 
Soren
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 25654
Gender: male
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #90 - Jul 30th, 2011 at 10:51pm  
muso wrote on Jul 30th, 2011 at 10:10pm:
Soren wrote on Jul 30th, 2011 at 12:47pm:
Remote Sensing, where the article appeared, is a peer reviewed journal based in Basel.
http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/8/1603/

If you think the data is crap, you can submit an article yourself. Info for authors, including the peer review process, here:
http://www.mdpi.com/authors/



There are many obscure articles submitted to open access journals. If it's such a major finding, why doesn't he publish in one of the mainstream journals? (because he can't get it peer reviewed by somebody from UAH ?)

Here's Kevin Trenberth's take on this article:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/07/misdiagnosis-of-surface-te...

Quote:
The paper has been published in a journal called Remote sensing which is a fine journal for geographers, but it does not deal with atmospheric and climate science, and it is evident that this paper did not get an adequate peer review. It should not have been published.

The paper’s title “On the Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedbacks from Variations in Earth’s Radiant Energy Balance” is provocative and should have raised red flags with the editors. The basic material in the paper has very basic shortcomings because no statistical significance of results, error bars or uncertainties are given either in the figures or discussed in the text. Moreover the description of methods of what was done is not sufficient to be able to replicate results. As a first step, some quick checks have been made to see whether results can be replicated and we find some points of contention.....



Did Trenberth or anyone else tested the data? Or just identified "some points of contention"?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
muso
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #91 - Jul 31st, 2011 at 11:22am  
Soren wrote on Jul 30th, 2011 at 10:51pm:
Did Trenberth or anyone else tested the data? Or just identified "some points of contention"?



Yes. Read the link.  He also goes into a lot of detail regarding the selective use of data sets. Also read the first comment:

Quote:
Glad to see you post on this study. We fired off a story on this last night, after the Forbes column was highlighted on Drudge. According to Mike Lemonick, who wrote the Climate Central piece, it seemed to be a case where a study was saying one thing, and the author was saying/writing another to the press, inspiring all sorts of online shenanigans.


By the way, "Remote Sensing" is not a journal listed by Thomson Reuters. So it's an obscure, poorly reviewed paper in an obscure journal.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Jul 31st, 2011 at 11:31am 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 #92 - Jul 31st, 2011 at 6:43pm  
Funny. Was there a refutation of the article published in another/same peer reviewed journal.
Because otherwise you are just spouting what you've read on a blog or five against a peer reviewed article, something usually attributed tio the 'hard right extremist denilist grandchild haters'.


Apart from a handful of journals, all specislist journals are obscure to non-specialists. Remote Sensing's editorial board:

http://www.mdpi.com/journal/remotesensing/editors

Which one is objectionable?

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
muso
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #93 - Jul 31st, 2011 at 8:38pm  
Soren wrote on Jul 31st, 2011 at 6:43pm:
Apart from a handful of journals, all specislist journals are obscure to non-specialists. Remote Sensing's editorial board:

http://www.mdpi.com/journal/remotesensing/editors

Which one is objectionable?



The one who obviously carried out a perfunctory peer review. It's not the first time it has happened in non-mainstream publications. You do get oddball papers from time to time. If you get a number of researchers who subsequently carry out work that supports the findings,  then it becomes mainstream.

In this case, the paper was about the  statistical interpretation of a cherry picked outlier data set.
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 #94 - Aug 3rd, 2011 at 7:16am  
Soren wrote on Jul 31st, 2011 at 6:43pm:
Funny. Was there a refutation of the article published in another/same peer reviewed journal.
Because otherwise you are just spouting what you've read on a blog or five against a peer reviewed article, something usually attributed tio the 'hard right extremist denilist grandchild haters'.



It's a relatively recent paper. In answer to your question, there will be, almost certainly, and it will detract from doing some more serious work. How long do you think it would take to research another paper and get it published?
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 #95 - Aug 3rd, 2011 at 10:42am  
muso wrote on Aug 3rd, 2011 at 7:16am:
Soren wrote on Jul 31st, 2011 at 6:43pm:
Funny. Was there a refutation of the article published in another/same peer reviewed journal.
Because otherwise you are just spouting what you've read on a blog or five against a peer reviewed article, something usually attributed tio the 'hard right extremist denilist grandchild haters'.



It's a relatively recent paper. In answer to your question, there will be, almost certainly, and it will detract from doing some more serious work. How long do you think it would take to research another paper and get it published?


Oh?! DO you mean to say that there will have to be actual research of the actual data and a considered response, taking a bit longer than typing a blog response? Do you mean that dismissing the paper out of hand on a warmerist blog or five is not the way to go?
I do detect a distictly miffed air, though, when warmerists are required to do a bit more than breezily wave their hands when a counter-argument comes up.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
muso
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #96 - Aug 3rd, 2011 at 11:18am  
Soren wrote on Aug 3rd, 2011 at 10:42am:
I do detect a distictly miffed air, though, when warmerists are required to do a bit more than breezily wave their hands when a counter-argument comes up.



This paper was so obviously contrived to fit an agenda that yes, you might detect a miffed air. It wouldn't be the first time. You only have to look at the history of this particular genius to realise that. Deliberately altering remote sensing temperature data to make it appear that there was no warming was one of his previous 'sins'.  

It's likely that he'll stay at UAH until he retires. No other university would employ him other than the good 'ol boys.

Soren wrote on Aug 3rd, 2011 at 10:42am:
Do you mean that dismissing the paper out of hand on a warmerist blog or five is not the way to go?


You make it sound as if it was an off the cuff dismissal.  It was quite a considered and detailed response. Read it for yourself:  

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/07/misdiagnosis-of-surface-te...
Back to top
« Last Edit: Aug 3rd, 2011 at 11:27am by muso »  
...
1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not 
 
IP Logged
 
Karnal
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 96347
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #97 - Aug 3rd, 2011 at 3:36pm  
Soren wrote on Aug 3rd, 2011 at 10:42am:
muso wrote on Aug 3rd, 2011 at 7:16am:
Soren wrote on Jul 31st, 2011 at 6:43pm:
Funny. Was there a refutation of the article published in another/same peer reviewed journal.
Because otherwise you are just spouting what you've read on a blog or five against a peer reviewed article, something usually attributed tio the 'hard right extremist denilist grandchild haters'.



It's a relatively recent paper. In answer to your question, there will be, almost certainly, and it will detract from doing some more serious work. How long do you think it would take to research another paper and get it published?


Oh?! DO you mean to say that there will have to be actual research of the actual data and a considered response, taking a bit longer than typing a blog response?


Don't be silly, old boy. Carry on.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Emma
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 9853
OZ
Gender: female
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #98 - Aug 3rd, 2011 at 11:31pm  
Why waste your time???? Roll Eyes
Back to top
 
live every day
 
IP Logged
 
Soren
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 25654
Gender: male
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #99 - Aug 9th, 2011 at 10:46am  
CLIMATE researchers should spend less time in front of computer screens building predictive models and more time in the field observing and interpreting "hard or real data", an internationally recognised coastal science expert and publisher has warned.

Charles Finkl, the editor-in-chief of the Journal of Coastal Research, which published a peer-reviewed study by NSW researcher Phil Watson that rekindled a fierce debate about sea level rises, said modelling was necessary but should be taken with a grain of salt.

He accused the CSIRO of refusing to consider questions raised by Mr Watson's research for its modelling, predicting a worst-case scenario sea level rise of up to 1.1m by 2100.

"The CSIRO more or less agrees with Watson but does not want to admit they have have not got it quite right previously," said Professor Finkl, geosciences professor emeritus at Florida Atlantic University.

"I am not in favour of models for many reasons. They get better over time, and we need to use them, but with a grain of salt. We should instead use our brains and hard or real data to make interpretations. Many researchers do not even go into the field any more because they think the world exists on their computers. Big mistake."



http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/studying-the-climate-then-get-o...

A lot of 'climate science' is just nerds fiddling with computers and 'data'. Statisticians behaving badly.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Soren
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 25654
Gender: male
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #100 - Oct 8th, 2011 at 10:10pm  

Fabulous letter to the editor today. From a professorial fellow.



Triumph of scepticism


TWO Nobel prizes this week in physics and chemistry have more than usual significance for science and philosophy.
Australia's Brian Schmidt challenged at the cosmic scale the conventional wisdom of slowing expansion of the universe and proved expansion is happening at an accelerating rate.

The discovery at the molecular scale by Israel's Dan Shechtman of quasi-crystals and crystals with pentagonal symmetry in chemistry shook the foundations of his science because they were deemed by colleagues to be impossible - so impossible that at one time he lost credibility among his peers and was asked to leave his research group.

There can be no higher-level demonstration than these awards of the value of scepticism in science, and of the role of observation and deduction free of the confines of conventional wisdom.

I look forward to the day when such elevated scientific method replaces the bitter and personalised arguments over settled science which today characterises earth-scale climate studies..

Michael Asten, Professorial Fellow, Monash University, Melbourne



Settled science challenged and proved wrong.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Emma
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 9853
OZ
Gender: female
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #101 - Oct 8th, 2011 at 10:22pm  
Settled science challenged and proved wrong.  - SOREN

Please elucidate, Smiley  .. one hears so much static these days..  Angry
Back to top
 
live every day
 
IP Logged
 
Soren
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 25654
Gender: male
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #102 - Oct 8th, 2011 at 10:24pm  
Emma wrote on Oct 8th, 2011 at 10:22pm:
Settled science challenged and proved wrong.  - SOREN

Please elucidate, Smiley  .. one hears so much static these days..  Angry




Read the smacking letter and let me know which part eludes you.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
muso
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #103 - Oct 9th, 2011 at 9:53am  
Soren wrote on Oct 8th, 2011 at 10:10pm:
Fabulous letter to the editor today. From a professorial fellow.



Triumph of scepticism


TWO Nobel prizes this week in physics and chemistry have more than usual significance for science and philosophy.
Australia's Brian Schmidt challenged at the cosmic scale the conventional wisdom of slowing expansion of the universe and proved expansion is happening at an accelerating rate.

The discovery at the molecular scale by Israel's Dan Shechtman of quasi-crystals and crystals with pentagonal symmetry in chemistry shook the foundations of his science because they were deemed by colleagues to be impossible - so impossible that at one time he lost credibility among his peers and was asked to leave his research group.

There can be no higher-level demonstration than these awards of the value of scepticism in science, and of the role of observation and deduction free of the confines of conventional wisdom.

I look forward to the day when such elevated scientific method replaces the bitter and personalised arguments over settled science which today characterises earth-scale climate studies..

Michael Asten, Professorial Fellow, Monash University, Melbourne



Settled science challenged and proved wrong.



There is a difference between true scepticism and what might better be termed "talking convincing bullshit to convince the gullible, or to support a sacred and well-loved principle, such as the believe that God will protect our planet". The former is leading edge. The latter is not.

You can't classify lies and pseudo-science as being sceptical science - at least not unless you come from the University of Alabama, Huntsville.
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 #104 - Oct 9th, 2011 at 10:02am  
hay guys

the conventional wisdom was overturned on an issue in another field of science

therefore

its going to happen in this one too and believing against all the odds and all the conventional wisdom that is is is the most sensible thing to do   Cool Cool Cool

believing that anthropogenic global warming isnt happening is like the opening to hogwarts
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Soren
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 25654
Gender: male
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #105 - Oct 9th, 2011 at 12:45pm  
The point is this: "the science is settled" argument to end debate on AGW or any other area of scientific knowledge is an unscientific argument. It is an appeal to unscientific authority, not to science.
AGW may or may not be true but the science is certainly not settled.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
BatteriesNotIncluded
Gold Member
*****
Offline


MediocrityNET: because
people died for this!

Posts: 26966
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #106 - Oct 10th, 2011 at 12:34am  
Soren wrote on Oct 9th, 2011 at 12:45pm:
The point is this: "the science is settled" argument to end debate on AGW or any other area of scientific knowledge is an unscientific argument. It is an appeal to unscientific authority, not to science.
AGW may or may not be true but the science is certainly not settled.





Astrophysics certainly aint settled either!

Science is a process and you don't like that do ya buddy!  Roll Eyes
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
 
muso
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #107 - Oct 10th, 2011 at 10:44am  
Soren wrote on Oct 9th, 2011 at 12:45pm:
The point is this: "the science is settled" argument to end debate on AGW or any other area of scientific knowledge is an unscientific argument. It is an appeal to unscientific authority, not to science.
AGW may or may not be true but the science is certainly not settled.



I'm not sure who coined the term "settled". The only time I've seen that term used was in strawman arguments, or perhaps in the public arena by activists, but I'm happy to be shown otherwise.  "Robust" might be a better term to use.

The science that can be used to predict sunrise times for world cities and that used to predict satellite orbits is similarly robust.  

Does that mean that in the future, we might find something more robust than the relativistic calculation? Sure - it's possible, but it's not going to change the values significantly.

Our understanding of nature is an evolving and never-ending process. We’re forever refining and reforming our model of reality. Anyone who suggests that the science is “settled” is missing the point. Does that mean that we should just ignore high risk evidence that is presented on the back of some pretty robust and tested science? Of course not.
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: The Soren Challenge
Reply #108 - Oct 12th, 2011 at 11:26pm  
muso wrote on Oct 10th, 2011 at 10:44am:
Soren wrote on Oct 9th, 2011 at 12:45pm:
The point is this: "the science is settled" argument to end debate on AGW or any other area of scientific knowledge is an unscientific argument. It is an appeal to unscientific authority, not to science.
AGW may or may not be true but the science is certainly not settled.



I'm not sure who coined the term "settled". The only time I've seen that term used was in strawman arguments, or perhaps in the public arena by activists, but I'm happy to be shown otherwise.  "Robust" might be a better term to use.

The science that can be used to predict sunrise times for world cities and that used to predict satellite orbits is similarly robust.  

Does that mean that in the future, we might find something more robust than the relativistic calculation? Sure - it's possible, but it's not going to change the values significantly.

Our understanding of nature is an evolving and never-ending process. We’re forever refining and reforming our model of reality. Anyone who suggests that the science is “settled” is missing the point. Does that mean that we should just ignore high risk evidence that is presented on the back of some pretty robust and tested science? Of course not.

Yeh, ya basic muddying the waters and rasing doubts about the credibility of process!

The idea of a null hypothesis is to arrive at quality answers and then, you set up another null hypothesis to slowly figure out how the complex systems of life work.... complex systems have many possible answers: it's only when you reduce it to simplicity can you settle on simple answers!

THE CHANGE IS IN THEY'RE JUST BUYING THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF TIME FOR THE BIG KNOBS TO RETOOL!
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
 
Emma
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 9853
OZ
Gender: female
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #109 - Oct 12th, 2011 at 11:28pm  
I look forward to the day when such elevated scientific method replaces the bitter and personalised arguments over settled science which today characterises earth-scale climate studies..

Michael Asten, Professorial Fellow, Monash University, Melbourne

. Settled science challenged and proved wrong
 - Soren

This appears to be the first reference to 'settled', ..but I couldn't be f'n bothered to go back further.
Read the f'n letter'.....  no thanks - got better things to be doin' don't ya know?
Back to top
 
live every day
 
IP Logged
 
BatteriesNotIncluded
Gold Member
*****
Offline


MediocrityNET: because
people died for this!

Posts: 26966
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #110 - Oct 12th, 2011 at 11:30pm  
..in short, soren is a bean counter and doesn't like uncertainlty! That's why he counts his money very carefully, over and over again!!  Cheesy
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
 
Emma
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 9853
OZ
Gender: female
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #111 - Oct 12th, 2011 at 11:34pm  
yeah Grin Grin Cheesy

probably works for Treasury.!!  Smiley That'd be right up his a.... Grin
Back to top
 
live every day
 
IP Logged
 
muso
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #112 - Oct 13th, 2011 at 1:46pm  
Emma wrote on Oct 12th, 2011 at 11:28pm:
I look forward to the day when such elevated scientific method replaces the bitter and personalised arguments over settled science which today characterises earth-scale climate studies..

Michael Asten, Professorial Fellow, Monash University, Melbourne

. Settled science challenged and proved wrong
 - Soren

This appears to be the first reference to 'settled', ..but I couldn't be f'n bothered to go back further.
Read the f'n letter'.....  no thanks - got better things to be doin' don't ya know?



Precisely. Yet another mining industry protagonist constructing yet another strawman.
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 #113 - Oct 13th, 2011 at 1:52pm  
BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Oct 12th, 2011 at 11:26pm:
Yeh, ya basic muddying the waters and rasing doubts about the credibility of process!


All the rest of your post is correct. Maybe I wasn't clear, but it was not my intention to muddy the waters - just to point out that the uncertainties that exist are not particularly significant in this area - at least for the broad details that should instigate urgent action on fossil fuel combustion. 

We're talking about certainties of 99% plus here. You don't dwell on the remaining 1% hoping that it will make the whole problem go away.

Financial markets work with much lower odds.
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 #114 - Oct 13th, 2011 at 8:38pm  
muso wrote on Oct 13th, 2011 at 1:52pm:
 

We're talking about certainties of 99% plus here. You don't dwell on the remaining 1% hoping that it will make the whole problem go away.



ANd yet:

"The discovery at the molecular scale by Israel's Dan Shechtman of quasi-crystals and crystals with pentagonal symmetry in chemistry shook the foundations of his science because they were deemed by colleagues to be impossible - so impossible that at one time he lost credibility among his peers and was asked to leave his research group."



If "99% plus certainty" is not 'settled science' I don't know what is.

AGW is untestable (science needs repeatable experiments) and lacks any predictiv power.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Emma
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 9853
OZ
Gender: female
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #115 - Oct 14th, 2011 at 3:13am  
I don't know why you are having this argument -   because  ,,..?  IMO
Nothing is settled.

Our assumptions are always open to challenge.  I say 'assumptions'  in reference to the idea of 'settled science'.
As has been pointed out - that which has seemed settled, actually has undreamt-of further possibilities.

So it is with climate change.  We don't actually KNOW what's coming with 99% certainty - JUST like EVERY OTHER thing you choose to dispute.
Sensibility  means we don't argue about whether humans need water or air to survive, for example.
That IS obvious.!!

But after that it seems ... we reach a nexus of dispute.
Should we take active steps to address the impact we have had on our environment over the last, say, two hundred years..??
..or should we ignore it and hope it goes away?, ...  or argue the issue until.. ?? .... (as seems likely at present) ...it cannot be denied any longer??. (ie too late)

 It seems we humans are so insular and stubborn that  something has to happen to US individually - something disastrous, before we are shaken from our smugness.

And even then, it seems we just want to 'rebuild'  -  back to just the way it was before.  
Talk about ostriches and sand!!!!!!

Serious concerns for long term viability IMO.
Back to top
 
live every day
 
IP Logged
 
Soren
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 25654
Gender: male
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #116 - Oct 14th, 2011 at 9:31am  
Your AGW assumptions are being challenged every day but your response is to ignore the challenge and and chant your assumptions (ie AGW).


We are not changing the climate. A change in atmospheric CO2 from 0.0275 % to 0.0375% is not enough to change the global climate. Whatever changes are occuring in the climate, they cannot all be sheeted home to that miniscule change. It's ridiculous.
But because we do not understand the climate, all change is sheeted home to the one thing we can measure as our (tiny) impact on one of its components.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
muso
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #117 - Oct 14th, 2011 at 10:10am  
Soren wrote on Oct 14th, 2011 at 9:31am:
Your AGW assumptions are being challenged every day but your response is to ignore the challenge and and chant your assumptions (ie AGW).


We are not changing the climate. A change in atmospheric CO2 from 0.0275 % to 0.0375% is not enough to change the global climate. Whatever changes are occuring in the climate, they cannot all be sheeted home to that miniscule change. It's ridiculous.
But because we do not understand the climate, all change is sheeted home to the one thing we can measure as our (tiny) impact on one of its components.


Nicely parroted strawman. It was actually around 375 ppm in 2000. I actually agree with your statement that the increase in CO2 up to around 2000 had a relatively minor  impact from 1800 to 2000, but nobody is actually saying anything different to that.  What is a concern is the  projected emission rates which will result in an approximate doubling of CO2 is likely to happen around 2050- 2100 depending on what actions the world takes.  The break-even point in terms of risk is around a 2 degree rise in Global temperatures.

I can't believe that you didn't notice that.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Oct 14th, 2011 at 10:18am by muso »  
...
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: The Soren Challenge
Reply #118 - Oct 14th, 2011 at 11:19am  
muso wrote on Oct 10th, 2011 at 10:44am:
Soren wrote on Oct 9th, 2011 at 12:45pm:
The point is this: "the science is settled" argument to end debate on AGW or any other area of scientific knowledge is an unscientific argument. It is an appeal to unscientific authority, not to science.
AGW may or may not be true but the science is certainly not settled.



I'm not sure who coined the term "settled". The only time I've seen that term used was in strawman arguments, or perhaps in the public arena by activists, but I'm happy to be shown otherwise.  "Robust" might be a better term to use.

The science that can be used to predict sunrise times for world cities and that used to predict satellite orbits is similarly robust.  

Does that mean that in the future, we might find something more robust than the relativistic calculation? Sure - it's possible, but it's not going to change the values significantly.

Our understanding of nature is an evolving and never-ending process. We’re forever refining and reforming our model of reality. Anyone who suggests that the science is “settled” is missing the point. Does that mean that we should just ignore high risk evidence that is presented on the back of some pretty robust and tested science? Of course not.


Wasn't the phrase 'The science is settled, and the debate is over' Al Gore's catchphrase from his movie???
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
 
Soren
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 25654
Gender: male
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #119 - Oct 14th, 2011 at 2:03pm  
muso wrote on Oct 14th, 2011 at 10:10am:
Soren wrote on Oct 14th, 2011 at 9:31am:
Your AGW assumptions are being challenged every day but your response is to ignore the challenge and and chant your assumptions (ie AGW).


We are not changing the climate. A change in atmospheric CO2 from 0.0275 % to 0.0375% is not enough to change the global climate. Whatever changes are occuring in the climate, they cannot all be sheeted home to that miniscule change. It's ridiculous.
But because we do not understand the climate, all change is sheeted home to the one thing we can measure as our (tiny) impact on one of its components.


Nicely parroted strawman. It was actually around 375 ppm in 2000. I actually agree with your statement that the increase in CO2 up to around 2000 had a relatively minor  impact from 1800 to 2000, but nobody is actually saying anything different to that.  What is a concern is the  projected emission rates which will result in an approximate doubling of CO2 is likely to happen around 2050- 2100 depending on what actions the world takes.  The break-even point in terms of risk is around a 2 degree rise in Global temperatures.

I can't believe that you didn't notice that.



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.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
muso
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #120 - Oct 14th, 2011 at 3:14pm  
Soren wrote on Oct 14th, 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 14th, 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 14th, 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 14th, 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: male
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #123 - Oct 14th, 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 14th, 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 14th, 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 Tongue Tongue Tongue Tongue Tongue Tongue Tongue Tongue Tongue Tongue Tongue Tongue Tongue Tongue Tongue Tongue Tongue Tongue Tongue Tongue Tongue Tongue Tongue  Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy
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 14th, 2011 at 10:41pm  
Soren wrote on Oct 14th, 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 14th, 2011 at 10:42pm  
Soren wrote on Oct 14th, 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: male
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #128 - Oct 14th, 2011 at 10:48pm  
Soren wrote on Oct 14th, 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 14th, 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 15th, 2011 at 7:40am  
Emma wrote on Oct 14th, 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 Tongue Tongue Tongue Tongue Tongue Tongue Tongue Tongue Tongue Tongue Tongue Tongue Tongue Tongue Tongue Tongue Tongue Tongue Tongue Tongue Tongue Tongue Tongue  Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy



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 15th, 2011 at 7:41am  
muso wrote on Oct 14th, 2011 at 10:48pm:
Soren wrote on Oct 14th, 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 15th, 2011 at 7:47am  
Emma wrote on Oct 14th, 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 15th, 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: male
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #134 - Oct 15th, 2011 at 11:54am  
barnaby joe wrote on Oct 15th, 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
 
muso
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #135 - Oct 15th, 2011 at 1:55pm  
Soren wrote on Oct 15th, 2011 at 7:40am:
Emma wrote on Oct 14th, 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 Tongue Tongue Tongue Tongue Tongue Tongue Tongue Tongue Tongue Tongue Tongue Tongue Tongue Tongue Tongue Tongue Tongue Tongue Tongue Tongue Tongue Tongue Tongue  Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy



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



Let me explain to the others:

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

That was the crux of your argument. There was no more substance to it than that.

CO2 - small proportions. 
ricin - small proportions

As you can see, Soren's law applies to both.
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 #136 - Oct 15th, 2011 at 2:02pm  
Soren wrote on Oct 15th, 2011 at 7:41am:
muso wrote on Oct 14th, 2011 at 10:48pm:
Soren wrote on Oct 14th, 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.



We've been through this before, so what are the Greenhouse gases? I'll give you a clue:

W-----
C--
M--
N--
...........etc  in order of the magnitude of the effect on Earth.

Now we can tell that they are greenhouse gases very easily. There is nothing difficult about it. Place nitrogen or oxygen in a long path infrared spectrometer, ok make it an FTIR if you want improved definition.  Hey presto, no absorption peak in the 15 micron IR band. Substitute any of the others and  you get absorption.

That band is coincident with long wave radiation emitted from the Earth. That's the key.

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

Now I think I'm entitled to ask what you think the Greenhouse gases are in order of magnitude of their effect. Do you think that CO2 should come last?
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 #137 - Oct 15th, 2011 at 2:10pm  
Emma wrote on Oct 14th, 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.?



It's always from a position of ignorance. Nobody has yet done any academic study that shows evidence that CO2 is not a Greenhouse gas, or even an insignificant one.

To claim that the atmospheric CO2 is an insignificant greenhouse gas is a sign of ignorance on a monumental scale. It is unfounded hogwash.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Oct 15th, 2011 at 2:21pm by muso »  
...
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 #138 - Oct 15th, 2011 at 7:33pm  
'Nobody has yet done any academic study that shows evidence that CO2 is not a Greenhouse gas, or even an insignificant one.' - Muso

Heehee  Grin - and why would you - ?  Huh...........- a waste of time and money, - that's obvious I think. Roll Eyes

HARD to prove a negative. Smiley
Back to top
 
live every day
 
IP Logged
 
Soren
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 25654
Gender: male
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #139 - Oct 15th, 2011 at 8:18pm  
muso wrote on Oct 15th, 2011 at 2:02pm:
Now I think I'm entitled to ask what you think the Greenhouse gases are in order of magnitude of their effect. Do you think that CO2 should come last?



Certainly not first.

Mars has an atmophere of 95% CO2. It's freezing. Not effective enough, evidently.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Soren
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 25654
Gender: male
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #140 - Oct 15th, 2011 at 8:21pm  
muso wrote on Oct 15th, 2011 at 1:55pm:
Soren wrote on Oct 15th, 2011 at 7:40am:
Emma wrote on Oct 14th, 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 Tongue Tongue Tongue Tongue Tongue Tongue Tongue Tongue Tongue Tongue Tongue Tongue Tongue Tongue Tongue Tongue Tongue Tongue Tongue Tongue Tongue Tongue Tongue  Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy



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



Let me explain to the others:

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

That was the crux of your argument. There was no more substance to it than that.

CO2 - small proportions.  
ricin - small proportions

As you can see, Soren's law applies to both.



Don't be stupisd, Muso.

Putting a small amount of ricin in your drink and the same amount of salt or sugar (or even smacking CO2) is not demonstrating anything. Why (you may ask although the quicker ones in the class can figure it out unaided). Because salt and sugar and CO2 are are not poisons!!

Ahhh....
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Soren
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 25654
Gender: male
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #141 - Oct 15th, 2011 at 9:08pm  
Emma wrote on Oct 14th, 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 Tongue Tongue Tongue Tongue Tongue Tongue Tongue Tongue Tongue Tongue Tongue Tongue Tongue Tongue Tongue Tongue Tongue Tongue Tongue Tongue Tongue Tongue Tongue  Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy



Dispell the confusion, then, sage. Rolling your eyes is an argument only with your husband.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Emma
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 9853
OZ
Gender: female
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #142 - Oct 15th, 2011 at 10:48pm  
Cheesy to me means ..'you are nutso'. 'crazy in the coconut' . 'lost in the gloaming' . 'playing with the pixies at the bottom of your garden on Arcturus IV'.!!

I gave up husbands as bad for my health decades ago.
Back to top
 
live every day
 
IP Logged
 
muso
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #143 - Oct 16th, 2011 at 6:53am  
Soren wrote on Oct 15th, 2011 at 8:18pm:
muso wrote on Oct 15th, 2011 at 2:02pm:
Now I think I'm entitled to ask what you think the Greenhouse gases are in order of magnitude of their effect. Do you think that CO2 should come last?



Certainly not first.

Mars has an atmophere of 95% CO2. It's freezing. Not effective enough, evidently.



You're not thinking this through. It amazes me that you can be conned by that.  As I said before, the warming effect of CO2 works in conjunction with water vapour. There is a comparatively huge quantity of water vapour in the atmosphere on Earth, but practically nil on Mars. If you dropped out all the water in the Martian atmosphere it would form a layer of ice just 100 microns thick planet-wide. In contrast, the Earth has an average of 0.8% water in its atmosphere.

In terms of partial pressure, that would equate to more than the total surface atmospheric pressure on Mars. The Martian atmosphere is also considerably shallower (fewer kilometers deep) that that of the Earth. Path length is important when it comes to the greenhouse effect.

There is actually a Greenhouse effect on Mars. It raises the temperature by about 5 degrees C.   It's about the expected value taking into account the fact that it has a surface  atmospheric pressure around 0.7 percent that of the Earth, and the fact that it's further from the Sun. The Earth receives about double (2.33) the Solar radiation received by Mars per unit area.

I like the KISS principle, but I prefer to take the approach, Keep It Simple Smart.  The above explanation is about as simple as you can get without changing the "smart" to "stupid".

Stating that Mars has 95% CO2 in its atmosphere compared to Earth's 0.039% is simplifying a bit too much - in order to con the gullible.  

Quote:
Certainly not first
- Good start. Try second.  - On Mars of course, atmospheric dust has the greatest effect on warming.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Oct 16th, 2011 at 7:40am 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 #144 - Oct 16th, 2011 at 7:18am  
Soren wrote on Oct 15th, 2011 at 8:21pm:
Don't be stupisd, Muso.

Putting a small amount of ricin in your drink and the same amount of salt or sugar (or even smacking CO2) is not demonstrating anything. Why (you may ask although the quicker ones in the class can figure it out unaided). Because salt and sugar and CO2 are are not poisons!!

Ahhh....



You're mixing the metaphor. Nobody is saying that people will die from the toxic effect of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Nobody is arguing that.  By stating that CO2 is not a poison, you're bringing in yet another strawman.

I asserted that your argument was overly simplistic. (I'll be kind)  You blandly state that a small proportion will have a small effect. Now in this case, "effect" means warming and Ocean pH. You argue this point without any recourse to properties and mechanism. Therefore if you don't have to take into account those devilish details, you can presumably apply Soren's law willy nilly to everything? N'est-ce pas?

So I was illustrating how preposterous Soren's Law was by taking another example.   It's quite a good analogy.  "The Earth's climate is complex!" you say, paraphrasing.  (By the way, if you did any reading on the Martian climate, you'd find that it was much more complex) The human body is also a complex system. Taking toxicology as an example is quite an apt analogy.

As an aside, you stated that salt is not a poison, but if you tried consuming a mere 39 grams of salt all at once, you'd probably end up a little off-colour (a pallid greyish-green colour). The devil is in the details. (Hey! that's only 0.039% of the total body weight of a 100kg man - how about that?)
Back to top
« Last Edit: Oct 16th, 2011 at 7:41am 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 #145 - Oct 16th, 2011 at 1:45pm  
Yeah, how about that. Clever, but as usual, not smart enough.

The global atmosphere is not getting 0.039% of CO2, as in your silly attempt at cleverness with salt. The atmosphere already has most of that CO2 - there wouldn't be life in the planet without it.


So, your reputation for crap analogies is undiminished. WHat makes me furrow the old brow is that as a scientist you could be such a blunderbuss. But I guess that's par for the course when you are up on the climate science.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
muso
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #146 - Oct 16th, 2011 at 2:43pm  
Soren wrote on Oct 16th, 2011 at 1:45pm:
.

The global atmosphere is not getting 0.039% of CO2, as in your silly attempt at cleverness with salt. The atmosphere already has most of that CO2 - there wouldn't be life in the planet without it.


So, your reputation for crap analogies is undiminished. WHat makes me furrow the old brow is that as a scientist you could be such a blunderbuss. But I guess that's par for the course when you are up on the climate science.



blunderbuss? If that was being a blunderbuss, what was this?

Quote:
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.


Soren's Law. In summary it's complex (you don't understand it, but it's complex) , and increasing something by a little bit doesn't make much difference in effect. Now if that argument is the result of a Philosophy degree, I can breathe a sigh of relief that I never studied Philosophy.

Exactly the same logic can be applied to the salt analogy. A tiny increase from 0.025 to 0.039% can be enough to kill a human being (complex system again). Mind you, I am honest enough to say that an increase from 0.025 to 0.039% is an increase in that component of about 46%, not 0.0014%, but that wouldn't do now would it? It would make it sound too significant.

After all, salt is good for you. If it wasn't for salt, the human body could not function properly.

Now if you had even tried to explain why a 100% increase in CO2 from pre-industrial levels to projected 2050- 2100 levels would make no difference, then  that would have been progress. I won't ask you do explain that, because you clearly can't.

- But all you're saying is that it doesn't make any difference (read my lips) but don't ask hard questions like "why?"

Of course I'd be delighted to hear Soren's Second Law of Climate, which will undoubtedly knock my socks off.   I think we'll call the First Law "Soren's General Law".

Folks - Watch this space for  "Soren's Special Law"
Back to top
« Last Edit: Oct 16th, 2011 at 2:50pm 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 #147 - Oct 16th, 2011 at 3:10pm  
muso wrote on Oct 16th, 2011 at 2:43pm:
(you don't understand it, but it's complex)  



Don't glide over that, it's a central point.

Soren's law is that IN THE CONTEXT of a complexity that is not well-understood, blaming or expecting catastrophy on the basis of 0.0275% increase in anything is a severe case of baseless overconfidence (a.k.a. stupidity).
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
muso
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #148 - Oct 17th, 2011 at 11:34am  
Soren wrote on Oct 16th, 2011 at 3:10pm:
muso wrote on Oct 16th, 2011 at 2:43pm:
(you don't understand it, but it's complex)  



Don't glide over that, it's a central point.

Soren's law is that IN THE CONTEXT of a complexity that is not well-understood, blaming or expecting catastrophy on the basis of 0.0275% increase in anything is a severe case of baseless overconfidence (a.k.a. stupidity).



OK,  you are arguing that for complex systems we can't make any predictions.  I disagree. Even for truly complex systems, we can make predictions, and those predictions can be accurate within certain limits.

I can talk about stochastic systems such as communications networks, financial markets etc, and explain how we can even provide some useful prediction tools for such systems.

The climate system is not stochastic, but is largely deterministic, especially when discussing broad rather than specific aspects.  

I can explain that isolated components of the climate system are highly predictable, and that includes such things as global mean temperatures and ocean acidification, which is basic equilibrium calculations based on sound, tested physicochemical principles.

You also made the claim in an earlier post that the science is untestable. Well, I gave two examples of how the hypothesis can be tested on the last two posts in the sticky thread. These are satellite observations and reduced temperatures in the ionosphere. These are observable consequences that confirm the enhanced greenhouse effect that has occurred up to now.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Oct 17th, 2011 at 11:40am by muso »  
...
1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not 
 
IP Logged
 
Maqqa
Gold Member
*****
Offline


14% - that low?!

Posts: 16000
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #149 - Oct 17th, 2011 at 5:10pm  
http://au.news.yahoo.com/world/a/-/world/10478008/global-warming-blamed-for-smal...

From the mighty polar bear to the tiny house sparrow, many of Earth's species appear to be shrinking in size, a new study reports - and its authors think that's probably due to global warming.

But other experts say that conclusion goes too far, blaming global warming for what may be natural changes.

The new research was published online on Sunday in the journal, Nature Climate Change.

It's based on a review of other studies and found that 38of 85 animal and plant species showed a documented reduction in size over decades, including a type of Scottish sheep that is five per cent smaller than in 1985.

Those studies looked at species over different time periods and in varying numbers.

The shrinking specimens, according to the study, include cotton, corn, strawberries, bay scallops, shrimp, crayfish, carp, Atlantic salmon, herring, frogs, toads, iguanas, hooded robins, red-billed gulls, California squirrels, lynx and wood rats.

Two years ago, Scottish researchers made news with the shrinking sheep study.

Several studies have shown that polar bears, which rely on sea ice during the summer, also are not as big.

And this latest study said the house sparrow's weight has dropped by one-seventh from 1950 to 1990.

A bird called the graceful warbler showed a 26 per cent weight drop during the same time period.

"There is a trend in a number of organisms across the board, from plants to big vertebrates, getting smaller," said study co-author Jennifer Sheridan, a biology researcher at the University of Alabama. "The theory is as things get warmer they don't need to grow as large."

Most of these animals are cold-blooded, so the warmer the weather the faster their metabolism is and the more calories they burn, Sheridan said. There's a biological law, called Bergmann's rule, that says that as it gets colder, animals get bigger.

This is the unwritten flip side of it, she said.

But Yoram Yom-Tov, a zoologist at Tel Aviv University whose studies Sheridan used in her research, said many species are shrinking, and you can't blame global warming exclusively.

"Changes in body size are a normal phenomenon," Yom-Tov wrote in an email. "When conditions are favourable, they increase in size or reproduce at higher rates, and when conditions are deteriorating, they do the opposite. I think that most species will adapt to climate change and survive. No need for alarm."
And Stanford biologist Terry Root, an expert in climate change, said the study's conclusions "seem kind of far-fetched"
Back to top
 
Bill 14% is not the alcohol content of that wine. It's your poll number
 
IP Logged
 
Maqqa
Gold Member
*****
Offline


14% - that low?!

Posts: 16000
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #150 - Oct 17th, 2011 at 5:11pm  
shrinkage have impacted the brains of left-wingers as well
Back to top
 
Bill 14% is not the alcohol content of that wine. It's your poll number
 
IP Logged
 
Emma
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 9853
OZ
Gender: female
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #151 - Oct 17th, 2011 at 8:25pm  
but not right-wingers??>?  
I must disagree.
The lack of brain convolutions / 'smarts' - is nowhere more evident than on the right.!
One only needs to watch the News  ... and observe.!!!!
Back to top
 
live every day
 
IP Logged
 
Soren
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 25654
Gender: male
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #152 - Oct 17th, 2011 at 8:32pm  
Emma wrote on Oct 15th, 2011 at 10:48pm:
Cheesy to me means ..'you are nutso'. 'crazy in the coconut' . 'lost in the gloaming' . 'playing with the pixies at the bottom of your garden on Arcturus IV'.!!

I gave up husbands as bad for my health decades ago.


You mean they all gave up on you... They all musta been sleare-eyed right wingers, what?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Soren
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 25654
Gender: male
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #153 - Oct 17th, 2011 at 8:41pm  
muso wrote on Oct 16th, 2011 at 6:53am:
Soren wrote on Oct 15th, 2011 at 8:18pm:
muso wrote on Oct 15th, 2011 at 2:02pm:
Now I think I'm entitled to ask what you think the Greenhouse gases are in order of magnitude of their effect. Do you think that CO2 should come last?



Certainly not first.

Mars has an atmophere of 95% CO2. It's freezing. Not effective enough, evidently.



You're not thinking this through. It amazes me that you can be conned by that.  As I said before, the warming effect of CO2 works in conjunction with water vapour. There is a comparatively huge quantity of water vapour in the atmosphere on Earth, but practically nil on Mars. If you dropped out all the water in the Martian atmosphere it would form a layer of ice just 100 microns thick planet-wide. In contrast, the Earth has an average of 0.8% water in its atmosphere.

In terms of partial pressure, that would equate to more than the total surface atmospheric pressure on Mars. The Martian atmosphere is also considerably shallower (fewer kilometers deep) that that of the Earth. Path length is important when it comes to the greenhouse effect.

There is actually a Greenhouse effect on Mars. It raises the temperature by about 5 degrees C.   It's about the expected value taking into account the fact that it has a surface  atmospheric pressure around 0.7 percent that of the Earth, and the fact that it's further from the Sun. The Earth receives about double (2.33) the Solar radiation received by Mars per unit area.

I like the KISS principle, but I prefer to take the approach, Keep It Simple Smart.  The above explanation is about as simple as you can get without changing the "smart" to "stupid".

Stating that Mars has 95% CO2 in its atmosphere compared to Earth's 0.039% is simplifying a bit too much - in order to con the gullible.  

Quote:
Certainly not first
- Good start. Try second.  - On Mars of course, atmospheric dust has the greatest effect on warming.



What you are suggesting here is that CO2 works on water vapour, rather than directly on the temperature. This is the 'forcing' idea, yes?
Mars has no water vapout so even a large amount of CO2 has nothing to force. That is, CO2 in itself is less effective than in an atmophere that has water in it as well as one that is omposed largely or air -something also not present on other planets.

(noting that we haven't even touched on the contribution of air itself).
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Emma
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 9853
OZ
Gender: female
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #154 - Oct 17th, 2011 at 8:48pm  
why Soren !!!!  (bats eye-lids) I didn't know you even cared.!!!

'They all musta been sleare-eyed right wingers, what? '
--  What? tfitstm? Que?

and I take umbrage at the ..'they'.  
I am NOT stupid - once was more than enough !! Smiley
Back to top
 
live every day
 
IP Logged
 
Soren
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 25654
Gender: male
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #155 - Oct 17th, 2011 at 8:51pm  
muso wrote on Oct 17th, 2011 at 11:34am:
Soren wrote on Oct 16th, 2011 at 3:10pm:
muso wrote on Oct 16th, 2011 at 2:43pm:
(you don't understand it, but it's complex)  



Don't glide over that, it's a central point.

Soren's law is that IN THE CONTEXT of a complexity that is not well-understood, blaming or expecting catastrophy on the basis of 0.0275% increase in anything is a severe case of baseless overconfidence (a.k.a. stupidity).



OK,  you are arguing that for complex systems we can't make any predictions.  I disagree. Even for truly complex systems, we can make predictions, and those predictions can be accurate within certain limits.

I can talk about stochastic systems such as communications networks, financial markets etc, and explain how we can even provide some useful prediction tools for such systems.

The climate system is not stochastic, but is largely deterministic, especially when discussing broad rather than specific aspects.  

I can explain that isolated components of the climate system are highly predictable, and that includes such things as global mean temperatures and ocean acidification, which is basic equilibrium calculations based on sound, tested physicochemical principles.

You also made the claim in an earlier post that the science is untestable. Well, I gave two examples of how the hypothesis can be tested on the last two posts in the sticky thread. These are satellite observations and reduced temperatures in the ionosphere. These are observable consequences that confirm the enhanced greenhouse effect that has occurred up to now.  



Muso, I am arguing that we cannot make predictions for comlex systems that we do not understand and cannot experimntally test.
That is 3 variables, Muso, count them:
1 complexity and multitude of components,
2 lack of understanding of the interaction of the components
3 lack of testability


The analogy with the human body goes only as far as 1.
2 and 3 do not apply to oiur understanding of the human body tio the extent they apply to the climate. We have a better grasp of the human body and its working than of the climate as far as prediction are concerned because we have only one atmosphere whereas we have millions of bodies to meaure, contrast, compare, in short, experiment with.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Emma
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 9853
OZ
Gender: female
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #156 - Oct 17th, 2011 at 9:25pm  
Do not agree! Soren, you are attempting to avoid the point.!

'1 complexity and multitude of components,
2 lack of understanding of the interaction of the components
3 lack of testability


The analogy with the human body goes only as far as 1.
2 and 3 do not apply to oiur understanding of the human body tio the extent they apply to the climate. We have a better grasp of the human body and its working than of the climate as far as prediction are concerned because we have only one atmosphere whereas we have millions of bodies to meaure, contrast, compare, in short, experiment with.' - Soren

We have less understanding of the human organism than we do about weather.  Regardless of how many bodies there may be to experiment with.  Complexity??
Humans are much more complex..
There are more unanswered questions about human physiology, pyschology, biology !! -  than there could ever be about climate.
Perhaps we distract ourselves from realising our ignorance,  by looking to external challenges.
Like Climate Change. Yet sadly - our knowledge -or lack thereof - of ourselves - already plays a huge role in our treatment of our home. Which is SHAMEFUL, ... and deny that if you can.!!

 If we can succeed in the climate arena, perhaps we can look to more multiplex issues.
IF not .........? Tongue

You might think this is the cart before the horse, but if we cannot agree to save our only life source- the Earth, then we can never agree to live in peace and harmony.
One is proof of the other.
Back to top
 
live every day
 
IP Logged
 
muso
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #157 - Oct 18th, 2011 at 10:10am  
Maqqa wrote on Oct 17th, 2011 at 5:11pm:
shrinkage have impacted the brains of left-wingers as well


Could be. Your comments don't apply to me. I'm not left wing or left anything. If anything I'm slightly right of centre.
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 #158 - Oct 18th, 2011 at 10:34am  
Soren wrote on Oct 17th, 2011 at 8:51pm:
Muso, I am arguing that we cannot make predictions for comlex systems that we do not understand and cannot experimntally test.
That is 3 variables, Muso, count them:
1 complexity and multitude of components,
2 lack of understanding of the interaction of the components
3 lack of testability


The analogy with the human body goes only as far as
2 and 3 do not apply to oiur understanding of the human body tio the extent they apply to the climate. 1. We have a better grasp of the human body and its working than of the climate as far as prediction are concerned because we have only one atmosphere whereas we have millions of bodies to meaure, contrast, compare, in short, experiment with.



You have got to be kidding. We don't understand biological processes very well at all. Nobody has yet even gotten close to manufacturing a living cell.  Even the basic processes of life are not  understood, except empirically. For example we don't really have much of a clue how photosynthesis works. We are getting there. There has been some encouraging work of late, and there is a suggestion that we may be able to manufacture artificial photosynthesis units some time in the future, which would be great. Imagine a building that builds itself like a tree using CO2 from the atmosphere.  As far as life is concerned there are far more gaps in our understanding than the Earth's climate, which is a function of some very basic properties most of which are very well understood.

There are many events that can be used to test the hypothesis as far as radiative forcing is concern. Stratospheric volcano eruptions and periods of low solar activity are a couple of examples.  We can directly measure the greenhouse effect from space, and at various levels in the upper atmosphere by weather balloons and sondes.  
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 #159 - Oct 18th, 2011 at 10:57am  
Soren wrote on Oct 17th, 2011 at 8:41pm:
What you are suggesting here is that CO2 works on water vapour, rather than directly on the temperature. This is the 'forcing' idea, yes?
Mars has no water vapout so even a large amount of CO2 has nothing to force. That is, CO2 in itself is less effective than in an atmophere that has water in it as well as one that is omposed largely or air -something also not present on other planets.

(noting that we haven't even touched on the contribution of air itself).



Soren,

Not quite. It's both direct and indirect. You haven't been paying attention, have you? (Feedback is the word you want, not forcing)

This is not some new concept that I'm introducing.  On Earth, water and CO2 are important Greenhouse gases by virtue of their atmospheric proportions.  

Carbon dioxide works directly as a result of its properties to absorb Infrared radiation around 15 microns.  That in itself causes some warming (forcing). The consequence of that warming in a world that has lots of water, is to evaporate just a bit more water which causes more warming. That's the indirect or feedback aspect.

Now strangely enough, the Martian atmosphere is close to saturated with water, whereas the Earth's is not (aha! you say) . I thought I'd bring up that little chestnut before you did. However as I said before, there is very little free water in the  Martian atmosphere, compared to that of the Earth which is hardly surprising given its extremely low average temperature.


So the question is, what are the relative warming effects of CO2 and water vapour (feedback)? Well that's a term called the climate sensitivity. Most research puts that figure around 3. In other words for every doubling of CO2 (plus methane, nitrous oxide, HFC's etc expressed as CO2 - equivalent) concentration, you get about 3 degrees of global temperature rise due to forcing plus feedbacks, including water vapour. (for no extra price). The direct forcing component is a bit less than one degree.

Please tell me that you follow that.

As I've said before, the major components of the air - Nitrogen and oxygen are transparent to longwave IR radiation. They absorb elsewhere of course, but that has no relevance.  (Do you want to see their spectra?) They are not greenhouse gases. End of story.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Oct 18th, 2011 at 11:12am 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 #160 - Oct 18th, 2011 at 12:18pm  
muso wrote on Oct 18th, 2011 at 10:57am:
Soren wrote on Oct 17th, 2011 at 8:41pm:
What you are suggesting here is that CO2 works on water vapour, rather than directly on the temperature. This is the 'forcing' idea, yes?
Mars has no water vapout so even a large amount of CO2 has nothing to force. That is, CO2 in itself is less effective than in an atmophere that has water in it as well as one that is omposed largely or air -something also not present on other planets.

(noting that we haven't even touched on the contribution of air itself).



Soren,

Not quite. It's both direct and indirect. You haven't been paying attention, have you? (Feedback is the word you want, not forcing)

This is not some new concept that I'm introducing.  On Earth, water and CO2 are important Greenhouse gases by virtue of their atmospheric proportions.  

Carbon dioxide works directly as a result of its properties to absorb Infrared radiation around 15 microns.  That in itself causes some warming (forcing). The consequence of that warming in a world that has lots of water, is to evaporate just a bit more water which causes more warming. That's the indirect or feedback aspect.

Now strangely enough, the Martian atmosphere is close to saturated with water, whereas the Earth's is not (aha! you say) . I thought I'd bring up that little chestnut before you did. However as I said before, there is very little free water in the  Martian atmosphere, compared to that of the Earth which is hardly surprising given its extremely low average temperature.


So the question is, what are the relative warming effects of CO2 and water vapour (feedback)? Well that's a term called the climate sensitivity. Most research puts that figure around 3. In other words for every doubling of CO2 (plus methane, nitrous oxide, HFC's etc expressed as CO2 - equivalent) concentration, you get about 3 degrees of global temperature rise due to forcing plus feedbacks, including water vapour. (for no extra price). The direct forcing component is a bit less than one degree.

Please tell me that you follow that.

As I've said before, the major components of the air - Nitrogen and oxygen are transparent to longwave IR radiation. They absorb elsewhere of course, but that has no relevance.  (Do you want to see their spectra?) They are not greenhouse gases. End of story.



I like that confidence.

The atmosphere is saturated with air but it's lil ol' CO2 that does all the work, or rather, its slave, water vapour. The air, being only where lil ol' CO2 lives, doesn't come into it because air can't be bossed around by 'im. So we ignore a large component of the atmosphere as it does nothing for our AGW thesis or because we do not understand its role.


On Mars, as there is neither air to live in nor vater vapour for Mr 96% CO2 to boss around, he's a powerless pussy who can't do nuffin'.

CO2 is a powerful greaanhouse gas only if it is not the dominant greenhouse gas and then only in an atmosphere that has air which is irrelevant for atmospheric temperature but is necessary for CO2 to be the non-dominant gas in.



Sure I follow.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
muso
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #161 - Oct 18th, 2011 at 1:40pm  
Soren wrote on Oct 18th, 2011 at 12:18pm:
I like that confidence.

The atmosphere is saturated with air but it's lil ol' CO2 that does all the work, or rather, its slave, water vapour. The air, being only where lil ol' CO2 lives, doesn't come into it because air can't be bossed around by 'im. So we ignore a large component of the atmosphere as it does nothing for our AGW thesis or because we do not understand its role.


On Mars, as there is neither air to live in nor vater vapour for Mr 96% CO2 to boss around, he's a powerless pussy who can't do nuffin'.

CO2 is a powerful greaanhouse gas only if it is not the dominant greenhouse gas and then only in an atmosphere that has air which is irrelevant for atmospheric temperature but is necessary for CO2 to be the non-dominant gas in.


Sure I follow.



Maybe you do, but what you just wrote is nothing like what I explained. In fact you got almost everything wrong.

I'll have to show you spectra to make my point, but of course I don't expect you to acknowledge any understanding.  When we have stupid old men like Cardinal Pell telling everybody that Nitrogen is now a greenhouse gas, I guess it's the word of God against mine.

Maybe it's a miracle. The Nitrogen probably suddenly started vibrating around 15 microns as a result of divine intervention.  Well there goes physics as we know it.

Look, here is a link where students can use a spreadsheet to calculate the Global Warming Potential of a gas based on its Infrared Spectrum.

http://journals2.scholarsportal.info/details.xqy?uri=/00219584/v76i0012/1702_gwp...

Quote:
The greenhouse warming potential is a relative measure of the capacity of a specific chemical species to trap infrared radiation as heat in the Earth's atmosphere, and is a scale that has been used to establish regulatory strategies for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. A model is described that allows a straightforward, spreadsheet-based determination of greenhouse warming potentials from the infrared spectra of atmospheric gases. On the basis of the numerical results of the model, students are able to investigate the molecular properties that are characteristic of greenhouse gases and thus are able to understand the rationale behind the recent agreement by the world's industrialized nations to reduce certain greenhouse gas emissions.


This is elementary stuff, Soren.

This graph shows how incident elecromagnetic radiation of different frequencies from the sun are absorbed by the atmosphere.  What do you understand from that?
Back to top
« Last Edit: Oct 18th, 2011 at 2:06pm by muso »  
em_radiation_atmosph_depth_stsci.jpg (42 KB | 52 )
em_radiation_atmosph_depth_stsci.jpg
...
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 #162 - Oct 18th, 2011 at 6:41pm  
the tropospheres gone absolutely TROPO
Back to top
« Last Edit: Oct 18th, 2011 at 6:56pm by barnaby joe »  
 
IP Logged
 
Soren
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 25654
Gender: male
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #163 - Oct 18th, 2011 at 8:16pm  
muso wrote on Oct 18th, 2011 at 1:40pm:
Soren wrote on Oct 18th, 2011 at 12:18pm:
I like that confidence.

The atmosphere is saturated with air but it's lil ol' CO2 that does all the work, or rather, its slave, water vapour. The air, being only where lil ol' CO2 lives, doesn't come into it because air can't be bossed around by 'im. So we ignore a large component of the atmosphere as it does nothing for our AGW thesis or because we do not understand its role.


On Mars, as there is neither air to live in nor vater vapour for Mr 96% CO2 to boss around, he's a powerless pussy who can't do nuffin'.

CO2 is a powerful greaanhouse gas only if it is not the dominant greenhouse gas and then only in an atmosphere that has air which is irrelevant for atmospheric temperature but is necessary for CO2 to be the non-dominant gas in.


Sure I follow.



Maybe you do, but what you just wrote is nothing like what I explained. In fact you got almost everything wrong.


Good. What did I get right?

Look, Mr Musician, i appreciate your effort and civility but to me every answer you give sounds like a snow job. It's alwys some other new complexity or variant or special consideration.
Which may well be the proper scientific way.
But in a complex sytem (climate) that is not well or fully understood, that kind of endless technical refinement sounds to me like a covering up of the bits that are not understood. What I would want to hear from a climate expert is an honest list of all the knonw unknows and a genral direction of the unknown unknowns.

But you never hear that. All you ever hear is a confident pronouncement that even though we do not half understand how he climate works, the bit that requires a massive interntional finacial, political, social racket IS fully understood and is urgently required otherwise we are all doomed. That to me ounds like a load of crap.

Whatevr the science is, it has been, or has allowed itself to be, captured by political and socil interests that I find harmful and malvolent. Malvolent because  lot of it is not even well-meaning social or political push.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
muso
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #164 - Oct 19th, 2011 at 7:06am  
Well if you think that the actual facts are a snowjob, all I can say is that your BS detector is broken if you fall for some of the things that you parrot.

For what it's worth, I support what you say about the malevolent political part. This lightly disguised redistribution of wealth that would have huge payments to third world countries is an example of that. No wonder Copenhagen was not a success. Regardless of that there is a core atmospheric physics based issue which needs to be dealt with.

I'm not yet convinced that the current government's approach will have any effect on carbon emissions whatsoever. I am prepared to be pleasantly surprised but I'm not holding my breath.

What needs to happen is a focus on renewable energy. If Miners and farmers are so poor that we have to subsidise their purchases of fossil fuel, then we should at least be subsidising renewable alternatives such as biodiesel for them to use instead. That's one of the first things I'd do, and it's really not that difficult.  The only red diesel that should be available should be biodiesel. All the rest should be taxed.

Tackle the low hanging fruit first before trying to convince people of the need for another tax, the proceeds of which would apparently ("trust me, I'm a politician") be used for renewables.    

Notwithstanding all of the above, it doesn't change the fact that there is a sound basis to what you might hear as being shrill pronouncements.

It's frustrating for me trying to explain basic science from first principles when I'm not an educator, but it's also frustrating as hell when I hear idiots like Cardinal Pell talk about Nitrogen as a greenhouse gas when I know for absolute certain (and that is totally certain) that it isn't. To be a greenhouse gas, it has to absorb some of the emitted longwave infrared radiation that is emitted by the earth, and that occurs in a reasonably discrete band as predicted by Planck's Law, which is derived from basic first principles.  
Back to top
« Last Edit: Oct 19th, 2011 at 7:59am by muso »  
...
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 #165 - Oct 19th, 2011 at 9:06pm  
Thanks for that Muso

very interesting.   Your wee graphic was also good.  : ))

Makes me even more concerned about the level of impact  'air travel' has upon the environment.
Back to top
 
live every day
 
IP Logged
 
Soren
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 25654
Gender: male
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #166 - Oct 21st, 2011 at 12:43pm  
muso wrote on Oct 19th, 2011 at 7:06am:
Well if you think that the actual facts are a snowjob, all I can say is that your BS detector is broken if you fall for some of the things that you parrot.

For what it's worth, I support what you say about the malevolent political part. This lightly disguised redistribution of wealth that would have huge payments to third world countries is an example of that. No wonder Copenhagen was not a success. Regardless of that there is a core atmospheric physics based issue which needs to be dealt with.

I'm not yet convinced that the current government's approach will have any effect on carbon emissions whatsoever. I am prepared to be pleasantly surprised but I'm not holding my breath.

What needs to happen is a focus on renewable energy. If Miners and farmers are so poor that we have to subsidise their purchases of fossil fuel, then we should at least be subsidising renewable alternatives such as biodiesel for them to use instead. That's one of the first things I'd do, and it's really not that difficult.  The only red diesel that should be available should be biodiesel. All the rest should be taxed.

Tackle the low hanging fruit first before trying to convince people of the need for another tax, the proceeds of which would apparently ("trust me, I'm a politician") be used for renewables.    

Notwithstanding all of the above, it doesn't change the fact that there is a sound basis to what you might hear as being shrill pronouncements.

It's frustrating for me trying to explain basic science from first principles when I'm not an educator, but it's also frustrating as hell when I hear idiots like Cardinal Pell talk about Nitrogen as a greenhouse gas when I know for absolute certain (and that is totally certain) that it isn't. To be a greenhouse gas, it has to absorb some of the emitted longwave infrared radiation that is emitted by the earth, and that occurs in a reasonably discrete band as predicted by Planck's Law, which is derived from basic first principles.  



As with everything else in the international domain, this issue would have been addressed effectively a long time ago if it was up to the democracies to make a decision among themselves and act on it. There are no issues of substance that the developed democracies have not been able to tackle effectively among themselves in the past half century. There is extraordinary cooperation on every level even as there is competition. 

The problem is that we have to include the Chinas, Indias, Vietnams and Indonesians of the world and pretend that they are not corrupt and that they have the same outlook as the democracies. This stupid pretence will mean that we will not do anything effective about reducing CO2 but will transfer billions of dollars to these corrupt countries as if that payment did anything environmentally positive. It is a gigantic con in this sense. The corrupt crooks alone will benefit from the well-meaning environmental concerns of people in the west.

ANd then, of course, there are the entirely malvolent forces in the west who want nothing more than to nobble the west in every possible way, AWG being merely the prétexte du jour.



Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
perceptions_now
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth  WA
Gender: male
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #167 - Oct 21st, 2011 at 6:29pm  
Global warming study finds no grounds for climate sceptics' concerns


The world is getting warmer, countering the doubts of climate change sceptics about the validity of some of the scientific evidence, according to the most comprehensive independent review of historical temperature records to date.

Scientists at the University of California, Berkeley, found several key issues that sceptics claim can skew global warming figures had no meaningful effect.

The Berkeley Earth project compiled more than a billion temperature records dating back to the 1800s from 15 sources around the world and found that the average global land temperature has risen by around 1C since the mid-1950s.

This figure agrees with the estimate arrived at by major groups that maintain official records on the world's climate, including Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Noaa), and the Met Office's Hadley Centre, with the University of East Anglia, in the UK.

Climate sceptics have criticised official global warming figures on the grounds that many temperature stations are poor quality and that data are tweaked by hand.

However, the Berkeley study found that the so-called urban heat island effect, which makes cities warmer than surrounding rural areas, is locally large and real, but does not contribute significantly to average land temperature rises. This is because urban regions make up less than 1% of the Earth's land area. And while stations considered "poor" might be less accurate, they recorded the same average warming trend.

Link -
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/oct/20/global-warming-study-climate-s...
=================================
There's also a colourful embedded video, showing the global temperature effect, since 1833.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
muso
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #168 - Oct 21st, 2011 at 11:34pm  
Soren wrote on Oct 21st, 2011 at 12:43pm:
As with everything else in the international domain, this issue would have been addressed effectively a long time ago if it was up to the democracies to make a decision among themselves and act on it. There are no issues of substance that the developed democracies have not been able to tackle effectively among themselves in the past half century. There is extraordinary cooperation on every level even as there is competition.  

The problem is that we have to include the Chinas, Indias, Vietnams and Indonesians of the world and pretend that they are not corrupt and that they have the same outlook as the democracies. This stupid pretence will mean that we will not do anything effective about reducing CO2 but will transfer billions of dollars to these corrupt countries as if that payment did anything environmentally positive. It is a gigantic con in this sense. The corrupt crooks alone will benefit from the well-meaning environmental concerns of people in the west.

ANd then, of course, there are the entirely malvolent forces in the west who want nothing more than to nobble the west in every possible way, AWG being merely the prétexte du jour.





You might be surprised. China is going ahead in leaps and bounds.  They will eventually end up selling some of the renewable technology to Australia. China already has enough renewable energy to power Australia several times over.
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 #169 - Oct 22nd, 2011 at 12:01am  
Quote:
China already has enough renewable energy to power Australia several times over.


Overwhelmingly from hydroelectric power.
We could do that if the Greens let us
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Emma
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 9853
OZ
Gender: female
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #170 - Oct 22nd, 2011 at 1:31am  
oh yeah?? so Soren.......
Which River would you say is ripe for this??   Hmmm?

Ridiculous!!  We don't have the geography to use hydro effectively. Our rivers are too old, and the land itself too old - ie flat!. for hydro-electric power to be viable. Unless you want to try Tasmania.  And that ain't going to happen.  Nor should it.
Been there decades ago.  Didn't  get the go-ahead then, and won't now.

Dream on fruit loop! Roll Eyes
Back to top
 
live every day
 
IP Logged
 
muso
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #171 - Oct 22nd, 2011 at 6:45am  
Soren wrote on Oct 22nd, 2011 at 12:01am:
Quote:
China already has enough renewable energy to power Australia several times over.


Overwhelmingly from hydroelectric power.
We could do that if the Greens let us


Far North Queensland is the obvious candidate for that.  They are already looking at projects in that area (for example Burdekin hydro). It doesn't need to imply huge areas of inundated farm land either.  

The same obstacles apply to nuclear power. The Greens are not very "green" when it comes to thinking through long term outcomes.

It's a question of save the "furries" now in one location, or  let them burn to death later when we have a regional wave of bushfires as temperatures and the fire risk increases.

The problem is one of balance.  In terms of risk, the global and regional issues for the next century far outweigh the local.  We still need to manage the local and regional issues, but with a holistic viewpoint.

Some tough decisions will need to be made.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Oct 22nd, 2011 at 6:52am 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 #172 - Oct 22nd, 2011 at 7:58am  
Emma wrote on Oct 22nd, 2011 at 1:31am:
oh yeah?? so Soren.......
Which River would you say is ripe for this??   Hmmm?

Ridiculous!!  We don't have the geography to use hydro effectively. Our rivers are too old, and the land itself too old - ie flat!. for hydro-electric power to be viable. Unless you want to try Tasmania.  And that ain't going to happen.  Nor should it.
Been there decades ago.  Didn't  get the go-ahead then, and won't now.

Dream on fruit loop! Roll Eyes



This is what I mean, Muso, the environment is a political issue for the hordes of mongs, cadres and chancers. And so it is turned into a political issue for all of us. Even if the science was really agreed upon, the politics of the environment is framed in 19th century class war terms, both nationally and internationally.

Agreeing with the 'science' has become an agreement with the loud and unhinged alarmists and screamers who want to use the environment for far wider societal transformation. One is immediatly co-opted for their purposes, whether one likes it or not.

Not entirely but to a large extent this is the continuation of the class war by other means. The sticking point in th entire AGW debate are about politics and the economy (political economy, in other words), not environmentl science.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Emma
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 9853
OZ
Gender: female
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #173 - Oct 23rd, 2011 at 12:03am  
'Agreeing with the 'science' has become an agreement with the loud and unhinged alarmists and screamers who want to use the environment for far wider societal transformation. One is immediatly co-opted for their purposes, whether one likes it or not.'- Soren

Seeking common ground with Muso??

My - but you can spin some garbage Soren.

"CLASS WAR BY OTHER MEANS. .."??  

What? you think concern for the future runs along CLASS lines??
Please elaborate. Huh Roll Eyes
Back to top
 
live every day
 
IP Logged
 
Emma
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 9853
OZ
Gender: female
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #174 - Oct 23rd, 2011 at 12:57am  
oh ... and I do agree with you Muso - 'The problem is one of balance.  .......................[i]In terms of risk, the global and regional issues for the next century far outweigh the local.  [/i]'  
Well OK - but individuals need to be engaged, and that can BEST BEGIN locally. Balance requires that LOCAL is as important as regional or global.

'We still need to manage the local and regional issues, but with a holistic viewpoint.
Some tough decisions will need to be made.' - Muso

Oh yes indeed -  tough decisions do need to made. It is the people that make these decisions that concern me. Because the focus is not on long term outcomes, but short term gains.

I'd say my local council was hell-bent on development , with only lip-service to environmental concerns.  The amount of land clearing continues at a startling pace, with two new 'cities' to be in place , in the next 10-20 yrs, and it's underway now. !!
I live in a rural village, which, due to it's closeness to jobs,  is being overrun with housing developments. The infrastructure is rural. Patchy attempts to improve local roads is a good example of the effort put into supporting this proposed increase of 20,000+ people. The work was long overdue anyway, but only got done when more city folk moved out here.


The local POWER - provider-    'supposedly' ..ENERGEX  ...intend to extend a line through more than 5 river crossings - towers etc. ! But the river has recently received a 'fail' in a healthy waterways survey  - locals - council and activist groups are attempting to prevent the rape of the river by Energex, BUT, it seems power co.s are a power answerable only to themselves.  And this 'option' is still deemed to be the 'cheapest'. (MY input) This option is still their unequivocally stated best  choice.!!  

BUT- its NOT good for the river, or the future. If this sort of blindness is allowed to continue - forget about the global focus -
because the battlegrounds are in our own localities. WE are important - Not Energex and THEIR PROJECTED PROFITS.   Angry Angry
If you are interested in this particular LOCAL fight - happening right now, against energy providers- in defense of crucial habitat -   check out VETO.
REGION  -  SEQ  - the LOGAN RIVER.!!
Back to top
 
live every day
 
IP Logged
 
Soren
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 25654
Gender: male
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #175 - Oct 23rd, 2011 at 10:41am  
Emma wrote on Oct 23rd, 2011 at 12:57am:
I'd say my local council was hell-bent on development , with only lip-service to environmental concerns.  The amount of land clearing continues at a startling pace, with two new 'cities' to be in place , in the next 10-20 yrs, and it's underway now. !!
I live in a rural village, which, due to it's closeness to jobs,  is being overrun with housing developments. The infrastructure is rural. Patchy attempts to improve local roads is a good example of the effort put into supporting this proposed increase of 20,000+ people.




Looks like it's time for you to reconsider your tired old slogans or at least turn them upside down: think local, act global - campaig fot zero net immigration. That way you will not need to find room for tens of thousands of people. 20,000 Asians in Asia will not use as much energy as the same Aisans in Australia. So how about this:

Zero net immigration. Drastic cut in family reunion.
Carbon dioxide tax on all goods, including all imported goods and coal exports.
Proceeds to be spent excusively on achieving clean energy independence, R&D on renewables and skills education
No ETS and absolutely no transfer of funds overseas in the guise of 'carbon credits'.
Dam all rivers that can be dammed.
All domestic energy (for heating, running domestic appliances and lighting) to be locally produced solar

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
muso
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #176 - Oct 23rd, 2011 at 12:05pm  
Soren wrote on Oct 23rd, 2011 at 10:41am:
20,000 Asians in Asia will not use as much energy as the same Aisans in Australia. So how about this:



Take one false premise and you could claim just about anything.  However, I read that post as the usual rabble rousing rather than anything of significance. I would never stoop to such levels as to tease Jalane.  Tongue
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 #177 - Oct 23rd, 2011 at 8:05pm  
Zero net immigration. Drastic cut in family reunion.
Carbon dioxide tax on all goods, including all imported goods and coal exports.
Proceeds to be spent excusively on achieving clean energy independence, R&D on renewables and skills education
No ETS and absolutely no transfer of funds overseas in the guise of 'carbon credits'.
Dam all rivers that can be dammed.
All domestic energy (for heating, running domestic appliances and lighting) to be locally produced solar



These are explicitly environmentally progrssive ideas in AUstralia's national interest. I don't see how anyone could construe them as teasing.

Unless, of course, you have a great deal of difficulty with conflicting PC pieties wrestling for your progressive heart.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Emma
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 9853
OZ
Gender: female
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #178 - Oct 24th, 2011 at 12:33am  
Get out of it.! Wink

But seriously folks - if people don't care about their own 'backyard' ..they're not going to care about the wider issue.

Which is ???  

10 points out of 10 if you say the 'environment'.

Like the old saying goes  "Look after the pennies and the pounds will take care of themselves".

Clear enough?? Smiley
Back to top
 
live every day
 
IP Logged
 
Emma
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 9853
OZ
Gender: female
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #179 - Oct 24th, 2011 at 12:36am  
' - if people don't care about their own 'backyard' ..they're not going to care about the wider issue.' - Me

Is this a false premise Muso?
Back to top
 
live every day
 
IP Logged
 
Soren
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 25654
Gender: male
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #180 - Oct 24th, 2011 at 8:29am  
Emma wrote on Oct 24th, 2011 at 12:33am:
Get out of it.! Wink

But seriously folks - if people don't care about their own 'backyard' ..they're not going to care about the wider issue.

Which is ???  

10 points out of 10 if you say the 'environment'.

Like the old saying goes  "Look after the pennies and the pounds will take care of themselves".

Clear enough?? Smiley



As clear as any of you posts.

I have given you concrete proposals. If you disagree with them, say why. Bluster and empty cliches are not sufficient.
If you agree, say so.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
muso
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #181 - Oct 24th, 2011 at 9:21am  
Soren wrote on Oct 23rd, 2011 at 8:05pm:
1. Zero net immigration. Drastic cut in family reunion.
2. Carbon dioxide tax on all goods, including all imported goods and coal exports.
3. Proceeds to be spent excusively on achieving clean energy independence, R&D on renewables and skills education
4. No ETS and absolutely no transfer of funds overseas in the guise of 'carbon credits'.
5. Dam all rivers that can be dammed.
6. All domestic energy (for heating, running domestic appliances and lighting) to be locally produced solar



These are explicitly environmentally progrssive ideas in Australia's national interest. I don't see how anyone could construe them as teasing.

Unless, of course, you have a great deal of difficulty with conflicting PC pieties wrestling for your progressive heart.



I just see the first one as being simplistic and agenda driven. We'll probably depend on immigration to maintain any kind of sustained level of economic activity. We are still drastically short of engineers for example. If we end up bankrupt, then our hands will be tied economically. We'd probably depend on China for assistance - and that's the way the whole world is headed. So if you agreed, you'd allow some professionals, but not their immediate families? c'mon.

2 and 3 are too much aligned with my own way of thinking for me to try to dispute, but there are problems with the details. Political survival is the biggest.

4. Agree with most, however I can see that a well supervised ETS for bigger polluters only can be a good thing. I know of one company that is hanging out for an ETS just to install some new low carbon technology.  We need the carrot and the stick approach but we need to learn from the lessons of Europe. Do I trust the current Department of Climate Change to get it right? No. They have to the most inept bunch of recent graduates that I've ever had the displeasure to deal with. They are "green" in more ways than one.  Some of them are very very smart, but they were obviously not chosen for their practical knowledge or social skills.     

5. That's woefully simplistic. I'm surprised at that statement coming from you. The opportunity for hydro electric generation is very limited in this country due to patchy rainfall for one thing. Again it's a balancing act. Everything has to be considered in terms of overall justification.

6. Yes, but there's solar and there is solar. The solar PV scheme was great, but it's a totally wasted use of funds. More efficient alternatives are available.  We should be mandating solar airconditioning and smart design (ventilation etc) in all new buildings over a threshold size - here I'm talking about office complexes.

Back to top
« Last Edit: Oct 24th, 2011 at 9:30am by muso »  
...
1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not 
 
IP Logged
 
Karnal
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 96347
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #182 - Oct 24th, 2011 at 11:09am  
Zero net immigration? That's like the argument that a carbon tax will send production - and carbon emissions - overseas.

Only in this case we'd be leaving people overseas to produce carbon there.

Still, I sympathise. The problem the zero immigration crowd have is the lack of skilled labour because business doesn't want to spend the money on training. Not to mention the lack of cheap labour needed to wipe all those baby boomers' arses.

And not to mention the fact that immigration policy has been bipartisan since the end of WWII. The cause: the business lobbies and their desire for constant economic growth.

Still, if solutions to global warming don't address population levels, we're dreaming.

It's quite likely that when the old boy gets sent to a nursing home he'll have a tinted AIN bossing him around.

Karma.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Soren
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 25654
Gender: male
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #183 - Oct 24th, 2011 at 11:18am  
muso wrote on Oct 24th, 2011 at 9:21am:
Soren wrote on Oct 23rd, 2011 at 8:05pm:
1. Zero net immigration. Drastic cut in family reunion.
2. Carbon dioxide tax on all goods, including all imported goods and coal exports.
3. Proceeds to be spent excusively on achieving clean energy independence, R&D on renewables and skills education
4. No ETS and absolutely no transfer of funds overseas in the guise of 'carbon credits'.
5. Dam all rivers that can be dammed.
6. All domestic energy (for heating, running domestic appliances and lighting) to be locally produced solar



These are explicitly environmentally progrssive ideas in Australia's national interest. I don't see how anyone could construe them as teasing.

Unless, of course, you have a great deal of difficulty with conflicting PC pieties wrestling for your progressive heart.



I just see the first one as being simplistic and agenda driven. We'll probably depend on immigration to maintain any kind of sustained level of economic activity. We are still drastically short of engineers for example. If we end up bankrupt, then our hands will be tied economically. We'd probably depend on China for assistance - and that's the way the whole world is headed. So if you agreed, you'd allow some professionals, but not their immediate families? c'mon.




I said zero NET immigration and 'drastically reduce', not abolish,  family re-union. The plumber and the nurse and their kids are OK.
Not their extended family, including brothers, sisters, theirt wives and husbands and all their kids and parents (this of course happens mostly with refugees, not skilled migrants).

ANyway, I do not accept that a continuously growing population is a good thing in itself. In any case, if we do need more people, we could make them here, couldn't we? (I have three that I made earlier, as TV chefs say.) Or is that also now something productive we have to send offshore?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
barnaby joe
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 1992
euchareena
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #184 - Oct 24th, 2011 at 5:09pm  
does this mean that soren believes in climate change now
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
barnaby joe
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 1992
euchareena
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #185 - Oct 24th, 2011 at 5:09pm  
the platform 13 of his heart
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Emma
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 9853
OZ
Gender: female
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #186 - Oct 24th, 2011 at 10:43pm  
perhaps Soren is starting to see.!! Wink Shocked
Back to top
 
live every day
 
IP Logged
 
muso
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #187 - Oct 25th, 2011 at 9:50am  
Karnal wrote on Oct 24th, 2011 at 11:09am:
Still, if solutions to global warming don't address population levels, we're dreaming.



Agree, but there is not a hell of a lot we can do to reduce the world's population in a relatively short period of time. 

Even if we went to a totally insane extreme, there are not enough bullets being manufactured.  (take that as sick/ black humour whatever)

Any solutions we come up with must acknowledge the fact that the world's human population is going to remain perilously high for quite some time.

Anything we can do to produce sustainable "anything", will help but there are no easy solutions.
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 #188 - Oct 25th, 2011 at 9:54am  
Soren wrote on Oct 24th, 2011 at 11:18am:
ANyway, I do not accept that a continuously growing population is a good thing in itself. In any case, if we do need more people, we could make them here, couldn't we? (I have three that I made earlier, as TV chefs say.) Or is that also now something productive we have to send offshore?



Apparently so. Many European countries, including France for example are going backwards in terms of population growth.

It's a function of urban living/ "developed" economy.

Maybe you could start an advertising  campaign.  Tongue

"F" is for our future" ?
Back to top
« Last Edit: Oct 25th, 2011 at 10:05am 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 #189 - Oct 25th, 2011 at 9:56am  
nanobomb china - that would work

develop nanotechnological weapons of mass destruction that convert entire urban areas into rainforests instantly and exterminate everybody within a certain range
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
muso
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #190 - Oct 25th, 2011 at 9:58am  
barnaby joe wrote on Oct 24th, 2011 at 5:09pm:
does this mean that soren believes in climate change now


I'd rather not "believe" in something like that. I find the idea somewhat abhorrent. I'd prefer to make a rational decision based on understanding of a comprehensive set of data using scientific principles.

I still think that it's dishonest (not you, Soren) trying to  obfuscate the science for idealistic reasons. Even if the issue has been hijacked (which it has to some extent), the target should be the hijackers, not the science.  

Knowledge to me is sacred.  
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 #191 - Oct 25th, 2011 at 10:01am  
muso wrote on Oct 25th, 2011 at 9:58am:
barnaby joe wrote on Oct 24th, 2011 at 5:09pm:
does this mean that soren believes in climate change now


I'd rather not "believe". I'd prefer to make a rational decision based on rational understanding of the facts provided.

I still think that it's dishonest (not you, Soren) trying to  obfuscate the science for idealistic reasons. Even if the issue has been hijacked (which it has to some extent), the target should be the hijackers, not the science.  

Knowledge to me is sacred.  


ppl arent rational mate (most people anyway lol, though most people who are seemingly 'rational' on one issue can compartmentalise and rationalise on other things)

they are rationalisers - everybody has an agenda and everybody compartmentalises

that has nothing to do with whether soren is right or wrong though - people with agendas can actually be right, too
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
muso
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #192 - Oct 25th, 2011 at 10:03am  
barnaby joe wrote on Oct 25th, 2011 at 9:56am:
nanobomb china - that would work

develop nanotechnological weapons of mass destruction that convert entire urban areas into rainforests instantly and exterminate everybody within a certain range


Wow! Talking of WoW, what Level do you get those at? Do you need some extra module on your research center?
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 #193 - Oct 25th, 2011 at 10:05am  
muso wrote on Oct 25th, 2011 at 10:03am:
barnaby joe wrote on Oct 25th, 2011 at 9:56am:
nanobomb china - that would work

develop nanotechnological weapons of mass destruction that convert entire urban areas into rainforests instantly and exterminate everybody within a certain range


Wow! Talking of WoW, what Level do you get those at? Do you need some extra module on your research center?


this is actually from an old, obscure PC game called call to power 2

there is a political system in the future epoch of the game called envirotopia which is a militant environmentalist government

it has an ingame military unit called an ecoterrorist that makes use of nano assemblers to deconstruct entire urban areas and make them into rainforests
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
muso
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #194 - Oct 25th, 2011 at 10:08am  
barnaby joe wrote on Oct 25th, 2011 at 10:05am:
this is actually from an old, obscure PC game called call to power 2

there is a political system in the future epoch of the game called envirotopia which is a militant environmentalist government

it has an ingame military unit called an ecoterrorist that makes use of nano assemblers to deconstruct entire urban areas and make them into rainforests


omg  Shocked
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 #195 - Oct 25th, 2011 at 10:09am  
muso wrote on Oct 25th, 2011 at 10:08am:
barnaby joe wrote on Oct 25th, 2011 at 10:05am:
this is actually from an old, obscure PC game called call to power 2

there is a political system in the future epoch of the game called envirotopia which is a militant environmentalist government

it has an ingame military unit called an ecoterrorist that makes use of nano assemblers to deconstruct entire urban areas and make them into rainforests


omg  Shocked


hey

it might be possible
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Karnal
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 96347
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #196 - Oct 25th, 2011 at 10:22am  
barnaby joe wrote on Oct 24th, 2011 at 5:09pm:
does this mean that soren believes in climate change now


It does. Why he still bothers to argue is anyone's guess.

Perhaps the old boy just wants something to argue about.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Emma
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 9853
OZ
Gender: female
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #197 - Oct 25th, 2011 at 9:10pm  
nothing would surprise me
Back to top
 
live every day
 
IP Logged
 
Soren
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 25654
Gender: male
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #198 - Oct 26th, 2011 at 8:57am  
Whoa! Steady on, kids!
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Soren
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 25654
Gender: male
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #199 - Oct 26th, 2011 at 9:30am  
muso wrote on Oct 25th, 2011 at 9:58am:
barnaby joe wrote on Oct 24th, 2011 at 5:09pm:
does this mean that soren believes in climate change now


I'd rather not "believe" in something like that. I find the idea somewhat abhorrent. I'd prefer to make a rational decision based on understanding of a comprehensive set of data using scientific principles.

I still think that it's dishonest (not you, Soren) trying to  obfuscate the science for idealistic reasons. Even if the issue has been hijacked (which it has to some extent), the target should be the hijackers, not the science.  

Knowledge to me is sacred.  



The thing is, you do not know enough. From the little patch of dry land that is our limited knowldge you take a leap of faith to AGW.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Karnal
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 96347
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #200 - Oct 26th, 2011 at 9:51am  
"Our limited knowledge", eh? Now that's a first.

Not only has the old boy come around to global warming, he's become a post-structuralist as well.

Carry on, old chap.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Oct 26th, 2011 at 9:56am by Karnal »  
 
IP Logged
 
Soren
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 25654
Gender: male
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #201 - Oct 26th, 2011 at 10:04am  
Not a first, PB. You are new to the discussion:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1305800675/147#147


You do not need to be a post-structuralist to KNOW that we do not fully or even well understand how the climate works.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

Yay, Shakespeare was a post-structuralist!!! For pomo PBs whose mental horizons extend as far back in the mist of time as the 1970s, this must be unbelievable but there you have it. Uncanny, what?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Haimrevolution
Senior Member
****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 385
Eastwood
Gender: male
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #202 - Oct 26th, 2011 at 10:10am  
Hows this for post structuralist.... a carbon tax was passed in britain in 2007 while snow fell outside to counter global warming just go to google and type it in. Basically you will find their countries economy got raped hard. Don't have to be a genius to see our following of the pattern in australia. I don't blame the people trying to make the change in the environment I blame the people that brainwash them so they believe anything and everything they are told and become those fanatical eco terrorists!!!
Back to top
 
carbonscam_004.png (68 KB | 38 )
carbonscam_004.png
 
IP Logged
 
muso
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #203 - Oct 26th, 2011 at 11:46am  
Increased precipitation (snowfall if it gets cold enough) is a predicted consequence of the increase in radiative forcing. 

Translated into pirate talk: If ye makes it warrrmer, it getss wetter too, me hearty.
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 #204 - Oct 26th, 2011 at 12:01pm  
CLIMATOLOGY DOESNT EXIST. THE CLIMATE DOESNT EXIST. THERE IS ONLY THE TEXT. THERE IS ONLY THE GRAMMAR OF THE TEXT.

WE MUST DECONSTRUCT EVERY NOTIFICATION IN THE CLIMATE SCIENCE LITERATURE TO REMOVE THE CRYPTO FASCISTIC ELEMENTS THEREIN AND INVERT THE MEANING OF THE TEXT. WHEN THE FASCIST CLIMATOLOGISTS SAY THAT CLIMATE CHANGE IS HAPPENING THEY ARE BEING INFORMED BY THEIR REACTIONARY ANTI-SEMITIC CHARACTERISTICS. THEY ARE EUGENICISTS WHO WANT TO STERILISE THE PEOPLE OF THE THIRD WORLD AND PUT US ALL INTO A SINGLE ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT.

CLIMATOLOGY LEADS TO AUSCHWITZ AND BIRKENAU. THE MEANING OF THE TEXT WILL BE INVERTED. WHEN A CLIMATOLOGIST SAYS ANTHROPOGENIC CLIMATE CHANGE IS OCCURING HE IS REALLY ONLY PROJECTING HIS AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY ONTO HIS WRITING. HE IS PROJECTING HIS DESIRES FOR PHALLOCRATIC GOVERNMANCE ONTO THE TEXT.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Oct 26th, 2011 at 12:12pm by barnaby joe »  
 
IP Logged
 
Karnal
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 96347
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #205 - Oct 26th, 2011 at 12:33pm  
The old boy above will not approve, Haim. Your post is entitled: The Truth.

Not reflexive enough, dear.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Karnal
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 96347
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #206 - Oct 26th, 2011 at 12:36pm  
barnaby joe wrote on Oct 26th, 2011 at 12:01pm:
CLIMATOLOGY DOESNT EXIST. THE CLIMATE DOESNT EXIST. THERE IS ONLY THE TEXT. THERE IS ONLY THE GRAMMAR OF THE TEXT.

WE MUST DECONSTRUCT EVERY NOTIFICATION IN THE CLIMATE SCIENCE LITERATURE TO REMOVE THE CRYPTO FASCISTIC ELEMENTS THEREIN AND INVERT THE MEANING OF THE TEXT. WHEN THE FASCIST CLIMATOLOGISTS SAY THAT CLIMATE CHANGE IS HAPPENING THEY ARE BEING INFORMED BY THEIR REACTIONARY ANTI-SEMITIC CHARACTERISTICS. THEY ARE EUGENICISTS WHO WANT TO STERILISE THE PEOPLE OF THE THIRD WORLD AND PUT US ALL INTO A SINGLE ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT.

CLIMATOLOGY LEADS TO AUSCHWITZ AND BIRKENAU. THE MEANING OF THE TEXT WILL BE INVERTED. WHEN A CLIMATOLOGIST SAYS ANTHROPOGENIC CLIMATE CHANGE IS OCCURING HE IS REALLY ONLY PROJECTING HIS AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY ONTO HIS WRITING. HE IS PROJECTING HIS DESIRES FOR PHALLOCRATIC GOVERNMANCE ONTO THE TEXT.



Very good, Imperium. Climate science is phallocentric.

The old boy approves.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Emma
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 9853
OZ
Gender: female
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #207 - Oct 26th, 2011 at 8:06pm  
re - You do not need to be a post-structuralist to KNOW that we do not fully or even well understand how the climate works.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." - Soren

This sort of gambit in argument - ie quoting this passage from 'Hamlet' - is part of the author attempting to 'get out of intellectual hot water'  according to philosopher  Stephen Law. From an interview in New Scientist June 2011" His latest book  ...Believing Bullshit: How not to get sucked into an intellectual black hole."

Something people should look for if they want to 'avoid getting sucked into "intellectual black holes". Smiley Tongue
Back to top
 
live every day
 
IP Logged
 
Emma
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 9853
OZ
Gender: female
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #208 - Oct 26th, 2011 at 8:29pm  
Oh yeah - he also said ..' But the fact is that many of the claims made about things behind this veil .(mystery) .have empirically observable consequences and that makes them scientifically provable.'

All in all a very interesting article, recommended, given this context. Wink
Back to top
 
live every day
 
IP Logged
 
Soren
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 25654
Gender: male
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #209 - Oct 26th, 2011 at 9:32pm  
Emma wrote on Oct 26th, 2011 at 8:06pm:
re - You do not need to be a post-structuralist to KNOW that we do not fully or even well understand how the climate works.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." - Soren

This sort of gambit in argument - ie quoting this passage from 'Hamlet' - is part of the author attempting to 'get out of intellectual hot water'  according to philosopher  Stephen Law. From an interview in New Scientist June 2011" His latest book  ...Believing Bullshit: How not to get sucked into an intellectual black hole."

Something people should look for if they want to 'avoid getting sucked into "intellectual black holes". Smiley Tongue


Now don't be deliberately stupid. As even a 10 year old could tell, that Hamlet reference was to PB's post-structuralist joke. Or are you suggesting, idiotically, that climate science is grounded in post-structuralist philosophy and PB wasn't joking?

Here's some free advice: reading articles in popular science magazines on how to spot BS is no substitute for thinking and positively useless without the ability to comprehend what you read.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Emma
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 9853
OZ
Gender: female
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #210 - Oct 26th, 2011 at 9:47pm  
suggesting??  idiotically ? -  no - I admit your BS is over my head.

But I do understand the point of the article. Do you?

Oh spinner of nebulousness'ss'ss
Back to top
 
live every day
 
IP Logged
 
Emma
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 9853
OZ
Gender: female
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #211 - Oct 26th, 2011 at 10:06pm  
'WHEN A CLIMATOLOGIST SAYS ANTHROPOGENIC CLIMATE CHANGE IS OCCURING HE IS REALLY ONLY PROJECTING HIS AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY ONTO HIS WRITING. HE IS PROJECTING HIS DESIRES FOR PHALLOCRATIC GOVERNMANCE ONTO THE TEXT'. - Google


What??? You are saying this is an area dominated by males.? Imagine that. ! Gasp.   And it's all only on paper.??
Now THAT would be good.  
So THATs why it is all such a fcukpu.!!


Talk about sexism. Surely there are females involved, somewhere.
What about all the female scientists who can see the writing on the wall?.
Phallocentric??? I suppose it depends on your gender?
 Nahh don't think so.

But you fella's are definitely in deep poo, -- by your own definition.
Time to think vaginally perhaps??
Back to top
 
live every day
 
IP Logged
 
Soren
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 25654
Gender: male
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #212 - Oct 27th, 2011 at 8:10am  
Emma wrote on Oct 26th, 2011 at 10:06pm:
'WHEN A CLIMATOLOGIST SAYS ANTHROPOGENIC CLIMATE CHANGE IS OCCURING HE IS REALLY ONLY PROJECTING HIS AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY ONTO HIS WRITING. HE IS PROJECTING HIS DESIRES FOR PHALLOCRATIC GOVERNMANCE ONTO THE TEXT'. - Google


What??? You are saying this is an area dominated by males.? Imagine that. ! Gasp.   And it's all only on paper.??
Now THAT would be good.  
So THATs why it is all such a fcukpu.!!


Talk about sexism. Surely there are females involved, somewhere.
What about all the female scientists who can see the writing on the wall?.
Phallocentric??? I suppose it depends on your gender?
 Nahh don't think so.

But you fella's are definitely in deep poo, -- by your own definition.
Time to think vaginally perhaps??




Grin Grin Grin

Is this what they call a vagina monologue? Amazing.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
muso
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #213 - Oct 27th, 2011 at 8:37am  
Soren wrote on Oct 26th, 2011 at 9:32pm:
Now don't be deliberately stupid. As even a 10 year old could tell, that Hamlet reference was to PB's post-structuralist joke. Or are you suggesting, idiotically, that climate science is grounded in post-structuralist philosophy and PB wasn't joking?



So in summary, focusing on an irrelevant unequivalent part of the analogy is "stupid" ? - Not something you'd ever do Soren.  Tongue

How's the CO2 concentration in your can of coke today? Good job it's non toxic or it could cause a severe attack of global warming if you drink it.
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 #214 - Oct 27th, 2011 at 10:16am  
muso wrote on Oct 27th, 2011 at 8:37am:
Soren wrote on Oct 26th, 2011 at 9:32pm:
Now don't be deliberately stupid. As even a 10 year old could tell, that Hamlet reference was to PB's post-structuralist joke. Or are you suggesting, idiotically, that climate science is grounded in post-structuralist philosophy and PB wasn't joking?



So in summary, focusing on an irrelevant unequivalent part of the analogy is "stupid" ? - Not something you'd ever do Soren.  Tongue



Correct. Not my kind of thing.

Quote:
How's the CO2 concentration in your can of coke today? Good job it's non toxic or it could cause a severe attack of global warming if you drink it.


Well, it has to be kept in the fridge otherwise it would get really warm. That demonstrates conclusively that the carbon dioxide residue that causes the bubbles also cause Coke warming. AGW is proven, the science is settled.

On the other hand:
http://www.quadrant.org.au/Intelligent%20Voters%20Guide.pdf
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Karnal
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 96347
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #215 - Oct 27th, 2011 at 10:21am  
Soren wrote on Oct 26th, 2011 at 9:32pm:
Emma wrote on Oct 26th, 2011 at 8:06pm:
re - You do not need to be a post-structuralist to KNOW that we do not fully or even well understand how the climate works.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." - Soren

This sort of gambit in argument - ie quoting this passage from 'Hamlet' - is part of the author attempting to 'get out of intellectual hot water'  according to philosopher  Stephen Law. From an interview in New Scientist June 2011" His latest book  ...Believing Bullshit: How not to get sucked into an intellectual black hole."

Something people should look for if they want to 'avoid getting sucked into "intellectual black holes". Smiley Tongue


Now don't be deliberately stupid. As even a 10 year old could tell, that Hamlet reference was to PB's post-structuralist joke. Or are you suggesting, idiotically, that climate science is grounded in post-structuralist philosophy and PB wasn't joking?

Here's some free advice: reading articles in popular science magazines on how to spot BS is no substitute for thinking and positively useless without the ability to comprehend what you read.


Comprehend? My dear, dear fellow, that does sound a tad empirical. Are you sure you don't mean deconstruct?

We're organising a workshop at the Faculty of Pakistani Studies, old boy. I think you would find it most useful:

Resisting the Discursive Hegemony of Western Reason: Empiricism, Globalization and Cultural Imperialism.

One of the objectives is to provide skills in deconstructing the colonial scientific narratives implicit in fields such as climate science.

I'll post the dates soon. We'd love to have you!
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Soren
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 25654
Gender: male
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #216 - Oct 27th, 2011 at 10:34am  
Sorry, I am already booked for a lecture series by the Postcolonial Feminism stream of The Stockton Postcolonial Studies Project, 2010-2011.

http://wp.stockton.edu/postcolonialstudies/digitizing-postcolonial-feminism/

Maybe next year. May I suggest, perhaps, a theme of 'Fighting western oppression even as your sh!t ("Brown and Proud!) squishes between your toes - contradictions and challenges for the post-colonial Pakistani plumbing supplies community'.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Karnal
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 96347
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #217 - Oct 27th, 2011 at 11:20am  
A marvellous suggestion, old boy. Can I refer you to our little chat in Extremism Exposed? I believe you would find it most stimulating. Retexualizing the body without organs: Deluze, coprophilia and queer resistance. Rewriting the gendered body in a post-colonial world. Stories from the front: Pakistan, the War On Terror, and the fetish of Western hegemony and post-Enlightenment faecal tropes.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Oct 27th, 2011 at 11:34am by Karnal »  
 
IP Logged
 
Emma
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 9853
OZ
Gender: female
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #218 - Oct 27th, 2011 at 10:03pm  
eeeeeuuuuuuuuwwwwwwwww!
Keep your  excrement between your own ears - in whatever forum you were discussing same.  

You might like a wallow -  
I don't mind putting in a toe -

But the smell ?  No  
Just , like,....GO.
Back to top
 
live every day
 
IP Logged
 
muso
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #219 - Oct 28th, 2011 at 8:55am  
This is what happens when you have a forum of people who just come on here to tease others. Turn your back and the place goes to sh1t.
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 #220 - Oct 28th, 2011 at 10:41am  
Muso, whaddaya reckon:

http://www.quadrant.org.au/Intelligent%20Voters%20Guide.pdf
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
muso
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #221 - Oct 28th, 2011 at 2:57pm  
Soren wrote on Oct 28th, 2011 at 10:41am:
Muso, whaddaya reckon:

http://www.quadrant.org.au/Intelligent%20Voters%20Guide.pdf



What do I reckon? I think it has a great deal in common with Karnal's post-Enlightenment faecal tropes.

The intelligently engineered  whitewash experiment more like it.
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 #222 - Oct 28th, 2011 at 8:19pm  
'This is what happens when you have a forum of people who just come on here to tease others. Turn your back and the place goes to sh1t.' -  Muso

Haha Muso - this is true -  I think!??
As a literal being, and given it's placement, I have to wonder?  What do you mean Muso???

Enigmatic statements can be expected from me,  Roll Eyes
But what do YOU mean Muso.  U r the mod.

I confess to being a simpleton, compared to some, ..about some things ................are u dissing Sadme??????
Or am I PARANOID? Smiley
Back to top
 
live every day
 
IP Logged
 
Emma
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 9853
OZ
Gender: female
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #223 - Oct 28th, 2011 at 8:21pm  
Have been told by many - types who know - I am too honest for my own good.

What about you?
Back to top
 
live every day
 
IP Logged
 
Soren
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 25654
Gender: male
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #224 - Oct 28th, 2011 at 9:01pm  
Emma wrote on Oct 28th, 2011 at 8:21pm:
Have been told by many - types who know - I am too honest for my own good.

What about you?


Hey, lady! This isn't RSVP.

Tongue
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Emma
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 9853
OZ
Gender: female
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #225 - Oct 28th, 2011 at 9:30pm  
just a courtesy - 
Tongue
Back to top
 
live every day
 
IP Logged
 
Soren
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 25654
Gender: male
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #226 - Oct 28th, 2011 at 9:32pm  
Emma wrote on Oct 28th, 2011 at 9:30pm:
just a courtesy -  
Tongue



Rise. No need to courtsey me.
Wink
Back to top
« Last Edit: Oct 29th, 2011 at 3:47pm by Soren »  
 
IP Logged
 
Emma
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 9853
OZ
Gender: female
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #227 - Oct 28th, 2011 at 9:40pm  
huh....... that's obvious. Smiley
Back to top
 
live every day
 
IP Logged
 
muso
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #228 - Oct 29th, 2011 at 10:34am  
Emma wrote on Oct 28th, 2011 at 8:19pm:
'This is what happens when you have a forum of people who just come on here to tease others. Turn your back and the place goes to sh1t.' -  Muso

Haha Muso - this is true -  I think!??
As a literal being, and given it's placement, I have to wonder?  What do you mean Muso???

Enigmatic statements can be expected from me,  Roll Eyes
But what do YOU mean Muso.  U r the mod.

I confess to being a simpleton, compared to some, ..about some things ................are u dissing Sadme??????
Or am I PARANOID? Smiley


I'm dissing you, but only in a friendly sort of way - what I meant was that Soren was teasing you.  (the bastard)
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 #229 - Oct 29th, 2011 at 10:34am  
soren ya old smoothie Wink Wink Wink
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Karnal
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 96347
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #230 - Oct 29th, 2011 at 3:53pm  
Soren wrote on Oct 28th, 2011 at 10:41am:
Muso, whaddaya reckon:

http://www.quadrant.org.au/Intelligent%20Voters%20Guide.pdf


How very peculiar, my dear fellow. You seem to be arguing against a phenomenon called "AGW".

And here we were thinking you'd joined the faculty.

It just goes to show: a leopard cannot change his spots.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Soren
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 25654
Gender: male
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #231 - Oct 29th, 2011 at 4:01pm  
Sometimes (very rarely) I wish I knew what the bugger you are on about, PB. Once again, this ain't one of them times. Move on.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Karnal
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 96347
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #232 - Oct 29th, 2011 at 10:31pm  
Well, it's really quite simple, dear. One minute you seem to be saying that global warming exists - it's just the idea of a state-imposed tax or ETS that's the problem. After all, how can you trust an incompetant government to solve a problem like global warming?

It will never work.

Then, lo and behold - you post arguments that global warming is not happening at all! It is all a big lie; an exaggeration; absolute nonsense; sh!t on stilts.

It's a shifting argument, of course. Well, an argument's a bit strong - it's more of a theme; a talking point; a point of departure.

A dream.

As we know so well, dear boy, all that is solid melts into air.

Truth is such a tricky thing, old chap, such slave morality. Why bother with such ordinary conventions as rhetoric?

As Mrs Beaton would say, first you must catch your argument.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Emma
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 9853
OZ
Gender: female
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #233 - Oct 29th, 2011 at 11:28pm  
sigh  --  Cool
OK I can manage to get that thru my turgid grey matter .....ta M.
Smiley Wink U ol' coochie coochiee Kiss

Yes - intake of fluid is most important for one's wellbeing - wet brains are better than dry ones.
OOOps bit off track there. Sorry.!!

It is so  humid up here, and the frogs are full on vocal.
Gonna be plenty of wet here in QLD again this summer. Its actually started already , in Cairns, which received the highest 24 hr rainfall total ever recorded. (Presumably for October?  Undecided)

Up here in the news, we are told to expect a wetter than normal summer....  then they hasten to add,  BUT not as bad as last yr. !!   Lets hope they're right.
Already discussions have been had, and committees have met to address a recommendation that the Water authorities in charge of the major dams up here, start to release water from the dams NOW so that the floods of 2010 /2011, affecting towns and cities including Ipswich and Brisbane,  don't happen again in 2011/2012. GOOD LUCK.

Could quote Bob Dylan  ..the times they are a-changin'

And Good luck to you and all of us here.  
So far so good.
Wink  Huh
Back to top
 
live every day
 
IP Logged
 
Soren
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 25654
Gender: male
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #234 - Oct 30th, 2011 at 3:18pm  
Karnal wrote on Oct 29th, 2011 at 10:31pm:
Well, it's really quite simple, dear. One minute you seem to be saying that global warming exists - it's just the idea of a state-imposed tax or ETS that's the problem. After all, how can you trust an incompetant government to solve a problem like global warming?

It will never work.

Then, lo and behold - you post arguments that global warming is not happening at all! It is all a big lie; an exaggeration; absolute nonsense; sh!t on stilts.

It's a shifting argument, of course. Well, an argument's a bit strong - it's more of a theme; a talking point; a point of departure.

A dream.

As we know so well, dear boy, all that is solid melts into air.

Truth is such a tricky thing, old chap, such slave morality. Why bother with such ordinary conventions as rhetoric?

As Mrs Beaton would say, first you must catch your argument.



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


I am sorry if I'm going too fast for you.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Oct 30th, 2011 at 9:51pm by Soren »  
 
IP Logged
 
barnaby joe
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 1992
euchareena
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #235 - Oct 30th, 2011 at 9:40pm  
Slow down you are going too fast for me even now
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Emma
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 9853
OZ
Gender: female
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #236 - Oct 30th, 2011 at 10:24pm  
Say? Soren ??  What does the 'A' in AGW stand for again???

In fact - just spell it out pls  Smiley
Back to top
 
live every day
 
IP Logged
 
Emma
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 9853
OZ
Gender: female
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #237 - Oct 30th, 2011 at 10:37pm  
Just had the most spectacular light show here.  Glad I don't live where the action happened. 

It was wild.!!
Back to top
 
live every day
 
IP Logged
 
Soren
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 25654
Gender: male
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #238 - Oct 31st, 2011 at 8:51am  
Emma wrote on Oct 30th, 2011 at 10:24pm:
Say? Soren ??  What does the 'A' in AGW stand for again???

In fact - just spell it out pls  Smiley


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. And Tea is for Twinings.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Nov 1st, 2011 at 8:58am by Soren »  
 
IP Logged
 
muso
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #239 - Oct 31st, 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) ?

Well Soren is saying that all of the above are untruths/fibs/  fabrications by a conspiracy of scientists (and presumably I'm part of that same conspiracy) who want to take over the world  (you know - the Hollywood stereotype  of an evil scientist? Of course Hollywoood always gets their stereotypes right as we all know. )

Now on one side there is that band of reprobate climatologists and other "warmist sympathisers", which includes such nefarious organisations as the CSIRO, the Australian Bureau of Meteorology and just about every Academy of Sciences in the entire world.

Meantime on the other side (the cowboys with the white hats), there are one or two very strange individuals, such as Richard (Smoking is good for you) Lindzen and Roy (God will save the planet) Spencer.

Soren's point is that these guys are right, and the rest are ... well evil scientists doing what evil scientists do.

Is that a fair summary?  
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 #240 - Oct 31st, 2011 at 8:30pm  
You know?.. that sounds about right to me. Grin
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 31st, 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  Smiley ...........Teehee!!
 
Smiley 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 31st, 2011 at 8:49pm  
muso wrote on Oct 31st, 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 1st, 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 1st, 2011 at 7:55am  
the devil is in the details, soren
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Soren
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 25654
Gender: male
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #244 - Nov 1st, 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: male
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #245 - Nov 1st, 2011 at 8:12am  
Soren wrote on Nov 1st, 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 Grin
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 1st, 2011 at 8:38am  
Soren wrote on Oct 31st, 2011 at 8:49pm:
muso wrote on Oct 31st, 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 1st, 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 1st, 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 1st, 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 1st, 2011 at 9:17am  
muso wrote on Nov 1st, 2011 at 8:38am:
Soren wrote on Oct 31st, 2011 at 8:49pm:
muso wrote on Oct 31st, 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 1st, 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 24th, 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 1st, 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 1st, 2011 at 4:33pm  
Soren wrote on Nov 1st, 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 1st, 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 1st, 2011 at 4:47pm  
Soren wrote on Nov 1st, 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
 
Soren
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 25654
Gender: male
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #255 - Nov 1st, 2011 at 8:55pm  
muso wrote on Nov 1st, 2011 at 4:33pm:
Soren wrote on Nov 1st, 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 1st, 2011 at 10:56pm  
Soren wrote on Nov 1st, 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 1st, 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 2nd, 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: male
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #258 - Nov 2nd, 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 2nd, 2011 at 4:23pm  
Soren wrote on Nov 2nd, 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 2nd, 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 2nd, 2011 at 4:30pm  
Soren wrote on Nov 2nd, 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 2nd, 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 2nd, 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 3rd, 2011 at 9:01am  
muso wrote on Nov 2nd, 2011 at 4:23pm:
Soren wrote on Nov 2nd, 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 3rd, 2011 at 9:04am  
muso wrote on Nov 2nd, 2011 at 4:23pm:
Soren wrote on Nov 2nd, 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 3rd, 2011 at 9:32am  
Soren wrote on Nov 3rd, 2011 at 9:01am:
muso wrote on Nov 2nd, 2011 at 4:23pm:
Soren wrote on Nov 2nd, 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 3rd, 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 3rd, 2011 at 9:35am  
Soren wrote on Nov 3rd, 2011 at 9:04am:
muso wrote on Nov 2nd, 2011 at 4:23pm:
Soren wrote on Nov 2nd, 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: male
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #266 - Nov 4th, 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 4th, 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 4th, 2011 at 2:39pm  
Soren wrote on Nov 4th, 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: male
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #269 - Nov 4th, 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


Grin
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
muso
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #270 - Nov 5th, 2011 at 7:11am  
Here is a reasonably good site that explains the basics of climate science in fairly simple terms without getting too simplistic, including such things as natural climate variation. The diagram showing the Earth's energy balance is probably one of the better ones I've seen.  The key point is that as soon as you upset that balance, less energy is re-emitted to space with a number of consequences. More energy in the system leads to warming and other numerous other means for that extra energy to be dissipated including more extreme weather events.

http://know.climateofconcern.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=article&id=12...
Back to top
« Last Edit: Nov 5th, 2011 at 7:19am 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 #271 - Nov 5th, 2011 at 9:24am  
...
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
NorthOfNorth
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 17258
Gender: male
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #272 - Nov 5th, 2011 at 9:33am  
barnaby joe wrote on Nov 5th, 2011 at 9:24am:
http://thataintkosher.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/the_more_you_know2.jpg

While ignorance breeds certainty.
Back to top
 
Conviction is the art of being certain
 
IP Logged
 
Soren
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 25654
Gender: male
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #273 - Nov 5th, 2011 at 2:46pm  
NorthOfNorth wrote on Nov 5th, 2011 at 9:33am:
barnaby joe wrote on Nov 5th, 2011 at 9:24am:
http://thataintkosher.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/the_more_you_know2.jpg

While ignorance breeds certainty.



Ah!  So that's how we arrive at conviction, the art of being certain.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Karnal
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 96347
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #274 - Nov 5th, 2011 at 7:43pm  
Soren wrote on Nov 5th, 2011 at 2:46pm:
NorthOfNorth wrote on Nov 5th, 2011 at 9:33am:
barnaby joe wrote on Nov 5th, 2011 at 9:24am:
http://thataintkosher.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/the_more_you_know2.jpg

While ignorance breeds certainty.



Ah!  So that's how we arrive at conviction, the art of being certain.



It is certainly an art you've mastered, old boy. It's a general rule of thumb: the more certain your posts are, the more questionable. Whenever your posts contain never ever ever, we know you're playing dixie through your colostomy hole.

It's deconstruction 101, dear - a prerequisite for the more advanced courses in Pakistani rhetoric.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
NorthOfNorth
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 17258
Gender: male
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #275 - Nov 5th, 2011 at 7:46pm  
Soren wrote on Nov 5th, 2011 at 2:46pm:
NorthOfNorth wrote on Nov 5th, 2011 at 9:33am:
barnaby joe wrote on Nov 5th, 2011 at 9:24am:
http://thataintkosher.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/the_more_you_know2.jpg

While ignorance breeds certainty.



Ah!  So that's how we arrive at conviction, the art of being certain.


Ahh, no... The art of being certain requires vigilant awareness of one's ignorance.

To make it easier for you... unawareness of one's ignorance breeds 'certainty'... It doesn't foster the art of certainty.
Back to top
 
Conviction is the art of being certain
 
IP Logged
 
Karnal
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 96347
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #276 - Nov 5th, 2011 at 7:50pm  
NorthOfNorth wrote on Nov 5th, 2011 at 7:46pm:
Soren wrote on Nov 5th, 2011 at 2:46pm:
NorthOfNorth wrote on Nov 5th, 2011 at 9:33am:
barnaby joe wrote on Nov 5th, 2011 at 9:24am:
http://thataintkosher.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/the_more_you_know2.jpg

While ignorance breeds certainty.



Ah!  So that's how we arrive at conviction, the art of being certain.


Ahh, no... The art of being certain requires vigilant awareness of one's ignorance.


The old boy's still working on this one. The faculty requires a distinction average in ignorance to get into Honours.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
muso
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #277 - Nov 5th, 2011 at 8:40pm  
Soren wrote on Nov 5th, 2011 at 2:46pm:
NorthOfNorth wrote on Nov 5th, 2011 at 9:33am:
barnaby joe wrote on Nov 5th, 2011 at 9:24am:
http://thataintkosher.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/the_more_you_know2.jpg

While ignorance breeds certainty.



Ah!  So that's how we arrive at conviction, the art of being certain.



are you certain about that?

Which is better - to disagree with something of which you have practically no knowledge, or to agree with something that you are well versed in?

I am aware of where the major uncertainties are in climate science.  The question of carbon dioxide being a greenhouse gas has about the same level of certainty as the hour of sunrise tomorrow morning in any given geographical location where the sun is predicted to rise.  
Back to top
« Last Edit: Nov 5th, 2011 at 8:50pm by muso »  
...
1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not 
 
IP Logged
 
Karnal
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 96347
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #278 - Nov 5th, 2011 at 9:03pm  
muso wrote on Nov 5th, 2011 at 8:40pm:
Soren wrote on Nov 5th, 2011 at 2:46pm:
NorthOfNorth wrote on Nov 5th, 2011 at 9:33am:
barnaby joe wrote on Nov 5th, 2011 at 9:24am:
http://thataintkosher.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/the_more_you_know2.jpg

While ignorance breeds certainty.



Ah!  So that's how we arrive at conviction, the art of being certain.



are you certain about that?

Which is better - to disagree with something of which you have practically no knowledge, or to agree with something that you are well versed in?

I am aware of where the major uncertainties are in climate science.  The question of carbon dioxide being a greenhouse gas has about the same level of certainty as the hour of sunrise tomorrow morning in any given geographical location where the sun is predicted to rise.  


True, but the old boy isn't having any of it. Now that's certainty.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Soren
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 25654
Gender: male
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #279 - Nov 5th, 2011 at 9:52pm  
NorthOfNorth wrote on Nov 5th, 2011 at 7:46pm:
Soren wrote on Nov 5th, 2011 at 2:46pm:
NorthOfNorth wrote on Nov 5th, 2011 at 9:33am:
barnaby joe wrote on Nov 5th, 2011 at 9:24am:
http://thataintkosher.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/the_more_you_know2.jpg

While ignorance breeds certainty.



Ah!  So that's how we arrive at conviction, the art of being certain.


Ahh, no... The art of being certain requires vigilant awareness of one's ignorance.



Will you give us a list of what you are ignorant of or shall I?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Soren
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 25654
Gender: male
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #280 - Nov 5th, 2011 at 9:55pm  
muso wrote on Nov 5th, 2011 at 8:40pm:
Soren wrote on Nov 5th, 2011 at 2:46pm:
NorthOfNorth wrote on Nov 5th, 2011 at 9:33am:
barnaby joe wrote on Nov 5th, 2011 at 9:24am:
http://thataintkosher.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/the_more_you_know2.jpg

While ignorance breeds certainty.



Ah!  So that's how we arrive at conviction, the art of being certain.


 The question of carbon dioxide being a greenhouse gas has about the same level of certainty as the hour of sunrise tomorrow morning in any given geographical location where the sun is predicted to rise.  



You take me to be as stupid as you pretend to be, Mr Musician.

You leap effortlessly from CO2 as greenhouse gas to CO2 as cause of climate change.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
NorthOfNorth
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 17258
Gender: male
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #281 - Nov 5th, 2011 at 10:01pm  
Soren wrote on Nov 5th, 2011 at 9:52pm:
NorthOfNorth wrote on Nov 5th, 2011 at 7:46pm:
Soren wrote on Nov 5th, 2011 at 2:46pm:
NorthOfNorth wrote on Nov 5th, 2011 at 9:33am:
barnaby joe wrote on Nov 5th, 2011 at 9:24am:
http://thataintkosher.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/the_more_you_know2.jpg

While ignorance breeds certainty.



Ah!  So that's how we arrive at conviction, the art of being certain.


Ahh, no... The art of being certain requires vigilant awareness of one's ignorance.



Will you give us a list of what you are ignorant of or shall I?


Getting bitchy there, old man... Looks like its medication time. Grin
Back to top
 
Conviction is the art of being certain
 
IP Logged
 
Soren
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 25654
Gender: male
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #282 - Nov 5th, 2011 at 10:04pm  
Karnal wrote on Nov 5th, 2011 at 7:43pm:
Soren wrote on Nov 5th, 2011 at 2:46pm:
NorthOfNorth wrote on Nov 5th, 2011 at 9:33am:
barnaby joe wrote on Nov 5th, 2011 at 9:24am:
http://thataintkosher.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/the_more_you_know2.jpg

While ignorance breeds certainty.



Ah!  So that's how we arrive at conviction, the art of being certain.



It is certainly an art you've mastered, old boy. It's a general rule of thumb: the more certain your posts are, the more questionable. Whenever your posts contain never ever ever, we know you're playing dixie through your colostomy hole.

It's deconstruction 101, dear - a prerequisite for the more advanced courses in Pakistani rhetoric.


Who knows what you are on about, but as you are a paki bvgger, we let you babble on. Rich tapestry, innit.  I for one would not want you to feel as if you were treated differently from any other stupid fvckwit just because you are a paki bvgger.
Carry on, you are self-disclosing more than you realise. Who knows> It may be therapeutic.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
NorthOfNorth
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 17258
Gender: male
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #283 - Nov 5th, 2011 at 10:15pm  
Soren wrote on Nov 5th, 2011 at 10:04pm:
Who knows what you are on about, but as you are a paki bvgger, we let you babble on.

You think you call the shots around here, Soren? Delusions of grandeur - that'd be a form of ignorance, I reckon.
Back to top
 
Conviction is the art of being certain
 
IP Logged
 
Soren
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 25654
Gender: male
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #284 - Nov 5th, 2011 at 10:16pm  
NorthOfNorth wrote on Nov 5th, 2011 at 10:01pm:
Soren wrote on Nov 5th, 2011 at 9:52pm:
NorthOfNorth wrote on Nov 5th, 2011 at 7:46pm:
Soren wrote on Nov 5th, 2011 at 2:46pm:
NorthOfNorth wrote on Nov 5th, 2011 at 9:33am:
barnaby joe wrote on Nov 5th, 2011 at 9:24am:
http://thataintkosher.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/the_more_you_know2.jpg

While ignorance breeds certainty.



Ah!  So that's how we arrive at conviction, the art of being certain.


Ahh, no... The art of being certain requires vigilant awareness of one's ignorance.



Will you give us a list of what you are ignorant of or shall I?


Getting bitchy there, old man... Looks like its medication time. Grin



I am asking if you have the measure of your own medicine, viz awareness of your own ignorance. Yet you are running like a little girl, sticking your tongue out.

Medication time?? Only a smacking idiot would come back with that, hoping that in the midst of all the grinning schoolyard bluster nobody would notice that he had no answer. Medication time indeed. What do you take for intellectual inadequacy? Curl up and regress to the time when you were 10?


ANyone who ask you a question you don't know what to do with gets the same pathetic 'medication' crap from you. No pat answer - medication time.

Makes you look really thick despite your ability to spell.



.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
NorthOfNorth
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 17258
Gender: male
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #285 - Nov 5th, 2011 at 10:21pm  
Soren wrote on Nov 5th, 2011 at 10:16pm:
I am asking if you have the measure of your own medicine, viz awareness of your own ignorance. Yet you are running like a little girl, sticking your tongue out.

Medication time?? Only a smacking idiot would come back with that, hoping that in the midst of all the grinning schoolyard bluster nobody would notice that he had no answer. Medication time indeed. What do you take for intellectual inadequacy? Curl up and regress to the time when you were 10?


ANyone who ask you a question you don't know what to do with gets the same pathetic 'medication' crap from you. No pat answer - medication time.

Makes you look really thick despite your ability to spell.

I use the medication line just for a couple of you...

With you, I use it when it all seems to start getting to you on this forum and you start taking it personally... I don't know... You could be pissed, lonely, getting old... All three or a combination...
Back to top
 
Conviction is the art of being certain
 
IP Logged
 
Karnal
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 96347
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #286 - Nov 5th, 2011 at 10:30pm  
Soren wrote on Nov 5th, 2011 at 10:16pm:
NorthOfNorth wrote on Nov 5th, 2011 at 10:01pm:
Soren wrote on Nov 5th, 2011 at 9:52pm:
NorthOfNorth wrote on Nov 5th, 2011 at 7:46pm:
Soren wrote on Nov 5th, 2011 at 2:46pm:
NorthOfNorth wrote on Nov 5th, 2011 at 9:33am:
barnaby joe wrote on Nov 5th, 2011 at 9:24am:
http://thataintkosher.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/the_more_you_know2.jpg

While ignorance breeds certainty.



Ah!  So that's how we arrive at conviction, the art of being certain.


Ahh, no... The art of being certain requires vigilant awareness of one's ignorance.



Will you give us a list of what you are ignorant of or shall I?


Getting bitchy there, old man... Looks like its medication time. Grin

Medication time?? Only a smacking idiot would come back with that, hoping that in the midst of all the grinning schoolyard bluster nobody would notice that he had no answer. Medication time indeed. What do you take for intellectual inadequacy? Curl up and regress to the time when you were 10?

ANyone who ask you a question you don't know what to do with gets the same pathetic 'medication' crap from you. No pat answer - medication time.


My dear lady, I can assure you: medication is nothing to be ashamed of. It is often used in cases of advanced hysteria.

We prefer to call it therapuetic.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Soren
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 25654
Gender: male
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #287 - Nov 5th, 2011 at 10:36pm  
NorthOfNorth wrote on Nov 5th, 2011 at 10:21pm:
Soren wrote on Nov 5th, 2011 at 10:16pm:
I am asking if you have the measure of your own medicine, viz awareness of your own ignorance. Yet you are running like a little girl, sticking your tongue out.

Medication time?? Only a smacking idiot would come back with that, hoping that in the midst of all the grinning schoolyard bluster nobody would notice that he had no answer. Medication time indeed. What do you take for intellectual inadequacy? Curl up and regress to the time when you were 10?


ANyone who ask you a question you don't know what to do with gets the same pathetic 'medication' crap from you. No pat answer - medication time.

Makes you look really thick despite your ability to spell.

I use the medication line just for a couple of you...

With you, I use it when it all seems to start getting to you on this forum and you start taking it personally... I don't know... You could be pissed, lonely, getting old... All three or a combination...



Stop digging. I drew attention to the adolescent stupidity of your tag line and you get all analytical and babble about age and drink and loneliness. Anything to get attention away from the banality of conviction as the art of certainty - or is it certainty as the art of conviction?
Who knows? You don't. I don't.

I would need several large drinks to descend to that level of profundity.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
NorthOfNorth
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 17258
Gender: male
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #288 - Nov 5th, 2011 at 10:38pm  
Soren wrote on Nov 5th, 2011 at 10:36pm:
NorthOfNorth wrote on Nov 5th, 2011 at 10:21pm:
Soren wrote on Nov 5th, 2011 at 10:16pm:
I am asking if you have the measure of your own medicine, viz awareness of your own ignorance. Yet you are running like a little girl, sticking your tongue out.

Medication time?? Only a smacking idiot would come back with that, hoping that in the midst of all the grinning schoolyard bluster nobody would notice that he had no answer. Medication time indeed. What do you take for intellectual inadequacy? Curl up and regress to the time when you were 10?


ANyone who ask you a question you don't know what to do with gets the same pathetic 'medication' crap from you. No pat answer - medication time.

Makes you look really thick despite your ability to spell.

I use the medication line just for a couple of you...

With you, I use it when it all seems to start getting to you on this forum and you start taking it personally... I don't know... You could be pissed, lonely, getting old... All three or a combination...



Stop digging. I drew attention to the adolescent stupidity of your tag line and you get all analytical and babble about age and drink and loneliness. Anything to get attention away from the banality of conviction as the art of certainty - or is it certainty as the art of conviction?
Who know? You don't.

I would need several large drinks to descen to that level of profundity.

Crack another bottle of sherry... See how you go. Grin
Back to top
 
Conviction is the art of being certain
 
IP Logged
 
Soren
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 25654
Gender: male
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #289 - Nov 5th, 2011 at 10:41pm  
Yes, you have been had, grin away.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
muso
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #290 - Nov 6th, 2011 at 12:26pm  
Soren wrote on Nov 5th, 2011 at 9:55pm:
muso wrote on Nov 5th, 2011 at 8:40pm:
Soren wrote on Nov 5th, 2011 at 2:46pm:
NorthOfNorth wrote on Nov 5th, 2011 at 9:33am:
barnaby joe wrote on Nov 5th, 2011 at 9:24am:
http://thataintkosher.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/the_more_you_know2.jpg

While ignorance breeds certainty.



Ah!  So that's how we arrive at conviction, the art of being certain.


 The question of carbon dioxide being a greenhouse gas has about the same level of certainty as the hour of sunrise tomorrow morning in any given geographical location where the sun is predicted to rise.  



You take me to be as stupid as you pretend to be, Mr Musician.

You leap effortlessly from CO2 as greenhouse gas to CO2 as cause of climate change.



One step at a time. We haven't even touched on climate change on this thread.  I'm responding to Soren's Law here, vis a vis  tiny proportions of anything can't have much effect on.... well anything.  The crux of your argument on this thread has been around that particular half-baked chestnut.

In other words, you were disputing the fact that a proportional increase of 100% in atmospheric Carbon dioxide can have any significant effect.  You may not realise it, but you are also dismissing the position that without that "tiny proportion" of CO2 in the atmosphere, the Earth would be around 33 Celsius degrees colder.  (You can't have one without the other)

Now along with that particular "tarte au marron demi-cuit au sauce sorenais", you have a side serving of those famous "greenhouse gases" (as you put it) Oxygčne et nitrogčne.

So don't get ahead of yourself.

(Let's keep the banter good natured, all. )
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 #291 - Nov 6th, 2011 at 2:35pm  
actually

soren's master argument is this:

climate change may in fact be occuring but we dont understand the climate. it is a complex system influenced by a variety of factors many of which we barely understand or are not even aware of at all (one must ask yourself how he actually knows this to be the case though). climate change is occuring, and while c02 contributes to climate change, there may be some unknown factor, factor x, or many unknown factors, factors x, through z which may in fact be indepedent of all human activity and are in operation to transform the climate AS WE SPEAK. c02 may be a drop in the bucket in terms of its significance compared to the phantom factor, factor x (or the phantom factor squad), so therefore, we don't have to do anything at all.

he's been repeating this one for a very long time but you seem to skirt around it. i'll admit, it's pretty clever. you can apply it to basically anything you want.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Soren
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 25654
Gender: male
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #292 - Nov 6th, 2011 at 2:41pm  
A fair summary.

But you can only apply it to things like the climate: things you cannot perform experiments on because there is only one of them.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Karnal
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 96347
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #293 - Nov 6th, 2011 at 2:50pm  
Yes, but what about cultural studies? The faculty have been saying this for years.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
barnaby joe
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 1992
euchareena
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #294 - Nov 6th, 2011 at 2:51pm  
derrida would be proud!
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Soren
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 25654
Gender: male
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #295 - Nov 6th, 2011 at 2:56pm  
Derrida's dead.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
barnaby joe
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 1992
euchareena
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #296 - Nov 6th, 2011 at 3:12pm  
death does not exist. there is only the text.

an epitaph can be a text however.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
muso
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #297 - Nov 6th, 2011 at 5:06pm  
Soren wrote on Nov 6th, 2011 at 2:56pm:
Derrida's dead.




How can you be sure? Derrida may in fact be dead, but we dont really understand life fully, let alone death. Life is a complex system influenced by a variety of factors many of which we barely understand or are not even aware of at all. We certainly don't even understand self awareness on any biochemical basis.


Death happens, and while ceasing to breathe may in fact be an outward sign of death, there may be some unknown factor, factor x, such as an immortal soul  Roll Eyes or God, or Jumping Jehosaphat or many unknown factors, factors x, through z which may in fact be independent of all outward signs and is happening  AS WE SPEAK.  

Mortal death may be insignificant compared to the phantom factor, factor x (or the phantom factor squad), so therefore, maybe nobody is dead.

(Well put, Imperium)
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 #298 - Nov 6th, 2011 at 7:44pm  
The cult of repudiation - you have been infected by it. All three of you.

It's about the text to you, rather than life.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Karnal
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 96347
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #299 - Nov 6th, 2011 at 8:47pm  
Ha!
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
barnaby joe
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 1992
euchareena
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #300 - Nov 6th, 2011 at 9:28pm  
i don't even know what that is

is it anything like the church of scientology?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Soren
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 25654
Gender: male
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #301 - Nov 7th, 2011 at 9:06am  
For people of my generation, it seemed, for a while, as though we could rediscover meaning through culture. The artistic, musical, literary, and philosophical traditions of our civilization bore so many traces of a world-transforming significance that it would be enough—we thought—to pass those things on. Each new generation could then inherit by means of them the spiritual resources that it needed. But we reckoned without two all-important facts: first, the second law of thermodynamics, which tells us that without an injection of energy, all order decays; and second, the rise of what I call the “culture of repudiation,” as those appointed to inject that energy have become increasingly fatigued with the task and have eventually jettisoned the cultural baggage under whose weight they staggered.

This culture of repudiation has transmitted itself, through the media and the schools, across the spiritual terrain of Western civilization, leaving behind it a sense of emptiness and defeat, a sense that nothing is left to believe in or endorse, save only the freedom to believe. And a belief in the freedom to believe is neither a belief nor a freedom. It encourages hesitation in the place of conviction and timidity in the place of choice.


Roger Scruton

Read it all at http://www.city-journal.org/2009/19_1_the-west.html

It is also on iTunes as a podcast.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Equitist
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 9632
NSW
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #302 - Nov 7th, 2011 at 9:12am  




Don't be silly, Soren - what more does humanity need, other than to shuffle Mickey Mouse Monopoly Money in the worship of the 'Growth Fairy'!?
Back to top
 
Lamenting the shift in the Australian psyche, away from the egalitarian ideal of the fair-go - and the rise of short-sighted pollies, who worship the 'Growth Fairy' and seek to divide and conquer!
 
IP Logged
 
Soren
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 25654
Gender: male
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #303 - Nov 7th, 2011 at 9:20am  
Equitist wrote on Nov 7th, 2011 at 9:12am:
Don't be silly, Soren - what more does humanity need, other than to shuffle Mickey Mouse Monopoly Money in the worship of the 'Growth Fairy'!?


The monomania forum is a few door down. Move along, mother.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
muso
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #304 - Nov 7th, 2011 at 10:44am  
Soren wrote on Nov 6th, 2011 at 2:41pm:
A fair summary.

But you can only apply it to things like the climate: things you cannot perform experiments on because there is only one of them.



In fact here is a list (not by any means comprehensive) of some of those experiments that Soren can't perform:

http://climateprediction.net/content/experiments

Quote:
Thermohaline experiment

A study of the possible effects of a prescribed slowdown of the North Atlantic meridional overturning circulation. Read more here.

Sulphur cycle experiment

With this experiment we aim identify the effects of sulphate aerosol on the global climate system and the sensitivity of the model to perturbing sulphur cycle parameters. More information is available here.

Mid-holocene experiment

More information is here.

Geoengineering experiment

An estimate of the possible effects of climate change mitigation strategies, described in more detail here.

Millennium experiment

An experiment to refine the accuracy of climate models of the last millennium, including the “Medieval warm period” and the “little ice age.” Read more about it here.

Validation and attribution experiment

More information is here.

Seasonal Attribution Experiment

An investigation of the possible impact of human activity on extreme weather risk. More information here.

RAPID-RAPIT Experiment

The aim of this experiment is to assess the risk of Atlantic meridional overturning circulation collapse in the coming century. More information here


- and here are some experiments being conducted on the consequences of increased CO2, higher temperatures etc:

http://www.esf.org/index.php?id=4958
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 #305 - Nov 7th, 2011 at 10:58am  
Apart from that, only blind Freddy would say that there is no connection between carbon dioxide emissions and atmospheric content.  The case is pretty well closed on that one.




This data confirms what I was saying in another post. How much have we emitted since industrialisation? About 1300 Gigatonnes.

How much has the atmospheric inventory changed by? About  800 Gigatonnes. (of course, that's only up to the year 2000)

So you could say that the contribution of industrial activity to atmospheric CO2 inventory  in that time has been around 160% of the total rise.

How can that be? - because the remaining 500 Gigatonnes has been absorbed by carbon sinks, such as the ocean (the biggest of these).

That's some indisputable data. You might think about disputing the carbon emissions, but you'd be arguing with bean counters. It doesn't require a degree in climatology to calculate how much oil and gas has been burnt or how much cement has been produced, because money changes hand for those activities, and people tend to be surprisingly accurate when it comes to financial matters like that.  

The atmospheric inventory is a relatively simple calculation. It's something that I could do on the back of a matchbox.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Nov 7th, 2011 at 11:49am by muso »  
CO2-Emissions-vs-Levels.gif (12 KB | 27 )
CO2-Emissions-vs-Levels.gif
...
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 #306 - Nov 7th, 2011 at 1:56pm  
muso wrote on Nov 7th, 2011 at 10:44am:
- and here are some experiments being conducted on the consequences of increased CO2, higher temperatures etc:

http://www.esf.org/index.php?id=4958


These guys are saying exactly what I have been saying:
"a coherent view and understanding does not exist."  Feel free to tke this also as the answer to your earlier question about how do I know we don't know.



The 'experiments' you list are thought experiments, ie databases and models. A computer model of a thing for which "a coherent view and understanding does not exist" is not an experiment but a calculation.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
muso
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #307 - Nov 7th, 2011 at 5:23pm  
That comment relates to the consequences of Global warming, ocean acidification etc.

We need to carry out experiments to establish things such as:

Which varieties grow best under changing climatic conditions?
What will be the response of terrestrial ecosystems?  etc.

(You do know what an ecosystem is I take it?)

You're twisting the words to suit your agenda. These are points we need to understand better.

Soren wrote on Nov 7th, 2011 at 1:56pm:
The 'experiments' you list are thought experiments, ie databases and models. A computer model of a thing for which "a coherent view and understanding does not exist" is not an experiment but a calculation.

Weather balloons and satellites are not thought experiments.

There are plenty of different experiments that we can carry out. We don't have to change the variables, we can let external events such as solar eclipses, volcanoes etc change the experimental conditions for us and find out how close our predictions are based on physical properties and parameters.

- And while we're at it, we can design experiments to measure changing atmospheric conditions and compare against models. There is nothing wrong with using models. Machinery designers use them all the time. The more they are tested, the more robust they become.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Nov 7th, 2011 at 5:38pm 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 #308 - Nov 7th, 2011 at 9:32pm  
Muso, don't experiment with ways of avoiding the point.

"a coherent view and understanding does not exist."

That's from the website you cited, presumably because you regard it as authoritative. ANd that's exactly has been my point all these months and years. Imp grasped in one go - yet it eludes you despite multiple quals in science.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
muso
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #309 - Nov 7th, 2011 at 9:34pm  
Soren wrote on Nov 7th, 2011 at 9:32pm:
Muso, don't experiment with ways of avoiding the point.

"a coherent view and understanding does not exist."

That's from the website you cited, presumably because you regard it as authoritative. ANd that's exactly has been my point all these months and years. Imp grasped in one go - yet it eludes you despite multiple quals in science.


1. You are taking that phrase completely out of context.
2. You are completely ignoring everything else I posted about experimentation.

It's the Soren gambit. I post a link to a site that is experimenting with the effects of varying climate on different plants and ecosystems (it's not even related to climate science)  and you take something totally out of context and use it as your main argument to draw attention away from the obvious fact that you don't know what on earth you're talking about.

If you want to learn about climate experimentation, just use Google (with some discrimination for a change). You can put your telescope to your blind eye like some latter day Horatio Nelson all you like and bravely state "I see no signal" but it's not going to change the fact that there is an enormous number of climate related experiments going on.

Just because you choose not to see it doesn't change the fact.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Nov 7th, 2011 at 9:51pm 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 #310 - Nov 7th, 2011 at 9:48pm  


Really?? How so?





Increased emission of green house gasses as a consequence of human activities has been projected to lead to climatic changes, including increased temperature and changes in precipitation amounts and patterns. These three main climatic driven changes  (CO2, temperature and precipitation) will alone and in combination have large effects on terrestrial ecosystem functioning and will therefore affect the goods and services provided by these ecosystems (biodiversity, forest, range, agricultural productivity, ground water provision, ground water quality, fire protection, recreation etc.). Considerable progress has been made to better understand the response of terrestrial ecosystems to these changes, using both field manipulation experiments and modelling. However, our present knowledge of these effects and consequences is generally derived from individual projects with different foci, and a coherent view and understanding does not exist. Therefore, there is a significant need to review the “state of the art” and to synthesise our knowledge across drivers, ecosystems and ecosystem processes. CLIMMANI provides a framework for networking past and current terrestrial ecosystem research by bringing together key researchers within the field, building coherent interdisciplinary databases, and by coordinating research activities globally. This is necessary in order to formulate future research needs and to guide political and management activities to combat or minimize negative effects on natural ecosystems and promote sustainable development.

http://www.esf.org/index.php?id=4958
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
muso
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #311 - Nov 7th, 2011 at 9:54pm  
Soren wrote on Nov 7th, 2011 at 9:48pm:
Really?? How so?





Increased emission of green house gasses as a consequence of human activities has been projected to lead to climatic changes, including increased temperature and changes in precipitation amounts and patterns. These three main climatic driven changes  (CO2, temperature and precipitation) will alone and in combination have large effects on terrestrial ecosystem functioning and will therefore affect the goods and services provided by these ecosystems (biodiversity, forest, range, agricultural productivity, ground water provision, ground water quality, fire protection, recreation etc.). Considerable progress has been made to better understand  the response of terrestrial ecosystems  to these changes, using  both field manipulation experiments and modelling. However, our present knowledge of these effects and consequences is generally derived from individual projects with different foci, and a coherent view and understanding does not exist. Therefore, there is a significant need to review the “state of the art” and to synthesise our knowledge across drivers, ecosystems and ecosystem processes. CLIMMANI provides a framework for networking past and current terrestrial ecosystem research by bringing together key researchers within the field, building coherent interdisciplinary databases, and by coordinating research activities globally. This is necessary in order to formulate future research needs and to guide political and management activities to combat or minimize negative effects on natural ecosystems and promote sustainable development.


OK, so all this time you were arguing about the response of terrestrial ecosystems then, were you? Well blow me down!

In that case, I concede that we don't know entirely how the Siberian hamster population will be affected by the proliferation of fleas in a warmer climate.  Grin
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 #312 - Nov 7th, 2011 at 10:02pm  
Well, if they don't even know THAT (a tiny and well defined subject with clear boundaries and variables, open to reproducible experimentation, rather than requiring dirty big computer models manipulating assumptions and data), how can they presume to know the entire climate and all it's workings?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
barnaby joe
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 1992
euchareena
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #313 - Nov 7th, 2011 at 10:51pm  
they cant make a PICKLE JAR thats easy to open either but they claim they know how to understand the climate??
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
muso
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #314 - Nov 8th, 2011 at 6:47am  
Soren wrote on Nov 7th, 2011 at 10:02pm:
Well, if they don't even know THAT (a tiny and well defined subject with clear boundaries and variables, open to reproducible experimentation, rather than requiring dirty big computer models manipulating assumptions and data), how can they presume to know the entire climate and all it's workings?



Do you think that they might just possibly have difficulty getting a grant to study some of the more obscure subjects?  

The point is that first you have to actually conduct that reproducible experimentation. It's not like philosophy - you can't just make it up as you go along and claim that as knowledge.

Of course we don't know entirely how all ecosystems will react, with the exception of some commercially important ecosystems which have been the subject of some study.

Soren, I get the distinct impression that you're out of your depth.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Nov 8th, 2011 at 6:52am 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 #315 - Nov 8th, 2011 at 9:07am  
muso wrote on Nov 8th, 2011 at 6:47am:
Soren wrote on Nov 7th, 2011 at 10:02pm:
Well, if they don't even know THAT (a tiny and well defined subject with clear boundaries and variables, open to reproducible experimentation, rather than requiring dirty big computer models manipulating assumptions and data), how can they presume to know the entire climate and all it's workings?



Do you think that they might just possibly have difficulty getting a grant to study some of the more obscure subjects?  

The point is that first you have to actually conduct that reproducible experimentation. It's not like philosophy - you can't just make it up as you go along and claim that as knowledge.

Of course we don't know entirely how all ecosystems will react, with the exception of some commercially important ecosystems which have been the subject of some study.

Soren, I get the distinct impression that you're out of your depth.



Don't give me that sly patronising eyebrow - ie don't experiment with tired old ways of avoiding the point: "a coherent view and understanding does not exist."



Quote:
Do you think that they might just possibly have difficulty getting a grant to study some of the more obscure subjects? 


Not at all.  There is plenty of money for improbably science.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
muso
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #316 - Nov 8th, 2011 at 9:41am  
Soren wrote on Nov 8th, 2011 at 9:07am:
Don't give me that sly patronising eyebrow - ie don't experiment with tired old ways of avoiding the point: "a coherent view and understanding does not exist." ...
on the effects of global warming etc on terrestrial ecosystems.



Look, it's pretty basic and should be obvious to just about everybody else. You're not convincing anybody apart from the "headless chook" flag waving football supporter mentality (which in no way includes you, Soren   Wink ).

- and for what it counts, I have as little respect for headless chooks who support the Greens as any other headless chooks.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Nov 8th, 2011 at 9:47am 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 #317 - Nov 8th, 2011 at 10:00am  
...
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Soren
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 25654
Gender: male
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #318 - Nov 8th, 2011 at 10:19am  
muso wrote on Nov 8th, 2011 at 9:41am:
Don't give me that sly patronising eyebrow - ie don't experiment with tired old ways of avoiding the point: "a coherent view and understanding does not exist." ...
on the effects of global warming etc on terrestrial ecosystems.



That little red flourish makes no difference.


Apparently, there has been an icrease of human CO2 emissions by 20% in the last 10 years but there has been no corresponding statistical increase in temperature. Now I am not asking where it al went and all that jazz.  What I am pointing out is that we do not know why, despite the incraesed CO2 in the atmosphere, it has not produced incresed warming, even though the predictions in the 1990s were about direct correlation which evidently doesn't happen.
SO now there are some post-mortem  explanations and I m sure you have them at your fingertips. The point though is this: there is no predictive force in any of the scaremongering because "a coherent view and understanding does not exist" EITHER for "the effects of global warming etc on terrestrial ecosystems" OR any other statistical climate change claim. Its retrospective explanatory inventiveness is undoubted. It's preditive force, on the other hand, has been so far negligible.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
muso
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #319 - Nov 8th, 2011 at 11:02am  
Soren wrote on Nov 8th, 2011 at 10:19am:
muso wrote on Nov 8th, 2011 at 9:41am:
Don't give me that sly patronising eyebrow - ie don't experiment with tired old ways of avoiding the point: "a coherent view and understanding does not exist." ...
on the effects of global warming etc on terrestrial ecosystems.



That little red flourish makes no difference.


Apparently, there has been an icrease of human CO2 emissions by 20% in the last 10 years but there has been no corresponding statistical increase in temperature. Now I am not asking where it al went and all that jazz.  What I am pointing out is that we do not know why, despite the incraesed CO2 in the atmosphere, it has not produced incresed warming, even though the predictions in the 1990s were about direct correlation which evidently doesn't happen.
SO now there are some post-mortem  explanations and I m sure you have them at your fingertips. The point though is this: there is no predictive force in any of the scaremongering because "a coherent view and understanding does not exist" EITHER for "the effects of global warming etc on terrestrial ecosystems" OR any other statistical climate change claim. Its retrospective explanatory inventiveness is undoubted. It's preditive force, on the other hand, has been so far negligible.



You can't make any useful determinations on climate on the basis of a 10 year period. We've been through this many times before.  Natural Solar cycles have a period of 11.1 years, so if you take short term fluctuations, you'll get erroneous misleading results. We should be taking at least 5 year running averages (roughly half cycle, which will cancel these out), or better still, 10 year running averages.

10 years is one point on the graph. You can't determine a trend from one data point just as you can't clap your hands if you only have one hand.

The red flourish puts your zealous misinterpretation in context.
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 #320 - Nov 8th, 2011 at 12:09pm  
5 year, 10 year, sun cycles, 11.1, 02598, 7589.155 or 4587952314455



muso wrote on Nov 8th, 2011 at 11:02am:
The point though is this: there is no predictive force in any of the scaremongering because "a coherent view and understanding does not exist" EITHER for "the effects of global warming etc on terrestrial ecosystems" OR any other statistical climate change claim. Its retrospective explanatory inventiveness is undoubted. It's preditive force, on the other hand, has been so far negligible.




so, onward with the 5 years and the 10 years and 11.1 years and half cycles and tricycles and bcycles.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Karnal
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 96347
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #321 - Nov 8th, 2011 at 12:45pm  
Soren wrote on Nov 8th, 2011 at 9:07am:
Don't give me that sly patronising eyebrow - ie don't experiment with tired old ways of avoiding the point: "a coherent view and understanding does not exist."


But, my dear fellow; it does. It is called theology, praise Him, praise Him.

Allah Uakbar.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
muso
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #322 - Nov 8th, 2011 at 1:08pm  
Soren wrote on Nov 8th, 2011 at 12:09pm:
5 year, 10 year, sun cycles, 11.1, 02598, 7589.155 or 4587952314455



The point though is this: there is no predictive force in any of the scaremongering because "a coherent view and understanding does not exist" EITHER for "the effects of global warming etc on terrestrial ecosystems" OR any other statistical climate change claim. Its retrospective explanatory inventiveness is undoubted. It's preditive force, on the other hand, has been so far negligible.


so, onward with the 5 years and the 10 years and 11.1 years and half cycles and tricycles and bcycles.



Your comment is basically reductio ad absurdum.

So your knowledge base for your persistent and vehement attack on current scientific knowledge does not include that little "insignificant" central point about 11.1 year solar cycles?

Now why does that not surprise me?
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 #323 - Nov 8th, 2011 at 9:03pm  
The scientific method is the formulation of a falsifiable hypothesis,  performance of repeatable experimenation, leading to knowledge that can make useful predictions. Two out of three is not enough. Climate science has not made useful predictions.

Pointing this out is not antiscience, it is not 'persistent and vehement attack', most certainly not reductio ad absurdum - but a simple statement about the scientific method. All you have to do, Muso, is show that climate science has made routine and accurate predictions about AGW.  

11.1 year sun cycle is not a climate prediction.


That point again:
Quote:
The point though is this: there is no predictive force in any of the scaremongering because "a coherent view and understanding does not exist" EITHER for "the effects of global warming etc on terrestrial ecosystems" OR any other statistical climate change claim. Its retrospective explanatory inventiveness is undoubted. It's preditive force, on the other hand, has been so far negligible.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
muso
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #324 - Nov 9th, 2011 at 6:41am  
Soren wrote on Nov 8th, 2011 at 9:03pm:
11.1 year sun cycle is not a climate prediction.


I wasn't claiming it was.
Quote:
That point again:
Quote:
The point though is this: there is no predictive force in any of the scaremongering because "a coherent view and understanding does not exist" EITHER for "the effects of global warming etc on terrestrial ecosystems" OR any other statistical climate change claim. Its retrospective explanatory inventiveness is undoubted. It's preditive force, on the other hand, has been so far negligible.


You can repeat it all you like, but it bears no resemblance to the state of knowledge. Its predictive force has been pretty well spot on so far. I don't know where you get that from. (actually I have a good idea)

What you can't predict too well is exactly how much fuels will be burnt over a given period. (nobody is claiming to have an accurate crystal ball to predict what the countries of the world will do)

Predictions therefore cover a range of scenarios. To say that a particular prediction was wrong based on the fact that the assumption for fuel consumption/ emissions were off, is very underhanded, but you'll find many examples of this.

What we should be doing to test the prediction is to apply the same methodology to the actual fuel combustion, cement production etc. over that time and see if we come up with the correct answer.

If we apply those testing criteria above, I think you'll find that predictions, even those made in the 1980's, are pretty close to the mark.
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 #325 - Nov 9th, 2011 at 1:02pm  
Climate poredictions, dear boy, not fuel consumption predictions. I want evidence of the predictive force of increased human CO2 emission causing AGW.
Evidence of the predictive force f 'human CO2 causes global warmiong', isolated out from other factors that may also cause warming. I want to see the predictive force that nails human CO2, not 11.1 year sun cycles and all the rest. We know that all sorts of other things incluence the climate - complex system, loads of elements, loads of interactions, all of that (ie my point).
I want evidence that human CO2 is the most powerful cause of global climate change/warming, outweighing all others and not countered by anything that might kick in to counterbalance its effects.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
muso
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #326 - Nov 9th, 2011 at 1:30pm  
Your "I want" is just a tad loaded, but the reason I mention fuel combustion is that you will find criticism of some early predictions for just that reason. If you factor in actual emissions, the predictions are pretty close, even considering that the science was fairly young in the 1980's.

If you look at a graph of temperatures over that last 10,000 years, they are just a tad wobbly, but there is a definite step change when you get into the 20th century. That graph starts from pre-industrialisation though.

...

                                                                             Here ^

On the above graph, and ok, it's not the best, you're just looking at the last 10,000 years (where it says "Here ^") for comparison purposes.  (and there are other less reliable proxies of course). Prior to 10,000 years you can see lower temperatures associated with the last glaciation.  

If you look at a graph of CO2 concentrations for the last 10,000 years, you'll see a similarly flat baseline with minor variations.

So if you believe those people who say that the warming of the last 150 years or so (in red and blue on the CO2 graph) is just a continuation of a trend, it's a bloody strange trend.

Now obviously there are shorter term cycles, and the temperature data reflects rounded averages to smooth these out, but what this should tell you is that those complex and "hideously complex" natural forces that you keep referring to have been relatively stable for the past 10,000 years.

You could even say that a a coherent view and understanding exists because it's so bloody monotonous and predictable that you could nod off to sleep contemplating it - as long as you're not looking at little climatic blips and farts

- which we're not. The odd little insignificant fart (young or old) doesn't concern me at all.  


See my point?

Now for (another of the many) climate confusionalist themes that the last 50 years is just part of a normal cycle - that it's quite normal to have a virtual flat line for 10,000 years then have a steep curve for the last 50 (because if you look at the data, that is what they are saying.)

Well if we had a series of cataclysmic events then it might be quite natural. The only problem is that unless we've been living in different parallel universes, there has been no natural cataclysmic events of a scale big enough to cause that kind of disruption.  

To say that - "aw you wouldn't notice it" would be like saying that you wouldn't notice it if you woke up with an elephant in your bed.

The other spin is that it's just a coincidence that we happen to have increased the atmospheric inventory of CO2 by about a third. It's just a coincidence, because the real culprit is complex natural factors, and "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain - I am the great and powerful Wizard of Spin"
Back to top
« Last Edit: Nov 9th, 2011 at 3:46pm by muso »  
tenthousnd_co2.jpg (26 KB | 30 )
tenthousnd_co2.jpg
...
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 #327 - Nov 11th, 2011 at 9:29pm  
See my point? you ask.
No.

You give us two graphs, one showing a slight flactuation of temperature over the last 10,000 years, the other showing a graph of atmospheric CO2.

There is no uptick on the temperature graph, commensurate with the CO2 graph.
There are some ups and down in that temperature graph. What I would be interested in is the mapping of the expected temperature increase in the context of the last 10,000 years.

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
muso
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #328 - Nov 12th, 2011 at 6:28am  
Soren wrote on Nov 11th, 2011 at 9:29pm:
See my point? you ask.
No.

You give us two graphs, one showing a slight flactuation of temperature over the last 10,000 years, the other showing a graph of atmospheric CO2.

There is no uptick on the temperature graph, commensurate with the CO2 graph.
There are some ups and down in that temperature graph. What I would be interested in is the mapping of the expected temperature increase in the context of the last 10,000 years.



Well I did explain that it was pre-industrial.

Quote:
If you look at a graph of temperatures over that last 10,000 years, they are just a tad wobbly, but there is a definite step change when you get into the 20th century. That graph starts from pre-industrialisation though.


Well, I'm glad you asked. The graph was based on ice core data that didn't have more recent temperature proxies. What's the point of using ice core data to show temperatures that can be measured anyway?

OK, since you asked, here is another graph showing the industrial period.

This one is taken from the Australian Bureau of Meteorology site.  Obviously future predictions will depend on emission scenarios - how much we end up emitting.

http://www.bom.gov.au/info/climate/change/gallery/76.shtml

...

Let's superimpose that on the previous graph, adjusting the scale to suit.  That should give you a better perspective.  (ok - finally that's about right) As you can see, it's the highest temperature by far over the entire 20,000 year range.

It might not look like much compared with the temperature ranges you get with ice ages (glaciations), but it's more a question of the rate of change and the fact that 7 billion people will have great difficulties adapting to that change (or rather, the implications of that change), with the result that quite a large proportion will not survive. Now clearly those scenarios include lower emission cases where global temperatures stay within that 2 degrees change.

Now a recent study shows that we have until 2017 to avoid some of the more extreme scenarios.

Now do you get my point?
Back to top
« Last Edit: Nov 12th, 2011 at 9:19am by muso »  
superimposed.jpg (7 KB | 29 )
superimposed.jpg
...
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 #329 - Nov 12th, 2011 at 8:17pm  
muso wrote on Nov 12th, 2011 at 6:28am:
http://www.bom.gov.au/info/climate/change/gallery/76.shtml

http://www.bom.gov.au/info/climate/change/gallery/images/76.jpg

Now do you get my point?


Write me off, Muso, for climate argument.  I simply do not accept your graph. It even looks like something drwan up to to suit a point, rather than being a graph that can illustrate a point.

The fluctuation band - the orange range surrounding the red trend line - disappers to almost nothing from the 19th century. This is just tendentious nonsense.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Karnal
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 96347
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #330 - Nov 12th, 2011 at 8:53pm  
Soren wrote on Nov 12th, 2011 at 8:17pm:
muso wrote on Nov 12th, 2011 at 6:28am:
http://www.bom.gov.au/info/climate/change/gallery/76.shtml

http://www.bom.gov.au/info/climate/change/gallery/images/76.jpg

Now do you get my point?


Write me off, Muso, for climate argument.  



Now we can all get some peace.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
muso
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #331 - Nov 12th, 2011 at 10:10pm  
Soren wrote on Nov 12th, 2011 at 8:17pm:
muso wrote on Nov 12th, 2011 at 6:28am:
http://www.bom.gov.au/info/climate/change/gallery/76.shtml

http://www.bom.gov.au/info/climate/change/gallery/images/76.jpg

Now do you get my point?


Write me off, Muso, for climate argument.  I simply do not accept your graph. It even looks like something drwan up to to suit a point, rather than being a graph that can illustrate a point.

The fluctuation band - the orange range surrounding the red trend line - disappers to almost nothing from the 19th century. This is just tendentious nonsense.




Tendentious poppycock. That's what's called the advent of direct measurement. When you can measure the temperature directly, the error bars do drop off to almost nothing. Make sense?

I mean if you're taking readings of oxygen isotope ratios in ice layers instead of reading directly, that's going to introduce more error - right?
Back to top
« Last Edit: Nov 12th, 2011 at 10:15pm 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 #332 - Nov 13th, 2011 at 10:53am  
By the way, I found a bonza source of graphs and data - The BoM:
http://www.bom.gov.au/info/climate/change/gallery/index.shtml
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 #333 - Nov 13th, 2011 at 12:16pm  
No 77 - the future - 4 question marks.

http://www.bom.gov.au/info/climate/change/gallery/77.shtml

And look! the caption say:
"The challenge remains to understand how the complex interplay of natural and anthropogenic driving forces will impact on the earth’s climate into and beyond the 21st century.


The challange remains to understand the complexity. Great Scot! The BoM guy musta been reading my posts, no? Bloody deniers, inflitreted even the BoM.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
muso
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #334 - Nov 13th, 2011 at 1:07pm  
Soren wrote on Nov 13th, 2011 at 12:16pm:
No 77 - the future - 4 question marks.

http://www.bom.gov.au/info/climate/change/gallery/77.shtml

And look! the caption say:
"The challenge remains to understand how the complex interplay of natural and anthropogenic driving forces will impact on the earth’s climate into and beyond the 21st century.


The challange remains to understand the complexity. Great Scot! The BoM guy musta been reading my posts, no? Bloody deniers, inflitreted even the BoM.



Well I actually agree with the statement in its intended context. (the context of the other slides presented), whereas, you don't accept the other slides presented, now do you? In the context of Soren's Law - a tiny amount will have a tiny influence, and the argument that is basically paraphrased as "Global Warming? What Global Warming?", you use as a central mantra.  

Now I could also apply "There is no consensus" to the whole question of biogeochemical feedbacks or amplification feedbacks such as the breakdown of methane clathrates. These could make the whole situation change very rapidly indeed, or they might not. We'll still have the central warming effect, but it could be much worse.  The potential is there  for the Earth's methane content to increase by a factor of 12 if some of the predictions in papers presented this year turn out to be correct.  An examination of paleoclimates is quite illuminating in that respect.  (An aside: Do you think that human beings could actually live in some of the Earth's past paleoclimates? )

There are indeed big challenges ahead in understanding exactly how the warming effect will have on systems such as the Arctic permafrost permamelt. Here is a reasonably non-technical explanation on a site I visit occasionally. You'll love the title, but not the article.:

http://themoderatevoice.com/98291/what-if-everything-you-knew-about-projected-gl...

Note the following scandalous fact:

Quote:
Methane release from the not-so-perma-frost is the most dangerous amplifying feedback in the entire carbon cycle. The permafrost contains a staggering “1.5 trillion tons of frozen carbon, about twice as much carbon as contained in the atmosphere,” much of which would be released as methane. Methane is is 25 times as potent a heat-trapping gas as CO2 over a 100 year time horizon, but 72 times as potent over 20 years! The carbon is locked in a freezer in the part of the planet warming up the fastest (see “Tundra 4: Permafrost loss linked to Arctic sea ice loss“). Half the land-based permafrost would vanish by mid-century on our current emissions path (see “Tundra, Part 2: The point of no return” and below). No climate model currently incorporates the amplifying feedback from methane released by a defrosting tundra.


Why do you think that is? Do you think those dastardly scientists are trying to pull a fast one? hmmm?
Back to top
« Last Edit: Nov 13th, 2011 at 1:25pm 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 #335 - Nov 13th, 2011 at 8:43pm  
What dastardly thing did cro magnon man do to lock all that methane into permafrost?? It must have been a crime against Mother E.

Or if it was all just locked up there by the tooth fairy/Blue Beard, now homo sapiens is doing the dastrdly thing and releases it all. This is like Blue Beard's castle - do anything, look in all he rooms, but not  the 13th room, for that's where the permafrosted methane is locked up. You unlock that room and -
Booo!!!!
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
muso
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #336 - Nov 14th, 2011 at 8:14am  
Soren wrote on Nov 13th, 2011 at 8:43pm:
What dastardly thing did cro magnon man do to lock all that methane into permafrost?? It must have been a crime against Mother E.

Or if it was all just locked up there by the tooth fairy/Blue Beard, now homo sapiens is doing the dastrdly thing and releases it all. This is like Blue Beard's castle - do anything, look in all he rooms, but not  the 13th room, for that's where the permafrosted methane is locked up. You unlock that room and -
Booo!!!!



Is that a quasi-religious "fill the gaps of knowledge" theory you have there, or do you really not appreciate how the methane got there?
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 #337 - Nov 14th, 2011 at 11:04am  
he was mocking the idea that the methane could have gotten there by anthropogenic influence. why? because it allows him to launch into a tirade about how, because the methane wasn't frozen into place there by human influences it must have been some natural process (possibly one he will claim that we don't know about at all or understand the mechanics of, which will likely be replied to by you explaining just how much we actually do know about it and just how much we actually do understand the mechanics of) and therefore climate is complex so the phantom factors must be, or at least, could be, causing AGW.

i've been observing this debate for some time. it's pretty repetitive. i don't understand the science behind AGW that well but i can spot some fishy arugments when i see them.  for the last few pages, the claim is made that the climate is complex and we don't understand it. whenever you, muso, do attempt to elaborate on the complexity of the climate, explain the various interactions of forces and pertinent physical processes that allow it to operate in the way that it does, soren will throw his hands up and tell everybody that there's always some "conveninent" fact in the way of his arguments that is perhaps too conveninent. there's always some exception here, some little point or facet of the climate lurking in the background that crops up whenever he thinks he's developed some new checkmate point. too conveninent. of course, most people would chalk this down to ignorance; he's trying to whittle away with a tiny knife at a toothpick, unaware that his vision is skewed and he's actually merely scraping the surface bark of a california redwood tree. essentially, the climate is complex but when its complexity is expounded upon and just how much we actually know about it is brought to light, it's a white wash.

maybe its a testament to your patience, but i don't see why you continue the way that you do. maybe you have some other ulterior motive besides attempting to convince him like honing your argumentative skills or speaking for the benefit of the audience and not so much your interlocutor. for said interlocutor, all contrary information will be rejected, rationalised, or met with hypothetical counterexamples. soren is sufficiently committed to his position that now paradoxically all exposure to contrary information only strengthens his position. he has formulated a very mentally effective stance that, if applied consistently to all appropriate questions, essentially makes reality and truth unknowable or beyond the reach of mere men.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Nov 14th, 2011 at 11:17am by barnaby joe »  
 
IP Logged
 
muso
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #338 - Nov 14th, 2011 at 11:49am  
Why do I continue? - probably because I enjoy explaining it. I love challenges.  

Do I have an ulterior motive?

Well I work for an explosives group that depends heavily on the coal industry, so no.

If anything, I take the attitude that with anything in life, we need to be fully aware of and acknowledge harsh realities (the bitter truth), and we need to have a solid plan in place to take those realities into account, so that we can get along without  the risk of running into a brick wall further down the track.

We need to face the truth, not try to obscure it. We need the courage to say - these are our challenges, and this is what we are going to do about it.

I love technology and civilisation. My motivation is that we never lose these things and revert to some kind of troglodyte existence as a result of ignoring important issues.

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 #339 - Nov 14th, 2011 at 12:20pm  
i was never insinuating motives of the sort you are describing.. i meant motives more like what you just said you were doing this for, that you're enjoying the debate.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
muso
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #340 - Nov 14th, 2011 at 4:35pm  
Here's what these methane vents look like (not usually alight though):

...
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 #341 - Nov 15th, 2011 at 11:37am  
so really

how did the methane actually get there
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
muso
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #342 - Nov 15th, 2011 at 12:29pm  
Well it got there the same way as peat or coal got there - through the slow decomposition of vegetation. Where you have permafrost, the methane has been essentially capped by the ice, although it still releases at a low sustainable rate.  The relatively rapid release of greenhouse gases due to the burning of hydrocarbons and coal is resulting in a warming effect that is more pronounced at the poles for various reasons. One of the reasons is that any net loss of polar ice will result in a net annual reduction in polar albedo, which is one of the important feedbacks.

So the effect is an increased warming which results in a disproportionate release of this methane that has been building up over the years. I say disproportionate because it's inaccurate to say logarithmic. It's more than linear at least.  

Of course natural processes have resulted in the sudden release of methane previously (in some cases these have been explosive releases), but it's so far in the past that it's difficult to get an idea of how rapid the effects were.  Some evidence of these explosive releases can be found in scarring just on the edge of the European continental shelf off Norway which date to the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum about 55 million years ago.
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 #343 - Nov 15th, 2011 at 3:02pm  
...
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Emma
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 9853
OZ
Gender: female
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #344 - Nov 16th, 2011 at 12:33am  
intrestin'stuffmuso
Back to top
 
live every day
 
IP Logged
 
muso
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #345 - Nov 16th, 2011 at 7:13am  
Emma wrote on Nov 16th, 2011 at 12:33am:
intrestin'stuffmuso


Think about this too: At polar latitudes, CO2 is the main greenhouse gas because water vapour is at an extremely low concentration at low temperatures.  However once the temperature starts to increase and we get areas of open sea, water vapour starts to build up in the atmosphere thus contributing to the greenhouse effect even more.  Another point is that for every 10 degrees rise in temperature after that (up to around 30 degrees C), the absolute concentration of water vapour roughly doubles.

So you can see fairly easily why circumpolar regions  have had a proportionately greater rise in temperature than other parts of the globe.
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 #346 - Nov 16th, 2011 at 7:57am  
I hope Soren comes back soon to answer these posts. Hopefully he didn't have an aneurism or something following his dummy spit elsewhere on this forum.
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: The Soren Challenge
Reply #347 - Nov 16th, 2011 at 7:25pm  
muso wrote on Nov 16th, 2011 at 7:13am:
Emma wrote on Nov 16th, 2011 at 12:33am:
intrestin'stuffmuso


Think about this too: At polar latitudes, CO2 is the main greenhouse gas because water vapour is at an extremely low concentration at low temperatures.  However once the temperature starts to increase and we get areas of open sea, water vapour starts to build up in the atmosphere thus contributing to the greenhouse effect even more.  Another point is that for every 10 degrees rise in temperature after that (up to around 30 degrees C), the absolute concentration of water vapour roughly doubles.

So you can see fairly easily why circumpolar regions  have had a proportionately greater rise in temperature than other parts of the globe.

Interesting i can use that!
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
 
Emma
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 9853
OZ
Gender: female
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #348 - Nov 16th, 2011 at 9:03pm  
which presumably accounts for the increasing break-up of the polar ice - on both Poles,  ...which we are already seeing some of the early results of, aren't we?
MMM that was a bit unwieldy

I refer to places like Kiribati, Maldives, Islands  and coastal regions around the globe being inundated as examples.
And the legendary NorthWest passage is now relatively free of ice.

This seems logical to me, and therefore there can be no denying that we are in the midst of climate change.  But I think what will make this particular
'change' diffrent from  most of the others -( except for asteroid strkes,) where the change is and will be more rapid than the 'normal' event. Much more rapid if a human can see changes - 'in their life time'.

AS WE CAN.!!  Am I wrong M - or just too simplistic.
I'm no scientist (obviously) but I am a keen observer - I would have been a 'Naturalist' had I the chance, most likely.

So I do take umbrage at caterwauling such as SoreLoser likes to screech.  Seems HIS main problem is 'human responsibility'.

To him it doesn't exist.  Like many I have heard giving forth on this ,... he hates to think WE are implicated. Like its a personal insult.
Cheesy Roll Eyes
Back to top
 
live every day
 
IP Logged
 
Soren
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 25654
Gender: male
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #349 - Nov 16th, 2011 at 10:11pm  
All that vegetation-based methane currently under permafrost - that vegetation didn't grow under the ice, presumably. There was so much warming that all that mass of vegetation was growing around what is now the Arctic permafrost. The polar caps were obviously very lush for a very long time.  Was that warming  caused by CO2?
Obviously not human generated CO2 caused that massive warming that alowed the sprouting of such massive amount of vegetation.
Was is some other CO2, volcanic and whatnot? And where did it all go to bring ion the ice age? WHat power could counter such massive CO2 induced warming? And where did it all go, all that CO2? Something must have caused the arctic jungle to freeze over and be buried under permafrost.
And when the ice age ended - although not in the polar regions - what brought that on 10,000 years ago? Couildn't be all those camp fires humans burned since their descent from the tree. Or was it?

Anyway, all that methane is what we call natural gas. We should use it. It is cheap energy. And it is a bonus that the resultant bit of CO2 is a far less potent greenhouse gas than the unused methane (aka natural gas). Gas is cheaper and better than oil and we won't run out of it for another century or three.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
muso
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #350 - Nov 17th, 2011 at 9:32am  
Soren wrote on Nov 16th, 2011 at 10:11pm:
All that vegetation-based methane currently under permafrost - that vegetation didn't grow under the ice, presumably. There was so much warming that all that mass of vegetation was growing around what is now the Arctic permafrost. The polar caps were obviously very lush for a very long time.  Was that warming  caused by CO2?
Obviously not human generated CO2 caused that massive warming that alowed the sprouting of such massive amount of vegetation.
Was is some other CO2, volcanic and whatnot? And where did it all go to bring ion the ice age? WHat power could counter such massive CO2 induced warming? And where did it all go, all that CO2? Something must have caused the arctic jungle to freeze over and be buried under permafrost.
And when the ice age ended - although not in the polar regions - what brought that on 10,000 years ago? Couildn't be all those camp fires humans burned since their descent from the tree. Or was it?

Anyway, all that methane is what we call natural gas. We should use it. It is cheap energy. And it is a bonus that the resultant bit of CO2 is a far less potent greenhouse gas than the unused methane (aka natural gas). Gas is cheaper and better than oil and we won't run out of it for another century or three.






Well the Arctic Tundra does have seasons like everywhere else. think about rapid plant growth during the short summer season, followed by decay and ice. the very surface of the Tundra is unfrozen, but underneath, we have permafrost.

Do you know how difficult it would be to use that methane? We're not talking about discrete reservoirs - we're talking about huge geographical areas with lots of localised emissions of methane.

Maybe you should read about it a bit more so that you understand the issues. I don't say that in a patronising way.

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/exhibits/biomes/tundra.php

- and please don't take a phrase out of context to promote your agenda this time.
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 #351 - Nov 17th, 2011 at 9:33am  
Emma wrote on Nov 16th, 2011 at 9:03pm:
which presumably accounts for the increasing break-up of the polar ice - on both Poles,  ...which we are already seeing some of the early results of, aren't we?
MMM that was a bit unwieldy

I refer to places like Kiribati, Maldives, Islands  and coastal regions around the globe being inundated as examples.
And the legendary NorthWest passage is now relatively free of ice.

This seems logical to me, and therefore there can be no denying that we are in the midst of climate change.  But I think what will make this particular
'change' diffrent from  most of the others -( except for asteroid strkes,) where the change is and will be more rapid than the 'normal' event. Much more rapid if a human can see changes - 'in their life time'.

AS WE CAN.!!  Am I wrong M - or just too simplistic.
I'm no scientist (obviously) but I am a keen observer - I would have been a 'Naturalist' had I the chance, most likely.

So I do take umbrage at caterwauling such as SoreLoser likes to screech.  Seems HIS main problem is 'human responsibility'.

To him it doesn't exist.  Like many I have heard giving forth on this ,... he hates to think WE are implicated. Like its a personal insult.
Cheesy Roll Eyes



You seem to be following the logic pretty well. It's not that difficult if we take time to understand it.
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 #352 - Nov 17th, 2011 at 11:43pm  
What a pickle we are in, eh?

Human contribution (or not) - the fact remains that we are currently experiencing 'weather incidents',.... unlike any others in strength, duration and impact. (Generalisation)

Of course, now there are so many people it stands to reason that many more humans will be affected by weather 'events'.

and the wheel keeps turning....... Exclaim
Back to top
 
live every day
 
IP Logged
 
Soren
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 25654
Gender: male
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #353 - Jan 9th, 2012 at 1:32pm  
Climate panic is in decline:



Twelve months ago, The Daily Climate, a website that produces and tracks media stories about climate change, declared that 2010 was “the year climate coverage ‘fell off the map.’” The downward spiral continued in 2011, a more recent analysis by the site found.

The number of articles, blog posts, editorials, and op-eds “declined roughly 20 percent from 2010’s levels and nearly 42 percent from 2009’s peak” according to a review of The Daily Climate’s global English-language media archive.


But two outlets were found to be dramatically out of step with international trends:



The Sydney Morning Herald placed sixth overall in total output, with a 21 percent jump from 2010. And the Australian Broadcasting Corporation increased its climate coverage by 60 percent.


The love media. God bless their little hand-woven earth-toned socks.


http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/index.php/dailytelegraph/commen...

Grin
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
BatteriesNotIncluded
Gold Member
*****
Offline


MediocrityNET: because
people died for this!

Posts: 26966
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #354 - Jan 9th, 2012 at 5:21pm  
Soren wrote on Nov 16th, 2011 at 10:11pm:
All that vegetation-based methane currently under permafrost - that vegetation didn't grow under the ice, presumably. There was so much warming that all that mass of vegetation was growing around what is now the Arctic permafrost. The polar caps were obviously very lush for a very long time.  Was that warming  caused by CO2?
Obviously not human generated CO2 caused that massive warming that alowed the sprouting of such massive amount of vegetation.
Was is some other CO2, volcanic and whatnot? And where did it all go to bring ion the ice age? WHat power could counter such massive CO2 induced warming? And where did it all go, all that CO2? Something must have caused the arctic jungle to freeze over and be buried under permafrost.
And when the ice age ended - although not in the polar regions - what brought that on 10,000 years ago? Couildn't be all those camp fires humans burned since their descent from the tree. Or was it?

Anyway, all that methane is what we call natural gas. We should use it. It is cheap energy. And it is a bonus that the resultant bit of CO2 is a far less potent greenhouse gas than the unused methane (aka natural gas). Gas is cheaper and better than oil and we won't run out of it for another century or three.




rates-of-change!!

Jeebus, Soren must think I"m not looking or something!

RATES OF CHANGE, SOREN,... DO YOU UNDERSTAND YET MATEY!???!  Huh Huh Huh Huh Huh Cheesy
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: The Soren Challenge
Reply #355 - Jan 9th, 2012 at 5:23pm  
Soren wrote on Jan 9th, 2012 at 1:32pm:
Climate panic is in decline:



Twelve months ago, The Daily Climate, a website that produces and tracks media stories about climate change, declared that 2010 was “the year climate coverage ‘fell off the map.’” The downward spiral continued in 2011, a more recent analysis by the site found.

The number of articles, blog posts, editorials, and op-eds “declined roughly 20 percent from 2010’s levels and nearly 42 percent from 2009’s peak” according to a review of The Daily Climate’s global English-language media archive.


But two outlets were found to be dramatically out of step with international trends:



The Sydney Morning Herald placed sixth overall in total output, with a 21 percent jump from 2010. And the Australian Broadcasting Corporation increased its climate coverage by 60 percent.


The love media. God bless their little hand-woven earth-toned socks.


http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/index.php/dailytelegraph/commen...

Grin

fmLITTLEACORN!  Roll Eyes Embarrassed Embarrassed Embarrassed Embarrassed Embarrassed Embarrassed Embarrassed Embarrassed Embarrassed Shocked Cheesy
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: The Soren Challenge
Reply #356 - Jan 9th, 2012 at 8:53pm  
muso wrote on Nov 17th, 2011 at 9:32am:
Soren wrote on Nov 16th, 2011 at 10:11pm:
All that vegetation-based methane currently under permafrost - that vegetation didn't grow under the ice, presumably. There was so much warming that all that mass of vegetation was growing around what is now the Arctic permafrost. The polar caps were obviously very lush for a very long time.  Was that warming  caused by CO2?
Obviously not human generated CO2 caused that massive warming that alowed the sprouting of such massive amount of vegetation.
Was is some other CO2, volcanic and whatnot? And where did it all go to bring ion the ice age? WHat power could counter such massive CO2 induced warming? And where did it all go, all that CO2? Something must have caused the arctic jungle to freeze over and be buried under permafrost.
And when the ice age ended - although not in the polar regions - what brought that on 10,000 years ago? Couildn't be all those camp fires humans burned since their descent from the tree. Or was it?

Anyway, all that methane is what we call natural gas. We should use it. It is cheap energy. And it is a bonus that the resultant bit of CO2 is a far less potent greenhouse gas than the unused methane (aka natural gas). Gas is cheaper and better than oil and we won't run out of it for another century or three.






Well the Arctic Tundra does have seasons like everywhere else. think about rapid plant growth during the short summer season, followed by decay and ice. the very surface of the Tundra is unfrozen, but underneath, we have permafrost.

Do you know how difficult it would be to use that methane? We're not talking about discrete reservoirs - we're talking about huge geographical areas with lots of localised emissions of methane.

Maybe you should read about it a bit more so that you understand the issues. I don't say that in a patronising way.

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/exhibits/biomes/tundra.php

- and please don't take a phrase out of context to promote your agenda this time.



How deep into the permafrost is there decaying vegetation?

Maybe we should start drilling for gas and oil in Alaska and Siberia and the Arctic, after all.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
BatteriesNotIncluded
Gold Member
*****
Offline


MediocrityNET: because
people died for this!

Posts: 26966
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #357 - Jan 9th, 2012 at 8:59pm  
Has Soren got all the good drugs or what?!!?

Roll Eyes
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
 
muso
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #358 - Jan 10th, 2012 at 10:17am  
Soren wrote on Jan 9th, 2012 at 1:32pm:
Climate panic is in decline:



Twelve months ago, The Daily Climate, a website that produces and tracks media stories about climate change, declared that 2010 was “the year climate coverage ‘fell off the map.’” The downward spiral continued in 2011, a more recent analysis by the site found.

The number of articles, blog posts, editorials, and op-eds “declined roughly 20 percent from 2010’s levels and nearly 42 percent from 2009’s peak” according to a review of The Daily Climate’s global English-language media archive.


But two outlets were found to be dramatically out of step with international trends:



The Sydney Morning Herald placed sixth overall in total output, with a 21 percent jump from 2010. And the Australian Broadcasting Corporation increased its climate coverage by 60 percent.


The love media. God bless their little hand-woven earth-toned socks.


http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/index.php/dailytelegraph/commen...

Grin


Probably a consequence of the Carbon Tax debate, I'd say. Generally people are not interested in the dire consequences of CO2 pollution (it's not just about warming) for their ancestors.

Most people don't really care what happens to the world 100 years hence or 300 years hence. 

An interesting statistic: If we suddenly stopped burning fossil fuels today, the legacy would still last at least 1000 years.
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 #359 - Jan 10th, 2012 at 3:49pm  
BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 9th, 2012 at 8:59pm:
Has Soren got all the good drugs or what?!!?

Roll Eyes


Wouldn't you like to know, huh?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
BatteriesNotIncluded
Gold Member
*****
Offline


MediocrityNET: because
people died for this!

Posts: 26966
Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #360 - Jan 10th, 2012 at 4:12pm  
barnaby joe wrote on Jan 10th, 2012 at 3:49pm:
BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 9th, 2012 at 8:59pm:
Has Soren got all the good drugs or what?!!?

Roll Eyes


Wouldn't you like to know, huh?

dRUGS ARE FOR GIRLS!

  Shocked Shocked

..have a nice day!!
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
 
Pages: 1 
Send Topic Print
‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›
 
 

  « Forum ‹ Board Top of this page

Australian Politics Forum » Powered by YaBB 2.5.2!
YaBB Forum Software © 2000-2025. All Rights Reserved.

Valid RSS Valid XHTML Valid CSS Powered by Perl Source Forge