Australian Politics Forum - Real Scepticism only

Vuk11

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1797
QLD
Gender: male

Real Scepticism only
Sep 16^th, 2013 at 9:56pm

muso wrote on Sep 16^th, 2013 at 9:22pm:

Atmospheric science itself is sound

I disagree with that, only to a small degree though.

After the whole "stop posting blogs and show us peer reviewed literature", I have been reading these papers abstracts (as I don't have the authority to read them in full), they say things like how they are only just now considering that the climate drivers are not independent that they indeed effect each other, and that information on solar irradiance isn't conclusive. As far as solar irradiance goes, it seems that only just now, are they getting the information they have needed for many years.

I am mainly skeptical on the interpretation of the data/papers by the IPCC , or at least the interpretation they tell us.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Sep 20^th, 2013 at 3:33pm by muso »

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Off Topic posts
Reply #1 - Sep 17^th, 2013 at 8:48am

I'd like to discuss this with you. It's probably best to start a new thread. If you can appreciate this, then I think we can dismiss the usual Christopher Monckton/ Nils Axel Morner and Willy Soon nonsense and just stick to the science.

Before doing that, you do realise the structure of the IPCC and how much it's worth financially in terms of assets? It's quite a loose confederation.

Back to top

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

IP Logged

Vuk11

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1797
QLD
Gender: male

Re: Off Topic posts
Reply #2 - Sep 17^th, 2013 at 12:12pm

Just from a quick skim, you haven't started that new thread yet?

One thing that was bugging me last night, if you can clarify. (well sort of two)

With the ocean warming and acidifcation, do they need to be at certain depth to effect these ecosystems?

What I mean is, if the leaked draft is is correct and the readings are correct this time around (assuming they've fixed Argo or using a different method), the report reads:

"Largest warming is found near the sea surface (>0.1°C per decade in the upper 75 m), decreasing to about 0.015°C per decade by 700 m, for the time period 1971 to 2010. It is likely that the deep ocean has warmed below 3000 m depth since the 1990s. The global ocean has warmed at a rate of <0.01°C per decade below 4000 m over this time interval."

If the majority of this slight warming trend effect mainly the surface, to such a small degree, over a long period of time would this even effect say organisms on the sea bed?

Then also with the acidification, does this occur at different depths also or does the whole ocean lose it's ph and effect all organisms?

There were a few things in the report mentions that before, as far as solar forcing went, they were only considering TSI? (Solar irradiance)?, but are now considering new factors?
They also fail to mention these new factors later on and include the usual dismissal of TSI.

Cheers.

Back to top

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Off Topic posts
Reply #3 - Sep 20^th, 2013 at 11:26am

Vuk,

Here is an example of a newspaper report of a scientific paper. I've deliberately chosen something totally outside climate change as an exercise. For me, this report has my BS meter ringing all the alarm bells. It would be interesting to compare notes.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/technology/sci-tech/british-scientists-claim-to-ha...
Quote:

British scientists claim to have found proof of alien life

Quote:

A TEAM of British scientists is convinced it has found proof of alien life, after it harvested strange organisms from the edge of space.

The scientists came to the startling conclusion after a balloon sent 27 kilometres into the stratosphere came back carrying small biological organisms believed to have originated from space.

Professor Milton Wainwright, of the University of Sheffield’s Department of Molecular Biology and Biotechnology, says he is "95 per cent convinced" the organisms do not originate from Earth.

"By all known information that science has, we know that they must be coming in from space," he said. "There is no known mechanism by which these life forms can achieve that height. As far as we can tell from known physics, they must be incoming.

MORE: Download the full study here

"If life does continue to arrive from space then we have to completely change our view of biology and evolution. New textbooks will have to be written!

Quote:

The group of scientists involved in the study believes the particles are coming from comets, which are large balls of ice travelling through space at high speed. The samples were collected during a meteorite show, when a comet melted and released the organisms as it broke down.

"The particles are very clean," added Professor Wainwright. "[Cosmic] dust isn't stuck to them, so we think they came from an aquatic environment, and the most obvious aquatic environment in space is a comet.”

The organisms probably contain DNA, supporting the notion that life on Earth may itself have extraterrestrial origins.

We think they came from an aquatic environment. Why? Where is the supporting evidence?

Probably contain DNA? They have either done they tests, in which case they would say that it contains DNA or have not done any tests, in which case it's pure speculation.

The other thing that doesn't surprise me given this shambolic and combobulated "study" is the fact that it rings of Prof. Chandra Wickramasinghe, but I can't say that. I can only think it.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Sep 20^th, 2013 at 11:41am 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:	Re: Off Topic posts Reply #4 - Sep 20^th, 2013 at 3:31pm Off-Topic replies have been moved to this Topic.
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: Off Topic posts
Reply #5 - Sep 17^th, 2013 at 3:06pm

Vuk11 wrote on Sep 17^th, 2013 at 12:12pm:

With the ocean warming and acidifcation, do they need to be at certain depth to effect these ecosystems?

What I mean is, if the leaked draft is is correct and the readings are correct this time around (assuming they've fixed Argo or using a different method), the report reads:

"Largest warming is found near the sea surface (>0.1°C per decade in the upper 75 m), decreasing to about 0.015°C per decade by 700 m, for the time period 1971 to 2010. It is likely that the deep ocean has warmed below 3000 m depth since the 1990s. The global ocean has warmed at a rate of <0.01°C per decade below 4000 m over this time interval."

If the majority of this slight warming trend effect mainly the surface, to such a small degree, over a long period of time would this even effect say organisms on the sea bed?

Oceanography is not my field, but I'll do my best. I guess you've answered the question yourself to some extent. The warming effect and the acidification effect tend to affect mainly the top oceanic "mixed layer" . The mixed layer varies depending on season and location. For example, the Coral Sea has a mixed layer depth of 20 to 60 metres, whereas for parts of the Southern Ocean, it's as much as 140 metres. This affects the efficiency of the carbon sink to some extent (storms are a good thing in a way), and it depends on storm severity. Increased storm severity results in a deeper mixed layer.

Will the ocean bed eventually warm? Well the fossil record shows that it will. There have been studies of Ocean floor temperatures using oxygen isotope studies in carbonates which show that Ocean floor temperatures of up to 4 degrees higher than those of today during the PETM (Paleocene Eocene Thermal Maximum). This occurred over a very short geological period of around 20,000 years. (but not as rapid as today's spike)

This period was associated with the release of methane clathrates and extinction of certain organisms that lived on the sea bed (benthic foraminifera (forams for short). I wouldn't worry about that for several thousand years.

Quote:

There were a few things in the report mentions that before, as far as solar forcing went, they were only considering TSI? (Solar irradiance)?, but are now considering new factors?
They also fail to mention these new factors later on and include the usual dismissal of TSI.

Cheers.

TSI is Total Solar Irradiance. The two main authorities on this are PMOD in Davos, Switzerland and the Max Planck institute in Belgium .

I'll read the final report when it's issued later this month. I'm just guessing here, but another possible effect to consider is the reverse greenhouse effect caused by incident broad spectrum radiation from major solar storm activity. It's a very minor effect, but I guess they are trying to improve precision.

I suppose you've seen the graphs of TSI from PMOD? There was a discrepancy of 5 Wm-2 between the Acrimsat readings and the earlier Nimbus 7 and ERBS results, known as the ACRIM Gap. There has been some recent work done in that area to tie in the datasets.

(edit - fixed some terrible typos)

Back to top

« Last Edit: Sep 17^th, 2013 at 4:27pm by muso »

mld_mean.jpg (76 KB | 62 )

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

IP Logged

Vuk11 Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 1797 QLD Gender:	Re: Off Topic posts Reply #6 - Sep 17^th, 2013 at 3:23pm Cheers muso.
Back to top	IP Logged

muso Gold Member Offline Posts: 13151 Gladstone, Queensland Gender:	Re: Real Scepticism only Reply #7 - Sep 20^th, 2013 at 3:39pm Bump for reply 3.
Back to top	1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not IP Logged

Vuk11

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1797
QLD
Gender: male

Re: Real Scepticism only
Reply #8 - Oct 23^rd, 2013 at 2:02pm

Is there any "required reading" so to speak regarding climate feedback? I see positive/negative skimmed over lightly in most presentations and I was wondering what the below graph means (if anything) to you guys?

The claim is that there is observable negative feedback, during predictions of positive feedback. I hear a lot the "positive feedback fact", yet I've never had a solid reply to this graph or an explanation of what an observed negative feedback would mean in contrary to a PF prediction.

Still reading through the fifth assessment report myself, has anyone comes across anything about feedbacks and also population predictions? There is a declining fertility rate that will allow us to reach a peak population and then trail off, I wonder if anyone (IPCC/NIPCC/ Peer reviewed paper whatever) has looked into the effects a population drop would have.

Cheers.

PS. Muso were you still waiting for a reply to any of the above posts? I read through them a while ago and it was really helpful but not "concrete" so to speak.

Back to top

negative_feedback_002.jpg (66 KB | 53 )

IP Logged

Vuk11

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1797
QLD
Gender: male

Re: Off Topic posts
Reply #9 - Oct 23^rd, 2013 at 2:11pm

muso wrote on Sep 17^th, 2013 at 3:06pm:

Will the ocean bed eventually warm? Well the fossil record shows that it will. There have been studies of Ocean floor temperatures using oxygen isotope studies in carbonates which show that Ocean floor temperatures of up to 4 degrees higher than those of today during the PETM (Paleocene Eocene Thermal Maximum). This occurred over a very short geological period of around 20,000 years. (but not as rapid as today's spike)

This period was associated with the release of methane clathrates and extinction of certain organisms that lived on the sea bed (benthic foraminifera (forams for short). I wouldn't worry about that for several thousand years.

From what I remember one of the fears was a temperature and acidity rise in oceans killing plankton and effectively killing the ocean/anything that relies on it as far as the whole chain goes.

Is the acidity an issue for plankton or am I missing something?

Also I remember a post some time ago mentioning the fourth assessment report having a list that you would consider the main concerns of AGW? Is that correct and also what claims would you consider from Gore and from skeptics to be "ridiculous" like not even worth talking about. The reason I ask that last part is because that would save a lot of time, due to everyone posting graph after graph and if the graphs are pointless due to 100% "debunked" claims then it's a waste of time.

Cheers

Back to top

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Real Scepticism only
Reply #10 - Oct 23^rd, 2013 at 2:26pm

I have no idea what claims Al Gore makes. Who the hell is Al Gore and how on earth is he relevant?

Anyway, I think that the issue you're talking about is anoxic oceans - The increase in anoxia in various places around the world and the emission of hydrogen sulphide as a result.

These are real risks, but I doubt if anybody would be willing to put a tentative timeline on it.

The clathrate bomb hypothesis is another separate issue and there is a great deal of research happening on the subject of the PETM. THe Eocene thermal maximum is thought to hold some clues on all of this.

All the projections seem to be to 2100, but we should be looking beyond that.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Oct 23^rd, 2013 at 2:33pm by muso »

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

IP Logged

Vuk11

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1797
QLD
Gender: male

Re: Real Scepticism only
Reply #11 - Oct 23^rd, 2013 at 2:51pm

muso wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2013 at 2:26pm:

I have no idea what claims Al Gore makes. Who the hell is Al Gore and how on earth is he relevant?

Anyway, I think that the issue you're talking about is anoxic oceans - The increase in anoxia in various places around the world and the emission of hydrogen sulphide as a result.

These are real risks, but I doubt if anybody would be willing to put a tentative timeline on it.

The clathrate bomb hypothesis is another separate issue and there is a great deal of research happening on the subject of the PETM. THe Eocene thermal maximum is thought to hold some clues on all of this.

All the projections seem to be to 2100, but we should be looking beyond that.

Cheers for that.

The only relevance Mr Gore has is "The inconvenient truth" that has caused so much hysteria and clouded what was once I'm guessing a normal science with political spin and fear. It doesn't help people that are genuinely worried when you've got randoms like this guy saying by 2013 snow would be a thing of the past.....because when he gets discredited it becomes a "fallacy fallacy" where since Mr Gore is wrong therefore climate scientists are wrong. I admit I tend to fall for that same fallacy due to people citing the same fears Gore did, the same with any failings of the IPCC. (maybe the hardest fallacy not to commit in this subject because they are THE prominent figures)

Back to top

IP Logged