Go  |
New |
Find |
Notify |
|
Reply |
|
Admin |
New PM! |
|
I was hoping for a scientific explanation, not a theological one!
¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸ buzz buzz buzz¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸
|
| |
|
|
OK - I guess that means you don't worry because you don't really care what happens as a result of your actions...
¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸ buzz buzz buzz¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Lucibee:
I was hoping for a scientific explanation, not a theological one!
Actually, I think it's more psychobabble that theology. |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by TrueSceptic: quote: Originally posted by Lucibee:
I was hoping for a scientific explanation, not a theological one!
Actually, I think it's more psychobabble that theology.
than, of course. It's such a pain that we have no edit ability here, or preview for that matter. |
| |
|
|
Lucibee.
I think you are looking for a more 'physical science' based explanation than the 'human response' synopsis than Roger58 is offering. I'll do my best.
First of all, the 800-1000 year CO2 lag that you indicate is a theoretical time scale for the process of 'flushing' CO2 from 'deep ocean currents' and is caused by the increase of insolation on the warming phase of the Milankovich Cycle (planetary warming). It is a completely 'natural' phenomenon that may help to explain events directly 'after', or 'ending', an ice age as the planet warms. It's based on the physical property of water that dictates a lower ability for water to hold CO2 'diffused' into it as the water gets warmer.
The CO2 lag from ice core samples show that CO2 is a feedback during this period, but there is also the theory that at some time near the end of this period the CO2 (water vapour too) generates a temperature 'forcing', as their gas mix ratios increase, and complete the end of the ice age. To me it all seems like a forcing from 'Milankovich phase warming' with differing extra 'amplifiers' in the feedback. However, those amplifiers' positive sensitivities increase on a log with temperature rise and may be some cause for concern should CO2 ever lead temperature rise, but water vapour and water seem to set a limiting influence here.
I guess Roger58 isn't worried about an ice age while there is so much CO2 floating around, but the ice core sample theories give insight to the natural effects so as to help decide which levels of CO2 are anthropogenic. If I'm wrong in this somewhere, I'm sure someone will point out where.
Hope this helps.
Best regards, suricat.
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Lucibee:
OK - I guess that means you don't worry because you don't really care what happens as a result of your actions...
As far as I'm aware, Lucibee, my reply means nothing more, or less, than what it says. To re-arrange your words, it means that I don't act because I don't really care what happens as a result of your worrying. Your can be as alarmed or worried as you want (or as you can bear), or you can attempt to find the cause of those responses so that your capacity for alarm becomes a bit more resilient to other people exploiting it to manipulate you into taking actions you don't want to. After all, who wants to save the world? - there are far more pleasurable things to be doing with it. (But then, people who are worried at taking pleasure might not be able to come up with anything better to do with the world than constantly trying to save it... and by making themselves so conscientious in this, hope no one will notice what's missing about them.) I can only wonder if your wanting to devalue our scientific enquiry into human nature and 'alarm' by dismissing it as theology, hedonism or (in the case of TrueSceptic) psychobabble, is in fact an attempt to protect the real cause of your alarm by sabotaging its chance of being discovered. In a conversation all about safety, if may feel safer to stick with CO2. |
| |
|
|
Thanks, suricat. My point was that the data do seem to indicate that CO2 is starting to precede temperature increases, which might in turn indicate that we could be about to come out of our "ice age". I would think this is a cause for concern whether it is natural or not - but possibly more so if it is anthropogenic. As for Roger58, he seems to be wrapped up in his own little world and is unable to see beyond the questioner - let alone the question!
¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸ buzz buzz buzz¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸
|
| |
|
|
Lucibee. quote:
My point was that the data do seem to indicate that CO2 is starting to precede temperature increases, which might in turn indicate that we could be about to come out of our "ice age".
Well the last time I posted on CO2 lead/lag the gods deleted my post, so I'll not make any link on this. I don't know which data lead you to this conclusion, but we are certainly 'not' in an ice age. From my understanding temperatures show a 'dirty signal' of increase due to a variety of 'forcings', but CO2 increase shows a fairly steady incline. Does this not strongly suggest that CO2 is increasing steadily to 'normalise' itself with temperatures? As for Roger58. I think Rog has everyone's best welfare at heart, but just can't let go of that 'mothering' instinct and let people make their own mistakes.  Best regards, suricat. |
| |
|
|
quote: we are certainly 'not' in an ice age.
I think you'll find that we are in the interglacial period of an ice age.
¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸ buzz buzz buzz¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by suricat: As for Roger58. I think Rog has everyone's best welfare at heart, but just can't let go of that 'mothering' instinct and let people make their own mistakes.
Very close, suricat. All I have had to say points to the opposite - it is the 'mothered instinct'... or more precisely, the 'desire to be mothered', I am revealing as a factor behind the AGW panic. Lucibee's 'alarm' (and its corresponding claim to helplessness) can be easily recognised as an insistent demand for the return of a parental authority figure to calm her fright and take away the chaos it makes (babies are our best experts at raising the alarm!). Knowing this, the question becomes: would it be a big mistake to attempt to meet Lucibee's "need" knowing the person is in fact a grown up? Lucibee continually refuses encouragement to participate in any exchange in which the need can be looked at and met in a more adult way... a refusal that keeps the need, and its insistence on a mothered-response, alive. And this is a ploy we see over and over again on this science forum (and others)... Adults diverting attention towards an un-resolvably complex, half-cooked soup of AGW riddles and fuzzy data and claiming it contains the justification for their urgent demand to be mothered. It's telling to recognise in a debate about science and nature - and specifically man's relationship to nature - the nature of man is completely ignored. In Man-Made-Global-Warming, the science of the 'making', the 'global' and the 'warming' are looked at and picked over in the most minute forensic detail... the science of man goes completely ignored. No doubt, if we were studying Orangutan-Made-Global-Warming, a credible and thorough science of Orangutan nature and behaviour would be INCLUDED as essential to our understanding of the problem. |
| |
|
|
Dash it they removed the link! Anyway, in case you didn't see it before it was purged, we are still in the midst of an ice age (albeit a slightly warmer period or interglacial) that has been going on for the past 50 million years. During that time, there have been many fluctuations in and out of the depths of the cold (aforementioned Milankovitch cycles). From what I can glean, it seems that the warmest it has been while life has existed on the surface of the Earth is about 4 degrees warmer than it is now. I hope that puts our 0.8 degree increase in the last 100 years into perspective somewhat. Given that our entire existence (5 million years or so) has been during a period of relative cool, I would guess any concern is about how we would cope if things get very much hotter. I have no doubt that some of us will - but given our wonderful ability to adapt, and our potential to mould and destroy, correct and master - maybe we should be concentrating on trying to reverse the process? I suppose we are as natural as anything else on the planet - but with understanding comes responsibility...
¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸ buzz buzz buzz¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Roger58: quote: Originally posted by suricat: As for Roger58. I think Rog has everyone's best welfare at heart, but just can't let go of that 'mothering' instinct and let people make their own mistakes.
Very close, suricat. All I have had to say points to the opposite - it is the 'mothered instinct'... or more precisely, the 'desire to be mothered', I am revealing as a factor behind the AGW panic. Lucibee's 'alarm' (and its corresponding claim to helplessness) can be easily recognised as an insistent demand for the return of a parental authority figure to calm her fright and take away the chaos it makes (babies are our best experts at raising the alarm!). Knowing this, the question becomes: would it be a big mistake to attempt to meet Lucibee's "need" knowing the person is in fact a grown up? Lucibee continually refuses encouragement to participate in any exchange in which the need can be looked at and met in a more adult way... a refusal that keeps the need, and its insistence on a mothered-response, alive. And this is a ploy we see over and over again on this science forum (and others)... Adults diverting attention towards an un-resolvably complex, half-cooked soup of AGW riddles and fuzzy data and claiming it contains the justification for their urgent demand to be mothered. It's telling to recognise in a debate about science and nature - and specifically man's relationship to nature - the nature of man is completely ignored. In Man-Made-Global-Warming, the science of the 'making', the 'global' and the 'warming' are looked at and picked over in the most minute forensic detail... the science of man goes completely ignored. No doubt, if we were studying Orangutan-Made-Global-Warming, a credible and thorough science of Orangutan nature and behaviour would be INCLUDED as essential to our understanding of the problem.
Wow Roger. |
| |
|
|
Sorry to push in on this amusing psychobable,thanks Luciee for posting the IPCC graph link, even though it was not for me and I saw it before it was removed.
My immediate observation from this plot is that the IPCC has confirmed that the "Mediaeval Warm Period" and the "Little Ice Age" look to be independant of atmospheric CO2 concentrations and must have been dependant on other climate factors.
Can someone confirm that the IPCC climate model(s) do or do not take into account the heat flow out from the Earth? This has been measured and is around 44 trillion watts, with over half of the heat flow through the oceanic lithosphere. Most of the heat flow is concentrated along the oceanic plate spreading centres. I have had a brief look at the IPCC physical science summary and could not find any reference to this particular heat flow into the environment.
|
| |
|
|
Suricat
Thanks for your response(4 Nov) to my posting. No time to investigate yet. What I am getting at is that it appears to me the accuracy of measurement of global temperature required to make assertions regarding temperature variations year on year for the whole planet are questionable. Just one particular point, are the thermometers on land used to measure temperature ALL calibrated against a standard and agreed reference?
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Lucibee:
I suppose we are as natural as anything else on the planet
Is that fascinating insight the result of detailed scientific research? quote: - but with understanding comes responsibility...
...and the refusal to understand human nature sustains irresponsibility. quote: Originally posted by realprimate:
Wow Roger
One widely-observed human behaviour pattern in the age-group we are talking about is a refusal to use words as a means of negotiation. Words present a real problem if the expressed demand is to sustain a mothering authority figure (in whatever guise it takes through life). This is because words are the primary tool of development... and development, of course, is the saboteur of the "need" to be mothered. |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Roger58:
and the refusal to understand human nature sustains irresponsibility.
Rog, do you mean an irresponsible refusal to understand your view of human nature. Mother fixations included? |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Seskinreay:
Rog, do you mean an irresponsible refusal to understand your view of human nature. Mother fixations included?
Partly Seskinreay, I would be happy to understand anyone else's view of human nature. At the moment though, it's curiously absent from a scientific enquiry into humans and nature. Suspicious, don't you think? As TrueSceptic and Geoman helpfully point out... words that are not understood sound like 'babble' (whether the lack of understanding is a refusal or a difficulty). And in an exchange about mothers and babies, it's worth remembering that to babies ALL words sound like babble. |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Roger58: quote: Originally posted by Lucibee:
I suppose we are as natural as anything else on the planet
Is that fascinating insight the result of detailed scientific research? quote: - but with understanding comes responsibility...
...and the refusal to understand human nature sustains irresponsibility. quote: Originally posted by realprimate:
Wow Roger
One widely-observed human behaviour pattern in the age-group we are talking about is a refusal to use words as a means of negotiation. Words present a real problem if the expressed demand is to sustain a mothering authority figure (in whatever guise it takes through life). This is because words are the primary tool of development... and development, of course, is the saboteur of the "need" to be mothered.
Phew. Doublewow. |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by realprimate:
Phew. Doublewow.
If only we could keep him quiet with a dummy (pacifier).  |
| |
|
|
quote: What I am getting at is that it appears to me the accuracy of measurement of global temperature required to make assertions regarding temperature variations year on year for the whole planet are questionable. Just one particular point, are the thermometers on land used to measure temperature ALL calibrated against a standard and agreed reference?
To establish a temperature and a trend in the temperature you need to take readings in a uniform way over decades and centuries. One can do ones best in calibrating thermometers, ensuring they're used correctly, that the readings are taken at the right time and that the environment in which they live is standardised. But adjustments have to be made because it is impossible to perfectly standardise such readings over a long time. Comparing, contrasting and looking for errors in the temperature measurements is an area of science in itself. Mainly it consists of comparing nearby temperature measurements to look for those that change anomalously (eg. because the equipment has been changed or a nearby town has grown causing an urban heat island). |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by TrueSceptic: quote: Originally posted by realprimate:
Phew. Doublewow.
If only we could keep him quiet with a dummy (pacifier).
I think I'm beginning to se the light. Quick - run! |
| |
|
|
I guess I'll just have to stop trying to understand why those who don't seem to understand don't understand what I think I understand...
¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸ buzz buzz buzz¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸
|
| |
|
|
