Go Back   IceInSpace > General Astronomy > General Chat
Register FAQ Calendar Today's Posts Search

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
  #301  
Old 26-07-2014, 12:15 AM
Amaranthus's Avatar
Amaranthus (Barry)
Thylacinus stargazoculus

Amaranthus is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Judbury, Tasmania
Posts: 1,203
Quote:
What species are you? I'm a mammal, healthy air for me ends at CO2 800 ppmv. At that point advanced mammals begin to suffer acidosis of the blood as a chronic condition. This leads enviable births, birth defects and an increase in chronic diseases. 800 ppmv may not be extinction itself but it wouldn't take much more to lead to extinction.
Scientifically, that is complete nonsense - you are an order of magnitude out. Very mild intoxication (drowsiness) doesn't start to become apparent until levels exceeding 10,000 ppm.

Last edited by Amaranthus; 26-07-2014 at 12:26 AM.
  #302  
Old 26-07-2014, 12:16 AM
casstony
Registered User

casstony is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Warragul, Vic
Posts: 4,494
I've reported posts 301 and 302 so they should disappear. Hopefully no need to respond to them.
  #303  
Old 26-07-2014, 12:21 AM
2stroke's Avatar
2stroke (Jay)
The devil's advocate

2stroke is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 816
Quote:
Originally Posted by casstony View Post
I've reported posts 301 and 302 so they should disappear. Hopefully no need to respond to them.
It's good to report the truth......

Please avoid topics about global warming, race, politics or religion. These can be very sensitive topics, and people are usually very polarised about these issues; it can be very easy to take things the wrong way, creating arguments. Threads about these topics often end badly - usually being locked, with posts being deleted, or with people being upset.


This really upset me ;( Reporting the whole thread
  #304  
Old 26-07-2014, 02:36 AM
Astro_Bot's Avatar
Astro_Bot
Registered User

Astro_Bot is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 1,605
Hi Barry and wulfgar,

The levels at which effects occur - talking of humans anyway - can be variable and there are short term and long term exposure effects - and that's about the limit of my prior knowledge.

Obviously, I'm no expert - I did find a figure that suggests drowsiness could occur as low as 1000ppm, even though that's considered "normal" in some spaces, but generally "adverse health effects" start around 2500ppm. Mind you, I'm a bit mystified at how the maximum allowed 8-hour concentration is above the level at which "adverse health effects" can occur ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/co2-comfort-level-d_1024.html
Normal CO2 Levels

The effects of increased CO2 levels on adults at good health can be summarized:

normal outdoor level: 350 - 450 ppm
acceptable levels: < 600 ppm
complaints of stiffness and odors: 600 - 1000 ppm
ASHRAE and OSHA standards: 1000 ppm
general drowsiness: 1000 - 2500 ppm
adverse health effects expected: 2500 - 5000 ppm
maximum allowed concentration within a 8 hour working period: 5000 ppm

The levels above are quite normal and maximum levels may occasionally happen from time to time.

Extreme and Dangerous CO2 Levels

slightly intoxicating, breathing and pulse rate increase, nausea: 30,000 ppm
above plus headaches and sight impairment: 50,000 ppm
unconscious, further exposure death: 100,000 ppm
Still, let's not get distracted - dangerous climate change, and a whole host of related environmental effects, kick in way below the levels that directly harm humans.

BTW, I wouldn't mind some of that general drowsiness right now - I'm still up at 2:30am.
  #305  
Old 26-07-2014, 03:41 AM
wulfgar
Registered User

wulfgar is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: melbourne
Posts: 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amaranthus View Post
Scientifically, that is complete nonsense - you are an order of magnitude out. Very mild intoxication (drowsiness) doesn't start to become apparent until levels exceeding 10,000 ppm.
You should really think about things before making statements like that. Drowsiness can set in at levels like 1,200 ppmv, it depends on how much time you're exposed for. The maximum legal limit in an 8 hour shift is 5,000 ppmv.

But in all these cases you have a period of time in "fresh air" to get rid of excess CO2. "fresh air" is defined as sub 800 ppmv.

I'm not referring to the scale of warnings that relate to temporary exposure. If the entire atmosphere is 800 ppmv, then animal organisms are condemned to their life cycle. Adverse environmental conditions that are life long are what wipe out species.

At the present rate the Earth will reach 800ppmv in a couple of centuries and then climb above that. Then you can kiss Man and most mammal species good bye. All these species evolved in an atmosphere that has prevailed for the past 50 million years.

This was noted in the German scientific world in the immediate decades after Arrhenius. But Anglo-Saxon scientific culture has already passed its height and on the way to idiocracy.

People can live at 9,000 ppmv for prolonged periods, but conditions that lead to chronic malfunction are building up, this is reversed by "fresh air".

As I said, think about it!
  #306  
Old 26-07-2014, 03:56 AM
wulfgar
Registered User

wulfgar is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: melbourne
Posts: 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by Astro_Bot View Post



Still, let's not get distracted - dangerous climate change, and a whole host of related environmental effects, kick in way below the levels that directly harm humans.
There's no distraction here, "dangerous climate change" is speculation. There is no solid evidence and the alarm is based on Pascal's wager. However the 800ppmv plus condition can wipe out man with greater certainty than multiple nuclear wars.

By all means lets not be distracted by a condition that is certain to wipe out man as a species, and continue with the ones that remain speculation.
  #307  
Old 26-07-2014, 04:54 AM
Renato1 (Renato)
Registered User

Renato1 is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Frankston South
Posts: 1,283
Quote:
Originally Posted by wulfgar View Post
Vot generational period of cooling post war2?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gl...re_Anomaly.svg
This Global Cooling.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling
Cheers,
Renato
  #308  
Old 26-07-2014, 05:02 AM
Renato1 (Renato)
Registered User

Renato1 is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Frankston South
Posts: 1,283
Quote:
Originally Posted by wulfgar View Post



No that's incorrect. Gilbert Plass established for the Anglo-Western world that temperature rise would be 3 to 4 C with CO2 levels doubled and with water vapor feedback. Angstrom was found to be both empirically and theoretically incorrect on this. Angstrom's problem is he viewed atmosphere as a simple medium.......it ain't! The Germans had already worked this out much earlier but their research was lost in WW2. Unless of course somebody found them and Plass was a plagiarist?

Show me where "most everyone" is saying Plass is wrong? This is news to me!
Well, if what I said is incorrect, then the IPCC 5th Assessment Report is incorrect.

It is there in black and white - the range for Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity adopted by the IPCC is 1.5C to 4.5C. And ECS is the result of a doubling of CO2.

So, are you correct or is the IPCC correct or someone else?

I won't be spending any time defending IPCC decisions, so if you disagree with them, please refer it to them.
Cheers,
Renato
  #309  
Old 26-07-2014, 05:14 AM
Renato1 (Renato)
Registered User

Renato1 is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Frankston South
Posts: 1,283
Quote:
Originally Posted by el_draco View Post
Woops

Nothing like being a die-hard optimist....
... and you STILL haven't answered my question Renato!!??
Jeepers, you must look really hard to find Ice anomaly graphs, that try to put the worst interpretation on Arctic Ice.

The very first one that Google shows up is the one I've attached, which is exactly as what I described in my response to you.

As I said, this graph shows that the sea ice is still there and that it is recovering after a dip.
Cheers,
Renato
Attached Thumbnails
Click for full-size image (seaice.anomaly.arctic.png)
42.7 KB11 views
  #310  
Old 26-07-2014, 05:48 AM
Renato1 (Renato)
Registered User

Renato1 is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Frankston South
Posts: 1,283
Quote:
Originally Posted by andyc View Post
Originally Posted by Renato1 http://www.iceinspace.com.au/vbiis/i...s/viewpost.gif
That was 30 years of climate cooling, which lead to all sorts of alarmist dire predictions of the coming Ice Age, including a documentary by Leonard Nimoy!



This is an old chestnut, which I'm fairly sure I've pointed out to you before: Most research in the 1970s predicted warming, and there is even a paper documenting this - Peterson et al 2008. Between 1965 and 1979, just 7 papers predicted global cooling, while 42 predicted warming. Read more about it here. Maybe Leonard Nimoy fronted a documentary, and there were cerainly articles in popular magazines like Newsweek, but the scientific community expected the world to continue warming. Guess what ... they were right!
.

Darn you are making it hard for me to reply to you Andy - when I hit reply with quote, your quote doesn't come up, and I have to figure work arounds!

Good sidestepping of the issue - you quote 30 years at me as being required for measuring climate, I point out the whole heating scare got started on less than 14 years, and that it didn't even run for more than 23 years before it petered out - and you don't address it.

Instead you go over old ground about the global cooling alarmism that you claim scientists weren't involved with.

As I pointed out to you last time, Wikipedia covers it well
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

And the notion that scientists weren't involved with it are preposterous.
Regards,
Renato
  #311  
Old 26-07-2014, 06:10 AM
Renato1 (Renato)
Registered User

Renato1 is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Frankston South
Posts: 1,283
Quote:
Originally Posted by andyc View Post
And Renato and I both know that there are measurements for the ocean down to 2000m (Levitus et al 2012), and the IPCC figure I posted earlier), to which Renato has been pointed more than once. This contains almost all the energy measured when we talk about the Earth having accumulated more heat in the past 15 year than in the previous 15 years - measured heat, not inferred, or guessed or imagined. The heat is not only directly observed, but also manifests itself as sea level rise, which continues to rise rapidly. If the oceans had stopped accumulating heat, we would expect to see a massive deceleration within that graph. Why do you continue repeating debunked myths, Renato? .
Andy,
Both you and I know that 2000m is not the deep ocean, and if all the missing energy were in the water down to 2000m depth, the 5th Assessment Report would have said so, loudly. But they didn't because it can't be accounted for to that depth, which is why they surmised it went into the deep ocean where there aren't any measurements.

I recollect citing reference to the missing heat being in theDeep Ocean in AR5 in our last discussion, and all you could do was give me Cook's supposition's at Skepticalscience. I'll be happy for you to find where in AR5 the IPCC backs up Cook's claim and your claim above that the missing heat is at 2000m depth and above. As far as I am concerned, you have debunked as much as last time - zilch, because you haven't supported it with anything.

Back to the Hiatus.
Last time we discussed this over a month ago, you claimed the Hiatus was definitely accounted for by heat not staying in the atmosphere and mysteriously going into the ocean. Which you re-iterate above.

And then you go along with Hansen and the aerosols/ particulates.

And five pages of posts back, you assert the Hiatus is definitely accounted for by ENSO noise.

Have you noticed that you are backing three entirely different things? Yes, two are somewhat related (water), but they are different mechanisms.

What are you going to be backing as the cause of the Hiatus next month?

Oh, and I forgot, you also claim there is no Hiatus and that it's cherry picking - so what does the heat in the oceans and the aerosols/particulates have to do with something that supposedly doesn't exist?
Cheers,
Renato
  #312  
Old 26-07-2014, 06:14 AM
Renato1 (Renato)
Registered User

Renato1 is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Frankston South
Posts: 1,283
Quote:
Originally Posted by andyc View Post
How, for the love of clear skies, do you get glacial-interglacial changes with a climate sensitivity of less than 1.5C/doubling? Palaeoclimate does not work with low climate sensitivity. The forcing for glacial-interglacial change is both understood (orbital), and small, and provide the pacing for changes like glacial-interglacial cycles. CO2 and other feedbacks amplify this process, providing the variations (e.g. Shakun et al 2012). And watch Richard Alley's lecture about CO2 acting as a teperature control knob too. He's politically a Republican, but one of the best science communicators on the planet, and a great scientist.

Go and re-read Knutti and Hegerl (2008) - another one I've pointed you to multiple times, and go and re-read Figure 3A, and please, please do come back and tell me that it's only "computer modellers at the IPCC" who suggest sensitivities above 2C/doubling. Because then I will know how honest you are with your assertions... .
Hi Andy,
Given that the IPCC now give a range for ECS of 1.5C to 4.5C in AR5, perhaps you can take it up with them why the 1.5C figure is rubbish.
No point arguing it with me, I don't want to defend the IPCC.
Regards,
Renato
  #313  
Old 26-07-2014, 06:22 AM
Renato1 (Renato)
Registered User

Renato1 is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Frankston South
Posts: 1,283
..

Last edited by Renato1; 26-07-2014 at 07:23 AM.
  #314  
Old 26-07-2014, 06:45 AM
Renato1 (Renato)
Registered User

Renato1 is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Frankston South
Posts: 1,283
Quote:
Originally Posted by andyc View Post
Again with the cherry-picked El Nino of 1998! Are you under the impression that El Nino events do not lead to a temporay high in annual temperatures? And you are unaware that starting a short timeseries from an extreme high in the noise will skew the trend? Why are all the La Nina years since 2001 warmer than the El Nino years before 1998? Could there be an underlying trend that you refuse to see? A trend that is plainly evident if you use 30 years from 1984 to 2014. And a trend for which we have a very strong physical understanding of the cause .
Hi Andy,
Using the end point of now and working back gives a valid trend.

See attached RSS satellite dataset. The zero trend goes back 17 years and 10 months to before 1998. And there hasn't been any statistically significant warming for 26 years using that dataset.

I didn't notice the 1998 El Nino figure being disregarded by the warmist alarmists at the time - did you accuse them of cherry-picking? Weren't they measuring the trend to the then end point?

Well, how about we just entirely disregard the 1998 figure?

We're then left with 15 or 16 years of zero warming by the RSS dataset attached. Where's the cherry-picking?

You say, "A trend that is plainly evident if you use 30 years from 1984 to 2014."

You seem to be in entire disagreement with the IPCC who refer to an "Hiatus" - which means a pause or gap in continuity.
Regards,
Renato
Attached Thumbnails
Click for full-size image (17y10m.JPG)
50.1 KB8 views
  #315  
Old 26-07-2014, 07:22 AM
Renato1 (Renato)
Registered User

Renato1 is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Frankston South
Posts: 1,283
Quote:
Originally Posted by andyc View Post
Originally Posted by Renato1 View Post
Regardless, the super computer models are supposed to predict. … But as I stated, 95% have fallen apart predicting the future. It is all very nice to predict after the event that "ENSO "Noise"" is the cause of the pause that nobody predicted before it happened. Was there any mention in AR1 through to AR4 that this was likely?


Another fail by you, and not by the models. Just because you hadn't grasped this does not mean that the science community hadn't grasped this. None of the CMIP5 models have "failed". Have you ever looked at individual climate model runs? Did you know that they are not smooth warming trends where each year is warmer than the last? None have ever been like that. Each one has "pauses" every time modelled El Nino-dominated phases are followed by the reverse, just like we see in the real world. A cold fortnight in October doesn’t invalidate the progression of Spring But because ENSO is not a regular oscillatory process (like the annual cycle), it is not predictable, and so each model run has highs and lows in different places about the underlying trend. Warmer periods were dominated by El Nino, cooler years by La Nina, just like the real world. We expect big El Nino years to be towars the upper band of modelled variation, and big La Ninas to be towards the lower bounds. Earth's actual climate is effectively one single model run, where the years centred on 1998 were above the trend, and recent years were below the trend, due to the prevailing phase of ENSO. What do you think will happen when we next get one or more El Nino years? Where did the extra heat come from?

Actually, since we've just had the hottest April, the hottest May, and the hottest June on record as a result of some very marginal El Nino-like conditions in the Pacific, I think you know the answer to that one. Previous record-setters were after full-blown El Ninos, such as 2010.
Hi Andy,
All the models give an upper and lower bound to their predictions. The models which I say have failed all have lower bound predicted temperatures which are higher that what we have actually had now for 15 years or so. Only two of them still have lower bound predicted temperatures which accord with actual observation.

You say all the models haven't failed - presumably you mean they are correct. I'd love to know what you think would qualify as them ever being incorrect, since prediction not being in accord with observation doesn't appear to be a criterion.

Are you trying to misdirect by pointing to the hottest April, May and June on record? I mean it sounds impressive, but it misdirects from the obvious - by the models, they and all the other months, on average, should have been hotter.

Or may it not also have been pertinent to point out that. for example, what you linked to was not the definitive "record"? May 2014 for example, was indeed the hottest for the NOAA, but was only the third warmest for the UAH Satellite dataset and sixth warmest for the RSS satellite dataset.
http://www.reportingclimatescience.c...lite-data.html

The notion you express that the El Nino Southern Oscillation cannot be modelled into predictions is absurd. It is a recurrent event. One must be able to assign a probability to its occurrence, and a probability to its strength, and model those. Computer modelling is all about putting all those known probabilities into the models - it least it was when I was doing a post graduate Diploma in Operations Research. Maybe things have changed?
Regards,
Renato
  #316  
Old 26-07-2014, 07:56 AM
wulfgar
Registered User

wulfgar is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: melbourne
Posts: 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renato1 View Post
Well, if what I said is incorrect, then the IPCC 5th Assessment Report is incorrect.

It is there in black and white - the range for Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity adopted by the IPCC is 1.5C to 4.5C. And ECS is the result of a doubling of CO2.

So, are you correct or is the IPCC correct or someone else?

I won't be spending any time defending IPCC decisions, so if you disagree with them, please refer it to them.
Cheers,
Renato
Sorry, please show the "almost everyone" you claim? The vast majority in the report concur with Plass.

There was one model which claimed a climate sensitivity of 1.5 C. How does one report become "almost everyone" I would be fascinated to know?
If you said one guy claims 1.5C I would've agreed with you. But you exaggerated and one report for you equals "almost everyone".
  #317  
Old 26-07-2014, 08:04 AM
wulfgar
Registered User

wulfgar is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: melbourne
Posts: 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renato1 View Post
Andy,
Both you and I know that 2000m is not the deep ocean, and if all the missing energy were in the water down to 2000m depth, the 5th Assessment Report would have said so, loudly. But they didn't because it can't be accounted for to that depth, which is why they surmised it went into the deep ocean where there aren't any measurements.

I recollect citing reference to the missing heat being in theDeep Ocean in AR5 in our last discussion, and all you could do was give me Cook's supposition's at Skepticalscience. I'll be happy for you to find where in AR5 the IPCC backs up Cook's claim and your claim above that the missing heat is at 2000m depth and above. As far as I am concerned, you have debunked as much as last time - zilch, because you haven't supported it with anything.
Renato, general ocean below 2000 meters as a static medium will neither heat or cool under normal range conditions. You seem to be unaware of that? If energy is applied to it then that must turn into movement.
  #318  
Old 26-07-2014, 08:04 AM
el_draco (Rom)
Politically incorrect.

el_draco is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Tasmania (South end)
Posts: 2,315
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renato1 View Post
Jeepers, you must look really hard to find Ice anomaly graphs, that try to put the worst interpretation on Arctic Ice.

The very first one that Google shows up is the one I've attached, which is exactly as what I described in my response to you.

As I said, this graph shows that the sea ice is still there and that it is recovering after a dip.
Cheers,
Renato
Draw a line of best fit on the graph you have provided AND THE TREND IS DOWN !! Your graph also stops at 2008 where there was a miniscule spike. The ice plummeted again after that. Please refer to the 3 graphs I attached

ARE YOU BLIND?????

... and YOU STILL HAVE NOT ANSWERED MY QUESTION Renato
  #319  
Old 26-07-2014, 08:22 AM
sheeny's Avatar
sheeny (Al)
Spam Hunter

sheeny is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Oberon NSW
Posts: 14,438
Once again guys, these sort of discussions rarely end well. If you really want to get into these climate, religion, political type discussions, perhaps find a more suitable forum.

The thread is closed.

Al.
Closed Thread

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +10. The time is now 09:57 PM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.8.7 | Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Advertisement
Bintel
Advertisement