The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Time for a breath of fresh air > Comments

Time for a breath of fresh air : Comments

By Richard Denniss, published 30/4/2010

Penny Wong’s political strategy for climate change is finally becoming clear.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All
quanda - actually no and yes. I'm interested in the comment that I don't understand the different scenarios - I'm not sure there is much to understand one way or another - but SERES can certainly do with an update. The reason it has not been updated, I suspect, is that the result would be to lower expected increases in CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. Large, well funded and professionally angry groups don't want to hear about concentrations being far less than expected. For example, on present trends there is no way CO2 concentrations will double by 2100 and methane concentrations are not moving at all. Hence, even if we agree with the climate models, no two degree increase in temperatures.. what would be really embarrasing is CO2 concentrations falling all by themselves. Cannot possibly happen? We'll see..
Posted by Curmudgeon, Friday, 30 April 2010 4:06:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well, this isn't really on Richard's article, but I'm interested in the failure of CO2 to meet projections. qanda blames the econometricians, but my understanding is that CO2 is presumed to increase proportionally with economic growth. Raises the question as to whether the economic growth scenarios have been met. And if they have whether the assumption regarding CO2 and growth is correct. Getting this wrong could be the fault of econometricians.

We know that more advanced economies consume more services which presumably have a lower carbon content than products, so perhaps it is due to the straight line relationship not being correct.

Or perhaps the emission scenarios are correct, but there is more carbon absorption going on than previously expect (in which case some sort of scientist is to blame). Or perhaps the GFC led to a slight decline.

Interesting that qanda would want to blame the econometricians anyway, rather than the climate scientists. It is climate scientists like Hansen who are making doomsday pronouncements. But qanda appears to be saying these pronouncements are beyond their ability to make.

I'd agree. One of the big issues in the AGW debate is people making statements beyond their level of competence. There are very few people in the world who have a sufficient grasp of the whole to be taken seriously, and most of them aren't climate scientists, or scientists at all.
Posted by GrahamY, Saturday, 1 May 2010 5:48:11 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If the main IQ ( science )..is not online, how can the main (political... bodies make there moves?

Answer this Question.

TTM

P/S EVO was a joke.
Posted by think than move, Sunday, 2 May 2010 12:14:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Global warming? The question is do we want to continue polluting the environment. Climate changes regularly, but pollution on our current grand scale is man-made and damages the environment and the health of living creatures. That economists brush off pollution as an externality (I have an economics degree though refer to it as my Bachelor of Science Fiction) which is not factored into the cost of production shows how difficult it will be to properly tax pollution. Now W(r)ong and KRudd have thrown the ETS into the policy dustbin along with the home insulation programme as further proof that this Labor Government is the most half-baked bunch of incompetents this country has ever elected. While Abbott may make scribble policies on paper napkins, at least he is not in government, yet Gizzard’s divisive My School and Roxoff’s childishly inane tobacco packaging plan are reality.
To conclude, KRudd and Co must be in cahoots with organised crime, as the new codeine rules and the spectacular hike in tobacco prices are going to lead to the illicit trade in Panadine and chop-chop. Prohibition doesn’t work, but as KRudd is as pure as the driven snow, the message is clear, we must live our lives in the imitation of Kevin Christ
Posted by John DG, Sunday, 2 May 2010 2:00:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What a bunch of kooks on here!

Manorina has it exactly right.
Posted by kuke, Sunday, 2 May 2010 12:03:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Curmudgeon, as the SRES clearly states:

>> Future greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are the product of very complex dynamic systems, determined by driving forces such as demographic development, socio-economic development, and technological change...

Their (GHG emissions) future evolution is highly uncertain. Scenarios are alternative images of how the future might unfold and are an appropriate tool with which to analyse how driving forces may influence future emission outcomes and to assess the associated uncertainties...

They assist in climate change analysis, including climate modelling and the assessment of impacts, adaptation, and mitigation. The possibility that any single emissions path will occur as described in scenarios is highly uncertain...

There are 40 SRES scenarios that together encompass the current range of uncertainties of future GHG emissions arising from different characteristics of these models, in addition to the current knowledge of and uncertainties that arise from scenario driving forces such as demographic, social and economic, and broad technological developments that drive the models. <<

To summarise, just look at the graphs and look at the error bars.

What’s really disturbing is that many people unknowingly confuse SRES models with atmosphere-ocean general circulation models – often suggesting by broad sweeping statements that the whole edifice of AGW rests on flawed computer models. They are really referring to the SRES models (imho) but typically accuse the real climate modellers of not having a clue about what they’re talking about. Astounding!

As far as the SRES methane concentration projections go; they don’t stem only from anthropogenic sources. Methane is also emitted by hydrates (deep ocean de-gassing and permafrost melt) but, carries large uncertainty – more the former, less the latter, but still lots. Sources and sinks of methane are affected by the climate itself (temperature, humidity, etc) as well as the environment (soils, microbial activity, wetlands, etc), itself affected by the climate.

Yes, the methane projection is very uncertain. However, the beauty of the SRES is that it does provide a range of scenarios, notwithstanding they should be re-visited.

Cont’d
Posted by qanda, Sunday, 2 May 2010 4:36:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy