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 > The Senate tries its hand at climate science > Comments

The Senate tries its hand at climate science : Comments

By Don Aitkin, published 31/3/2014

The Senate committee report Paying polluters to halt global warming? signifies only sound and fury, like most parliamentary theatre.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. Page 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All
@ Luciferase,

I think apparent fact that warmth in unprecedented ocean algae proliferated by humans has not been measured and assessed in AGW science, is causing massive and unnecessary problems.
For example, the incomplete science is resulting in imposition of a massive financial burden on national economies, business and livelihood/s.
The real cause of whole ocean damage is not even being addressed, damage is compounding.
Real solutions would generate major business and employment worldwide, e.g through plumbing, proper sewage treatment retro fitting and new sanitation.
This is about increasingly costly fertilizer causing increasingly costly food, increasingly unaffordable food.
Nutrients could grow algae for biofuel instead of feeding algae killing coral and vital seagrass – ocean food web nurseries, instead of causing unprecedented starvation of marine animals .
Looking after the natural food ecosystem of this planet could be a productive new industry.

Whatever slight degree of warmth carried into night hours may explain anomalies in AGW ocean surface temperature data, and I do not say that will create employment but it should help create better understanding.

Atmospheric convection at night from a warmer ocean surface may continue to form cloud at night, I say may, because I cannot see it happening at night.
In daytime on a calm day the very first visual evidence of formation of cloud above ocean inundated with algae, can be seen in and above the Bering Sea.

Re the following satellite photo text, NASA at the time was apparently not studying the apparent formation of cloud in relation to the algae. N.B:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/NaturalHazards/view.php?id=40716

Insurance companies paying out for severe weather damage would do well to place algae high on their agenda, including in relation to hurricane Sandy cloud formation over algae inundated waters off Florida USA. See:
http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/702906main_20121031-sandy-goes-full.jpg?itok=50E06VgD

I do not have resources and time to write to every source of whatever opinion.
OLO is an opinion site that could be noted by all concerned
Posted by JF Aus, Thursday, 3 April 2014 6:51:17 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
JF Aus, your first NASA link says "phytoplankton convert sunlight to energy". That energy is chemical potential energy, not heat.

I've given some reasons in posts above why I think you're barking up the wrong tree, so if you haven't convinced me, why should the world beat a path to your door to unlock the secret you will only reveal on OLO?

Given opinion you hold towards mainstream science, you appear to be using your theory to shield yourself from the inconvenient truth that the CO2 hypothesis is the best going, and that we should be doing something substantial about emissions.

Try putting your theory "in the box" at http://www.newscientist.com/topic/lastword/
or pop one to Wattsup, Jo Nova, Skepticalscience, whatever. Don't expect OLO to launch your theory as it's not a place where serious people come to join in discourse over GW, due to abuse rendered by the usual suspects here.
Posted by Luciferase, Thursday, 3 April 2014 10:03:01 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
Hi there Peter King,

I managed to find the time to read through the paper (pdf - sheesh, can't even copy text from it) you provided a link to.

I am extremely busy right at this time and I regret not being able to get back to you yesterday as I suggested.

Anyway, I found the paper to be quite interesting and nothing in it surprised me other than the tone of the author. It really was a 'nicer' world back in 1975. The author's tone is what I would call 'quaint' these days. An enjoyable read after I got used to it.

I was taken by the fact that they didn't include air pressure in their investigative parameters.

Why do you think they did that?

They included temperature (of course), relative humidity, snow cover and albedo, heat balance, eddy kinetic energy and poleward transport of energy. But not a mention of atmospheric pressure.

I find that strange as temp and pressure have an intimate relationship in physics, and in particular, the atmosphere, weather and climate.

I did take note of their 3D model and was pleased to see they took it to the vertical limits of space, although I couldn't find the reference to it again due to the document being a pdf facsimile and not having any search functionality.

But the model itself raises a point in having a fixed vertical limit. A point I have not had anyone explain to me or even get interested in discussing. It seems to me that all the models assume a fixed space or vertical limit to the top of the atmosphere.

(cont...)
Posted by voxUnius, Thursday, 3 April 2014 6:58:20 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
(cont from above...)

Now to the point. I have no argument with their work or paper, it was well constructed and documented and no surprises there. Its age (1975) surely makes it somewhat redundant by now, I don't know. I hope you AGW folks have something better to go on by now than just this.

This lack of concern about air pressure haunts me. Surely that's the corroborative evidence for the temp increase claims, yet the AGW proponents never, never, seem to discuss it. I find that most contentious.

If anyone can direct me to a graph of global mean sea level air pressure anomalies for the period 1890 to present, I'd be most obliged. But I don't think such a thing exists - that's curious!

Thanks again Pete, but nothing here I didn't already know. It's interesting but seriously, it's just more extrapolation conjecture. Nothing really scientifically significant in this day and age. It's the sort of stuff a person ought to know by now, in this time. Nonetheless, an interesting exercise, which these guys did well.

Cheers.
Posted by voxUnius, Thursday, 3 April 2014 6:59:30 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
Luciferase,

Yes, alga converts sunlight to energy but is that all it does?
What else is happening do you think? Is any solar heat absorbed and transferred after sunset from algae solid matter into water molecules?

You should be well aware of heat transfer particle to particle and/or molecule to molecule.
Consider the amount of algae in the ocean, there is so much micro algae in some areas it is even visible from space.

Do you have scientific evidence ocean algae cannot absorb solar warmth?

Surely you are aware increased matter can absorb and store increased warmth at whatever slight degree for whatever short period)?

How can the AGW - CO2 hypothesis be the best going as you say, if solar warmth absorbed in increased ocean algae has not been measured and assessed? Best going? What does that mean scientifically?

I am not shielding myself as you think? I seek the opposite to a shield. I am publicly challenging IPCC ‘science’ about warmth in ocean algae not included in AGW science. I am out front about it, no shield.

There are serious people on OLO and most are not fooled by CO2 non-sense. And I would still like to know what one tonne of CO2 looks like.

I am not seeking to “launch” my theory on OLO as you think, it is enough for me that my inconvenient question is in writing and published online, Especially, nobody has been able to show any evidence that solar warmth, (a) is not absorbed in ocean algae, and (b), that ocean algae plant matter has been measured and assessed in AGW and Kyoto and IPCC science.

It has not been, has it?
Posted by JF Aus, Thursday, 3 April 2014 7:23:41 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
JF, if you're going into battle with the scientific establishment, you'll need some scientific understanding. Begin here, and best wishes:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Ar4bSlKz3s
Posted by Luciferase, Thursday, 3 April 2014 8:44:25 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. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. Page 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All

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