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 > Turnbull's error > Comments

Turnbull's error : Comments

By Peter Bowden, published 13/7/2016

Out of the 12 seats lost by the Government so far, eight were held by far right politicians who fought against key issues like climate change and funding for our schools and hospitals.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. Page 5
  7. 6
  8. All
Aiden, it is no use trying to argue with fools, don't waste your time.

David
Posted by VK3AUU, Thursday, 14 July 2016 10:52:17 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
Ian McClintock,

The climate is warming the way a CO2 increase the size we have would be predicted to warm it. Meanwhile there is no other plausible explanation for the warming. So I repeat: WTF would it take to prove to you that increasing atmospheric CO2 is the prime cause of the global warming?

"Yes of course the world has warmed as it has recovered from the disastrous cold of the Little Ice Age"
There is no evidence that the Little Ice Age was disastrous, and it's quite probable the LIA was the result of decreased atmospheric CO2 from

"and yes carbon dioxide has also increased, primarily from its release from the worlds oceans as they warm (Henry’s Law) and additional relatively small amounts from burning fossil fuels."
Who told you that rubbish? We know that the oceans remain a net absorber of CO2. We also know (both from estimates of fuel consumption and from isotope analysis of the atmosphere) that anthropogenic CO2 emissions have been about 3 times the amount of the increase in atmospheric CO2.

(tbc)
Posted by Aidan, Thursday, 14 July 2016 11:04:23 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
Ian McClintock (continued)

"No evidence is available however that this increased carbon dioxide has been the cause of this warming despite billions of $’s spent trying to do so. This is not a trivial detail that can simply be ignored as you suggest."
Have you any evidence that billions of dollars have been spent trying to prove this? It sounds unlikely to me – most scientists working in the field already consider it proven, and are working on modelling on the effects of increased CO2.

Whether the chance of increased atmospheric CO2 and the occurrence of the warming that it would be expected to produce being a coincidence is as low as 1 in a billion or as high as 1 in a hundred, it is far too low to justify inaction.

"This response by carbon dioxide is however dwarfed by atmospheric water vapour which constitutes some 90-95% of the total greenhouse effect as it is present in much greater volumes and reacts over a much wider IR frequency spectrum."
But because the amount of water vapour the atmosphere holds is temperature dependent, it's more like a positive feedback mechanism than an initiator of warming.

"There is also good evidence to indicate that the present speed of temperature change is certainly not outside that in the historical record."
What evidence are you referring to?

"Biota has always prospered in a warming world, the problem will be when the world next cools."
Wrong on both counts. A warming world has strong adverse impacts on those organisms which rely on cold conditions, and if it gets much hotter we could end up with significant parts of the world too hot for mammals to survive. There's also the threat of rising sea levels drowning many ecosystems, and also the effect of lower dissolved oxygen in the sea (Henry's law). It would need to get MUCH colder to have effects anywhere near as bad, and increasing atmospheric greenhouse gas concentration (to halt cooling) would be much easier than decreasing it to halt warming.
Posted by Aidan, Thursday, 14 July 2016 11:06:08 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
To Aiden.

The earth began to warm in 300 BC and warmed until 400 AD. This was called "The Roman Warm Period" Then the earth cooled. Scandinavia got too cold to grow crops so the Vikings invaded Britain and France. The Helvetians (Swiss) tried to abandon Switzerland, but the Romans would not let them travel south through their territory and they drove them back. In the east, on the ever freezing steppes, the Huns drove Alaric and his Visigoths west into Roman territory, which led to the fall of Rome.

The earth began to warm again around 950AD, and then cooled again during the "Little Ice Age." We are now in a warming period again. (thank Christ!) Does CO2 have anything to do with it? Maybe. But according to the geologists, there were times when the earth's atmosphere had 20 times more CO2 and it was colder than it is today.

The biggest factor in the temperature of the earth is the temperature of the sun. Continental drift, ocean currents, changes to the earth's orbit, and greenhouse gases also play a part. To what extent, nobody knows.

Climate scientists do not work independently. They are all government employees. As scientists, they are supposed to be impartial. But the media reporters in the ABC are by law also supposed to be impartial, and they definitely are not. Government employees love to big note their departments and find ways to expand their empires and get more funding. In the same way that any young ABC reporter who has right wing views knows he or she had better keep their mouths shut, or their ABC careers are over, I put it to you that young climate scientists know the same thing. If you doubt me, look what happened to Llomberg at the university in WA.

Every generation produces another Apocalypse theory and every Chickenlittle fool falls for it. You are being conned by people who have another agenda. The only thing which will satisfy them is the fall of capitalism within the very free market countries that they choose to live in
Posted by LEGO, Friday, 15 July 2016 5:25:03 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
Aidan,

Henry's Law (in this case) describes the ability of the Oceans to absorb and release carbon dioxide.

You say "Who told you that rubbish? We know that the oceans remain a net absorber of CO2."

Unfortunately for your case, we do not know that.

The ability of the oceans to absorb carbon dioxide varies and is determined by its temperature and the vapour pressure of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

The colder the water the more readily it will absorb and accrete carbon dioxide from the atmosphere until a balance is reached. Then, the warmer the oceans become the faster they will release carbon dioxide back into the atmosphere to create a new lower balance.

As the oceans warm, and because of their size there is a long time lag, (in the order of hundreds of years), they then become net emitters of carbon dioxide. This is illustrated well by the Vostok Ice Core records.

A simple demonstration of this effect is to observe what happens when the cap is removed from a bottle of e.g. chilled carbonated soft drink. When the pressure is reduced by removing the cap, it immediately starts to bubble and emit carbon dioxide. If the container is warmed this process will be greatly speeded up until the soft drink is ‘flat’, that is, it has lost carbon dioxide until it stabilises at the current contents temperature and atmospheric carbon dioxide pressure.

Many advocates of global warming appear not to understand the physics applying here and as a consequence make the incorrect assumption that the recent increase in atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide can be attributed almost entirely to the burning of fossil fuels.

This is clearly not the case and the failure to understand the role of our vast oceans and slowly changing global ocean temperatures in determining atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide, is one of fundamental importance.
Posted by Ian McClintock, Friday, 15 July 2016 9:38:38 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
Ian McClintock,

If I wasn't aware of what Henry's Law is, I wouldn't've referred to it myself in the context of oceanic dissolved oxygen levels.

Unfortunately for your case, you have failed to grasp its implications. You've focussed only on temperature, even though there's only been a small rise, and ignored the effect of the enormous rise of atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

When I stated that "we know that the oceans remain a net absorber of CO2", I was referring to scientific knowledge, not your personal knowledge. Do you want to remain ignorant, spread misinformation and let the rest of the world suffer as a result? (That's not as silly a question as it may sound, for Tony Abbott and Rupert Murdoch, among others, have demonstrated they do.) If (as I suspect) you don't, please take the time to find out what's really going on. If you think you know something the climate scientists don't, ask them; you'll probably find they are well aware of it, and understand perfectly what they appeared to you not to.

We (scientists) know the ocean is a net absorber of CO2. We can measure the resultant declining pH (haven't you heard of ocean acidification? Or did you just dismiss it because of the irrelevant fact that it's less acidic than pure water?). And a significant amount of the carbon ends up as marine sediment, effectively taking it permanently out of circulation.

If we weren't returning the fossil carbon to the atmosphere, the oceans would indeed slowly oscillate between being net emitters and net absorbers of CO2 (though on average they'd be net absorbers due to carbon going into sediment). But this effect is swamped by the enormous increases in atmospheric CO2 from burning fossil fuels.

And as I said, we know roughly how much fossil fuel we have consumed, and therefore how much CO2 we've added to the atmosphere as a result. It's about three times the amount its increased atmospheric concentration accounts for. What were you imagining was happening to it?
Posted by Aidan, Saturday, 16 July 2016 3:13:09 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. Page 5
  7. 6
  8. All

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