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 > Do we really have control over our climate? > Comments

Do we really have control over our climate? : Comments

By Ray Evans, published 8/2/2007

Climate change: the current guilt-ridden hysteria, which seems to have captured the chattering classes of the West, shows that the veneer of rationality is very thin indeed.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. Page 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All
The only problem with geothermal energy is that it is all out near Roxby Downs. And moving energy intensive industries to the source would produce a few staffing and transport problems, to say the least.

Unless of course, we dug a canal to Lake Eyre and let the sea and ships in. We could line the place with resorts and canal developments on 1000km of new waterfront land at the same Latitude as Byron and Brisbane. And I saw somewhere that the annual evaporation (2 gigalitres/km2) from the lake would use up so much water that the flow from Port Augusta would be continuous and drive enough turbines to power most of Adelaide.

It might also soak up a bit of sea level rise to boot and would inject a minimum 20,000 gigalitres of water vapour into the desert sky and some additional rainfall into the Murray-Darling Basin.

If we really need to fix a big problem then there is no point pissing about with windmills and Kyoto Interruptus.
Posted by Perseus, Thursday, 8 February 2007 11:47:32 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
Response to Perseus:

A very interesting idea. Lake Eyre is already about 20 metres below sea level. Perhaps someone write an article about it and we could discuss.

http://www.csse.uwa.edu.au/~skot/bigschemes/lake_eyre/index.html#letters

Actually some of us have already discussed it
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=4053

But not me :(
Posted by David Latimer, Friday, 9 February 2007 12:56:34 AM
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
There has been a lot made of an alleged scientific “consensus” on AGW. But consensus is not part of the scientific method, and many eminent climatologists disagree.

Canada’s Fraser Institute has provided a sensible assessment of the AGW science in its Independent Summary for Policy makers response to the IPCC Report. It notes that –

The Earth’s climate is an extremely complex system and we must not understate the difficulties involved in analyzing it. Despite the many data limitations and uncertainties, knowledge of the climate system continues to advance based on improved and expanding data sets and improved understanding of meteorological and oceanographic mechanisms.

The climate in most places has undergone minor changes over the past 200 years, and the land-based surface temperature record of the past 100 years exhibits warming trends in many places. Measurement problems, including uneven sampling, missing data and local land-use changes, make interpretation of these trends difficult. Other, more stable data sets, such as satellite, radiosonde and ocean temperatures yield smaller warming trends. The actual climate change in many locations has been relatively small and within the range of known natural variability. There is no compelling evidence that dangerous or unprecedented changes are underway.

The available data over the past century can be interpreted within the framework of a variety of hypotheses as to cause and mechanisms for the measured changes. The hypothesis that greenhouse gas emissions have produced or are capable of producing a significant warming of the Earth’s climate since the start of the industrial era is credible, and merits continued attention. However, the hypothesis cannot be proven by formal theoretical arguments, and the available data allow the hypothesis to be credibly disputed. (continued below)
Posted by Faustino, Friday, 9 February 2007 4:28:25 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
(continued) Arguments for the hypothesis rely on computer simulations, which can never be decisive as supporting evidence. The computer models in use are not, by necessity, direct calculations of all basic physics but rely upon empirical approximations for many of the smaller scale processes of the oceans and atmosphere. They are tuned to produce a credible simulation of current global climate statistics, but this does not guarantee reliability in future climate regimes. And there are enough degrees of freedom in tunable models that simulations cannot serve as supporting evidence for any one tuning scheme, such as that associated with a strong effect from greenhouse gases.

There is no evidence provided by the IPCC in its Fourth Assessment Report that the uncertainty can be formally resolved from first principles, statistical hypothesis testing or modeling exercises. Consequently, there will remain an unavoidable element of uncertainty as to the extent that humans are contributing to future climate change, and indeed whether or not such change is a good or bad thing. (end)

Alert readers will note that the Fraser Institute’s assessment is similar to that of the recent “Dual Critique” of the Stern Report by economists and scientists.
Posted by Faustino, Friday, 9 February 2007 4:30:38 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
Faustino, while the Fraser Institute may be independent, it is hardly a values-free zone. Check here for more detail http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Fraser_Institute "The Fraser Institute received $120,000 US from ExxonMobil in 2003-'04, according to the company's annual report. [Fraser Institute President Michael] Walker said the funding paid for the work of researcher [global warming skeptic] Ken Green."

Foolish of me, Richard Castles, to confuse you with Ian Castles. Mind you, your views sound quite similar...
Posted by Johnj, Friday, 9 February 2007 9:07:14 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
Johnj, to be quite honest, I don't even understand your comment, but given that you seem to have missed the point of mine, that's understandable.
Posted by Richard Castles, Friday, 9 February 2007 1:34:28 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