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 > Carbon dioxide, mass extinction of species and climate change > Comments

Carbon dioxide, mass extinction of species and climate change : Comments

By Andrew Glikson, published 1/3/2010

Humans can not argue with the physics and chemistry of the atmosphere.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. Page 9
  10. 10
  11. All
The saying is that one good picture is worth a thousand words.

Figure 4 of the article, a graph titled 'Sea Level Rise 1993 - 2009', has superimposed over it a small-scale map of Australia showing what would appear to be the extent of inundation by the sea at some unspecified future time. The text on this map that may contain such information is too small to decipher. See:
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=10104&page=0

Judging from a knowledge as to the extent and elevation at the edge of the Cobar High shown in the NSW part of the map, I assess the rise in sea level projected to be of the order of 600 feet, or 183 m, above present levels. If the 3.2mm/yr rate of increase in sea level claimed remains linear, it would appear that it would take around 57,000 years for the sea to reach the level shown on this map.

CSIRO claims that sea levels were around 140 m lower than presently during the last glacial maximum can be found here:
http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_hist_intro.html

My question is:



Is there enough ice remaining in the Antarctic and Greenland icecaps to raise sea levels to the extent of the 183 m indicated on the superimposed map?



This site claims that if the entire Antarctic icecap melted sea levels would rise by around 61 metres, only one third of what appears to be the rise shown on the small-scale map:
http://www.howstuffworks.com/question473.htm

What, in the circumstances of both these sites that I have provided links to being approximately correct, is the purpose of the superimposed map in Figure 4? Is it reflective of good science, or scaremongering propaganda? Or have I entirely misinterpreted the projection as applying to sea level rise when in fact it shows something else?
Posted by Forrest Gumpp, Saturday, 6 March 2010 3:53:34 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
Gross leaps of logic based upon cherry picked data. Packed with tangential scientific information about climate and barely relevant theories of human migration,etc. Pseudoscientific opinions portrayed as facts. A theological article of the fire and brimstone variety born of zealotry not logic.

1. Antarctic Ice is increasing and will continue to do so.
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/index.html
also how the IPCC got it wrong despite massive evidence to the contrary.
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2010/02/16/another-ipcc-error-antarctic-sea-ice-increase-underestimated-by-50/

2. Sentences which make no sense
"...when temperatures rose by about 1 degree C and sea levels by 6-8 metres relative to pre-industrial." ?

3. Nature has lost a lot of credibility as a scientific journal due to its clear bias. No wonder he quotes it so much. He also quotes Climate Progress who, despite all the evidence still believe Antarctica has less ice now.

4. Article outlining the lack of evidence for bird extinction as a result of climate change.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/04/where-are-the-corpses
Posted by Atman, Saturday, 6 March 2010 11:25:34 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
anti-green

Tuesday, 2 March 2010 4:34:45 PM http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10104#163563

It comes back to bite

http://bigcitylib.blogspot.com/2010/03/institute-of-physics-regrets.html

cheers btw!
Posted by qanda, Saturday, 6 March 2010 11:37:44 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
• Yes, the climate does change.

• Yes, with out atmospheric “greenhouse gases” the earth would be a lot colder place.

• The “greenhouse gases” include water vapour (most significant), CO2, CH4 and O3.

• The term “greenhouse” is a misnomer, because terrestrial greenhouses are based on limiting heat flow by convection and NOT radiative effects.

• Assume that the principal absorption and emission of infra red radiation is in the upper atmosphere. Roughly 50% of emitted energy is radiated back into space 50% radiates back to earth, where it contributes to planetary warming.

• The radiative effects are not linearly related to concentration. I.e. doubling the concentration does not double the effect. The relation is logarithmic.

• The atmosphere has both natural and man made sources of carbon dioxide.

• The gas is removed from the atmosphere by both biological and physical processes (sinks).

• All this is a long way off proof that atmospheric climate change is driven solely by man made CO2 additions to the atmosphere. Or that moderate changes in CO2 concentrations will have a significant forcing effect on climate.

• Further climate gate has shown that the data bases for surface air temperature (SAT) are seriously flawed.

• I understand that IPCC conclusions are for the most part based on SAT.

• It is my view that until the problems with SAT data bases has been thoroughly investigated by appropriate expert committees a moratorium should be imposed on all proposed climate legislation.
Posted by anti-green, Sunday, 7 March 2010 1:55:00 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
Fair enough anti-green.

Just to nit-pick:

• All this is a long way off proof that atmospheric climate change is driven solely by man made CO2 additions to the atmosphere. Or that moderate changes in CO2 concentrations will have a significant forcing effect on climate.

No one is saying "climate change is driven SOLELY by man made CO2 additions to the atmosphere". Do you accept the 'consensus' view from atmospheric physicists regarding 'climate sensitivity', or do you think the Lord Christopher Monckton is more on the mark?

• Further climate gate has shown that the data bases for surface air temperature (SAT) are seriously flawed.

That is your opinion, and I could strongly argue otherwise. However, I am prepared to wait for the outcome of the various inquiries.

• I understand that IPCC conclusions are for the most part based on SAT.

No, they are not - there are plenty of sites (not blogs) you can go to verify that.

• It is my view that until the problems with SAT data bases has been thoroughly investigated by appropriate expert committees a moratorium should be imposed on all proposed climate legislation.

Reasonable AG, but reducing our dependence on fossil fuels is also reasonable, don't you think?
Posted by qanda, Sunday, 7 March 2010 2:26:11 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
qanda,

It may be off topic, but to respond.

"Reasonable AG, but reducing our dependence on fossil fuels is also reasonable, don't you think?"

Agree for reasons of health and safety and for many other reasons too, let us go nuclear!
Posted by anti-green, Sunday, 7 March 2010 3:45:04 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. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. Page 9
  10. 10
  11. All

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