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 > Opening closed minds > Comments

Opening closed minds : Comments

By Des Moore, published 12/10/2010

The Royal Society, Britain’s top dog in science, has just published a report signalling the end of claims of a consensus by some climate scientists.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. Page 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. All
Julia Gillard wants to lie to us and tell us there will be no carbon tax if she is elected. Now she is going to do it just weeks after being elected.

On what flawed science is she going to make Australia go broke. Why will they not wait for America and China to draw out their carbon taxes.

Or how about the fact that the global warming argument is falling apart with this article of the now No concencus and this article where CO2 is not a major factor. http://www.c3headlines.com/2010/10/more-bad-news-for-ipcc-climate-models-peer-reviewed-study-indicates-only-35-of-warming-due-to-co2.html
Posted by SteveMac, Wednesday, 13 October 2010 1:12:04 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
I'm sorry Amicus, but you are wrong, there has been signficant ice loss in the Antarctic, 57bn tonnes of ice a year from the Esst Antarctic into surrounding waters, according to a satellite survey of the region, and more from the West.
Posted by Phil Matimein, Wednesday, 13 October 2010 5:19:46 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
Laurie, I was wrong - I assumed you were being accurate in interpreting the Wentz paper. You said " http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11082#185867 ".

Now you are changing the goal posts by saying: "Since satellite data has been available it has consistently shown that as global temperature increases and decreases, evaporation, precipitation and atmospheric water vapour all increase and decrease by a very similar percentage." Not quite but widely accepted in the scientific community.

What you were originally saying is a concoction, a distortion, a misrepresentation and appears to be a fabrication by someone like Monkton from the SPPI. Seriously, that kind of fluff is usually found on blog-sites that try to discredit global warming. In fact, I get the impression that you haven't even read (let alone understood) the Wentz paper you yourself cited?

<http://tinyurl.com/Wentz-et-al>; http://tinyurl.com/Wentz-et-al

Anyway, Wentz co-authored with other supposed "alarmists"; Santer (that Santer), Solomon (that Solomon), Jones (that Jones), Schmidt (that Schmidt), Mears and other respected climate scientists, to refute some findings less than a year later in "Consistency of modelled and observed temperature trends in the tropical troposphere" - International Journal of Climatology, 2008. They refute (and give reasons) the claim that all simulated temperature trends in the tropical troposphere and in tropical lapse rates are inconsistent with observations.

Wentz also co-authored (with some of those same "alarmists") in "Identification of human-induced changes in atmospheric moisture content" - PNAS, also in 2007. Wherein they conclude: "Detection and attribution studies have now moved beyond "temperature-only" analyses and show physical consistency between observed and simulated temperature, moisture, and circulation changes. This internal consistency underscores the reality of human effects on climate."

Another paper? Try "Precipitation extreme changes exceeding moisture content increases in MIROC and IPCC climate models" - Sugiyamaa et al, PNAS, 2010 vol 107 no. 2 571-575.

Dessler is another "alarmist" you may want to check out.

Amicus,
Antarctica is a big place. The NSIDC (amongst others) monitor melting ice in Antarctica, e.g. Melt water washes down a Moulin, creating a lubricating layer beneath the ice, leading to a more rapid slip, particularly of the glaciers.

http://nsidc.org/
Posted by bonmot, Wednesday, 13 October 2010 8:46:03 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
Amicus - my mistake - ice loss isn't from direct overall warming - it's melting at it's margins, mostly from warming southern ocean water undermining ice shelves and glacier ends which hold back the flow of frozen ice. The end result is still increased melting - the ice ends up melted - of (mostly) the West Antarctic Ice Sheet. The East Antarctic Ice Sheet is higher altitude has less loss at the margins and was previously believed to be growing but that's been revised downwards by more recent data showing acceleration of loss in coastal regions since 2006. In any case that growth is overshadowed by the West Antarctic Ice Sheet which has shown acceleration of ice loss. It remains vulnerable to rapid losses in the future.

Overall the average rate of loss from Antarctic ice is estimated - using Grace satellite data - at between 113 and 267 gigatonnes a year and which you and the author (with a closed mind) fail to acknowledge.

Try http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v2/n12/full/ngeo694.html - the abstract gives some numbers - or try http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/20100108_Is_Antarctica_Melting.html
Posted by Ken Fabos, Thursday, 14 October 2010 6:46:21 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
The focus on blogger vitriol could be seen as an "emergent property" of the chaos that characterises OLO discussion threads. The essays are rather like Rorschach tests or tea leaves, where the viewer reads into what is really on their mind. Graham's inkblot or tea leaves was "finance"- we read into it "blogger behaviour". I wonder why?

It's a simple connection- many people are aching for a site where a diversity of opinions can be expressed in a vaiety of ways- but within the ethos of democracy and the "Australian fair go". It is one of the paradoxes of democracy that we must allow a voice to those who advocate the overthrow of democracy. But this ethos, I think, was foundered on the assumption that the dissenters would play by the same basic rules as the democratic majority- ie speak for themselves in a civil voice that has its foundations in reason.

However, what we are seeing is a tacit banding together of mean-spirited rednecks who constantly abuse OLO's democratic principles. As I have said before in these columns, much of this behaviour reminds me of the "deep south" of my youth in the '50s- and for those who weren't there, have a look at the movie "Wake in Fright". Perhaps these people have- and think that it is a training video.

Who wants to hang around with people whose first reflex is to be abusive and have no respect for the principles of reason that underpin democracy? Only other abusers- the fair-minded majority figuratively poke their heads in on this front-bar brawl and head off for some quiet salon. They'd like a bit of bawdiness, but not a constant exulting of ignorance and adulation of tyrants.

Clean up OLO and you'll get masses of fair-minded Aussies paying whatever it takes to keep democracy alive.
Posted by Jedimaster, Thursday, 14 October 2010 7:06:58 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
The above post was supposed to go to Graham Y's essay on "OLO- the Next Iteration" (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11090)

Nonetheless, it is just as appropriate here, as much of the above discourse is a prime example of what I'm on about.
Posted by Jedimaster, Thursday, 14 October 2010 7:13:04 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. Page 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. All

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