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 > Floods wash away carbon tax support > Comments

Floods wash away carbon tax support : Comments

By Mark S. Lawson, published 27/4/2012

When weather defied climate science predictions skepticism bloomed.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. Page 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All
Mark Lawson here

Peter King
No, go back and look at the article. The forecasts I was referring to were for South East Australia, not the other places you mentioned. So they made those forecasts for a specific area and it was proved wrong. You can't then say well it was right, because other places thousands of kilometres away were dry. You're trying to redefine the original forecast. I won't get into your other claims about climate (100 times faster) but the basic sequence in the article is that of forecast for a particular region was made; proved wrong by events.

SILLER
Look, I dunno how to break this to you but you do know that the business about Himalayan glaciers melting faster than ever has been completely overturned by recent events. they found that the IPCC report on that point was taken from a scientist quoting a greenpeace report or some such. I lost track. Anyway its not happening. In any case, you are relying on greenhouse forecasts to make your case for these dams when, as the article shows, the theory turned out to be completely useless in the short term for SE Australia.
Posted by Curmudgeon, Monday, 30 April 2012 1:51:22 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
'similar in the UK ( they are now planting grapes in parts of Britain where nothing commercial would grow).'

and yet

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17897982

uk has wettest April in 100 years

gw religion continues to pump out the propaganda despite the evidence. They will need to look at different parts of the world as they have been exposed with their myths in US, UK , Europe, Australia etc etc
Posted by runner, Tuesday, 1 May 2012 4:17:50 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
Runner, this might be a tad 'complex' - but give it a go:

A warmer world leads to more water evaporation.

More water evaporation leads to inreased precipitation of said water (rain/snow).

Which part are you having difficulty with?
Posted by bonmot, Tuesday, 1 May 2012 5:09:53 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
This site has many pleasures; one is Geoff of Perth who intones:

"In relation to flooding and climate change, there is a systematic influence on all of these weather events now-a-days because of the fact that there is this extra water vapour lurking around in the atmosphere,"

The nasty, lurking water vapour! But Geoff, are you sure it is lurking anywhere given that relative humidity has been falling at all levels post WW11:

http://jennifermarohasy.com//wp-content/uploads/2009/05/globalrelativehumidity300_700mb.jpg

And if RH is falling then it is impossible for specific humidity to be rising and indeed it is not:

http://www.palisad.com/co2/sat/wc.png

Geoff, obviously warming to the subject, whatever it is, then says:

"Climate change is more about forcing than warming, if you understand the logarithmic function related to weather and climate you may learn quite a bit."

A forcing is a factor external to or introduced to the climate system which affects, for a period, the radiative balance at the Tropopause, the boundary between the Troposphere and the Stratosphere. The IPCC recognises 2 main types of forcings; greenhouse gases, the most dominant one being CO2, and solar radiation.

Does Geoff mean that a positive imbalance at the Troposphere, however caused, that is more radiation coming in then leaving, does not produce warming? I mean it can work the other way round where you can have an increase in global average temperature with NO positive radiation imbalance at the Troposphere [can you work out how Geoff?] but how can it work the other way?

Of course there is no heating because the radiation imbalance is converted into heat which is stored at the bottom of the ocean. At least that is the IPCC explanation. Too bad it is rubbish at the latest levitus paper shows.

But don't stop Geoff, magic stuff.
Posted by cohenite, Tuesday, 1 May 2012 5:49:53 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
Bonmot

'A warmer world leads to more water evaporation.

More water evaporation leads to inreased precipitation of said water (rain/snow).'

Someone forgot to tell Tim Flannery. Maybe since you are such an expert you should.
Posted by runner, Tuesday, 1 May 2012 6:30:17 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
Runner, you were linking to the wettest UK in 100 years.

I know it might seem simplistic to you (it has to be) ... but which part are you having difficulty with:

>> A warmer world leads to more water evaporation.

More water evaporation leads to inreased precipitation of said water (rain/snow) <<
Posted by bonmot, Tuesday, 1 May 2012 9:34:36 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