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 > A short response to Robert Manne's A Dark Victory > Comments

A short response to Robert Manne's A Dark Victory : Comments

By Tim Florin, published 6/9/2012

Repetition of the oft-made assertion that there is scientific consensus about the cause of global warming does not make it true.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 11
  7. 12
  8. 13
  9. Page 14
  10. 15
  11. 16
  12. All
*Perhaps what might be occurring - from a layman's point of view - is a combination of long cycles of fifty to seventy years, with smaller cycles, of six or seven years each imposed on the longer cycles. the long-term curve is in fact levelling off, perhaps over the next ten or twenty years*

Well yes it might but then again it might be that there is an even longer cycle with the over all trend still rising.
One thing I will concede is that all the facts are not known but if there is not some attempt at insurance then in the event that the pro AGW are right then we are going to be perhaps too far down the track to recover.
I am of the opinion that we are close if not at, the tipping point but I will agree that is just my opinion.
If we return to the very hot, dry conditions experienced during an El Nino, we will be exposed to bad bush fires. If someone who is studying this says we should prepare for a bad fire, it would be stupid to argue and ignore the warning.

One consideration that is not factored in is population. We are at 7 billion now and there is no way that the present rise in population is going to change, so we are headed for another billion within about 12 years.
The emissions from this extra number will be added to what we have already and this will make the rise even more higher.

This will be exacerbated by the use of coal seam gas, even more coal than is being used now.
Posted by Robert LePage, Sunday, 9 September 2012 10:35:47 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
Hey Poirot, think I've figured the dip out, at least from Joe's perspective:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/ArcticEscalator.gif

Guess it's those there damn trend lines, again?
Posted by bonmot, Sunday, 9 September 2012 11:56:44 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
Thank you, Bonmot, that's a very interesting and convincing curve. It's a pity that Poirot's graph wasn't also subjected to a curve rather than a straight-line - it would show a curve going the other way. But for all that, let's employ the Precautionary Principle.

I'm certainly not saying that there is no global warming. But cause and effect, cause and effect -

* Hypothesis 1: [primary] causes: capitalist production has over-used fossil fuels, therefore effects: the over-production of CO2;

* [secondary] cause: rising CO2 in the atmosphere, therefore effects: increase in temperature;

* [tertiary] cause: increase in temperatures, effects: rise in the temperature of oceanic waters;

* [quaternary] cause: increase in ocean temperatures including in the currents etc. around the Arctic ocean, effect: erosion of the Arctic and Greenland ice-shelves each summer. i.e. at the end of a lot of anterior processes, some minimising and some magnifying earlier effects.

My point to Poirot is that the rate of increase in temperatures seems to be slowing down, especially if we fitted a curve rather than a straight line to those data.

A corollary of that is that the rate of increase in oceanic temperatures may be decreasing - oceanic temperatures are rising at an ever-slower rate. A corollary of THAT is that, while melting of Arctic and Greenland ice-caps/shelves/shields will continue, it will do so at a decreasing rate, and eventually stabilise.

Meanwhile, governments will be putting funds into renewables, so if that is in any way effective, and GW is not just some sort of natural cyclical phenomenon, we should start to see some consequences of those interventions over the next few decades. Hopefully, years rather than decades.

So economic production - production of CO2 - increases in temperature (0.8 degrees over a century) - increases in oceanic temperatures - warmer waters around the Arctic and erosion of ice-sheets etc. each summer.

[TBC]
Posted by Loudmouth, Sunday, 9 September 2012 12:51:34 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
>>Loudmouth has a tactic of indulging in sarcastic self-deprecation....my reference to the "dill" quote was connected with his apparent inability to make sense of the graph.<<

Yeah, but more importantly: have you painted your roof white yet?

>>The singularity is just around the corner and I intend to upload my self to a Cray Cascade supercomputer (purely for the enrichment of humanity) and be around to continue the battle with the Bonmot’s and Poirot’s of that period, who will no doubt be blaming us for the new cooling trend and campaigning hard for a new tax on renewable energy sources to encourage use of coal and oil.<<

I can't be having with all this new-fangled technology myself. I'll just do things the old-fashioned way and brew myself an elixir of life. Hope to see you in a few hundred years - although not as much as I hope to see the Bonmot and Poirot trying to explain the lack of roonation 50 years hence.

Cheers,

Tony
Posted by Tony Lavis, Sunday, 9 September 2012 6:11:19 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
To continue (curse this 4 posts in 24 hrs rule!):

So: Arctic melting and erosion are very much derivative effects of capitalist production, AND as an indicator, a canary down the mine, of CO2 production from the use of fossil fuels. As such, there will probably be a very long lag between reducing CO2 to acceptable levels and the stabilisation of the Arctic and Greenland.

So a switch from fossil fuels to renewables which themselves do not consume vast amounts of fossil fuels in their production (such as wind towers) is necessary to gradually cut back the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere to a manageable level. I don't know how much fossil fuels are used in the production of solar panels etc., relative to their production of energy, but they seem to be the way to go.

Pity about wind towers, I think they are beautiful. I keep meaning to drive over to that restaurant near the Grampians and sit and watch them for a few hours, maybe come back the next day. Beautiful but probably bloody useless on balance.

Now: Poirot, with respect, slagging someone does not refute, or even come to grips with, what they are saying. How about from now on, we both agree not to slag each other, be sarcastic with each other or otherwise talk past each other ? If you put forward an hypothesis, I'll try to take it apart seriously, with no cheap shots or snide remarks, and you do the same for me. A deal ?

Seriously: Bonmot's graph - the line DOES dip after 1998. Your graph - it IS convex, not concave, suggesting a slowing-down in the rate of temperature rise etc. If an actual curve was fitted to the data, say a five- or ten-year rolling average, it would not be rising. Isn't that so ? I'm certainly not saying that that means the end of GW, but it does indicate that it may not be out of control.

Of course, that dip DOES bring the link between CO2 production and temperature/sea-level rise into question....

Cheers,

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Sunday, 9 September 2012 6:46:55 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 dunno, Loudmouth. You just accused me of slagging you because I call you out on your irritating style. Your imputations that I'm uncivil and insulting are your way of slagging - maybe we should just avoid each other.

bonmot,

Thanks : )
Posted by Poirot, Sunday, 9 September 2012 11:46:57 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. 11
  7. 12
  8. 13
  9. Page 14
  10. 15
  11. 16
  12. All

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