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 > 'Climate change' gets the heave-ho in the Budget > Comments

'Climate change' gets the heave-ho in the Budget : Comments

By Don Aitkin, published 17/5/2013

No longer are we hearing glowing accounts of how investing in new technologies will lead to a 'green-jobs' revolution.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. ...
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. 10
  12. All
Tombee the physics I'm seeing is the fact that CO2 is displacing water vapor in the upper atmosphere. As water is a much stronger GHG than CO2 this will lead to cooling of the upper atmosphere.

All the models expect the CO2 to be in addition to the existing water vapor, not the either or that has now been found.

With this new information, obviously CO2 is more likely to have a cooling effect, rather than the IPCC much desired warming.

With the cycle being about 40 years between ice age & global warming scares, I wonder if the next scam will be a new ice age scare, about 2040?

Still unlike warmists, I'm happy to accept that we know so little about the whole climate deal, that everything is merely conjecture. I just want the waste of money to stop, until we have a more realistic ideas of any problems, if there actually are any.
Posted by Hasbeen, Friday, 17 May 2013 3:45:46 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
for the life of me, i cant understand how people can downplay environmental problems and the possibility that human action is causing them, as much more evident since the Industrial Revolution.

Given the need to adapt alone from change, this is going to cost all countries much resources.
Posted by Chris Lewis, Friday, 17 May 2013 4:04:13 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
Not much to add here except to let Halduell know that the UQ 'study' he links to was utterly discredited as to methodology before it was even completed:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/14/fuzzy-math-in-a-new-soon-to-be-published-paper-john-cook-claims-consensus-on-32-6-of-scientific-papers-that-endorse-agw/

Basically a group of cronies got together to give ticks or black marks to self-selected papers, and -- surprise! -- they came up with the result that they had intended to. Nothing to see here, move along.
Posted by Jon J, Friday, 17 May 2013 4:20:55 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
Well, ho, ho, ho, Hasbeen...the guy with the "math" reckons more C02 in the atmosphere will have a "cooling effect".

Jon J,

http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/2013/05/16/97-or-32-6-consensus-watts-failing-to-grasp-elementary-methodology-of-cook-paper-intellectually-dishonest/

Can you drop by and give Mr Watts a bit of advice on the methodology - or on intellectual honesty?
Posted by Poirot, Friday, 17 May 2013 4:46:00 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
Who know what causes climate change?
The Sahara used to be Rome's granary. Now it is mostly desert, where very little survives.
Could it have anything to do with the clear felling of forests?
Rain forests are so called, because they literally attract rain, and have their own micro climate.
Clear fell such forest, and you do what the Mayan did. Turn your homeland into a barren wasteland.
Now I don't care what or who caused climate change. I seems that we are all arguing at cross purposes.
If climate change is real and caused in part by human activity? Then, all we need do, is adopt cheaper carbon free options for creating power.
Choosing a cheaper option will likely mean, universal acceptance and very early roll outs.
Now, I can pay 10,000+ for enough solar panels to power my home, and a solar hot water system.
I will need a backup for cloudy or overcast days!
Alternatively, economies of scale, would allow me to spend 5,000 on a ceramic fuel cell, powered by our copious NG.
Given a world's best energy coefficient of 72%, my power from that source, could be three times cheaper than wholesale, coal fired power. I'd get free hot water as a bonus.
This power would be available 24/7, and given the gas is piped, not interrupted by miners strikes, forest fires, poles knocked down by the odd traffic accident, or a lightening strike, a tree limb, or occasional summer storm or flood event!
Thorium power and or pebble reactors are still undergoing some development or improvement, whereas, the Aussie invented ceramic cell is already very safely and silently powering some premises.
Power is produced through a chemical reaction, rather than combustion; meaning, the exhaust is mostly water vapour!
I think it's worth rolling out, if for no other reason than dramatically lower power prices and currently missing, genuine free market competition.
If in so doing we also quite dramatically lower our total carbon output, that can hardly be a bad thing?
Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Friday, 17 May 2013 6:09:11 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
@Jon J
Better let Obama know he's Tweeting on a dodgy study. See Poirot's comment just above.
Posted by halduell, Friday, 17 May 2013 6:40:00 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. ...
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. 10
  12. All

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