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 > Why the climate zealots are almost completely wrong > Comments

Why the climate zealots are almost completely wrong : Comments

By John Robertson, published 23/4/2015

Man-made? Yes, Mr President. Man's release of CO2 into the air by burning fossil fuels is a significant factor in current climate change.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All
The most glaring error in the article is the idea that the Antarctic is gaining ice. In fact the latest research indicates the Antarctic is currently losing 310 cubic kilometers of ice per year. It also indicates that the rate of ice loss has accelerated since the mid 2000's. Yes we know that the sea ice area which is seasonal has increased marginally, but it pales into insignificance compared to the ice loss from the land.
Posted by warmair, Friday, 24 April 2015 9:11:21 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
McReal - yes I knew that but I also know you are "Up yourself".
Spend more time listening to others rather than talking to yourself. This will improve you and give the rest of us a rest too.
Posted by JBowyer, Saturday, 25 April 2015 7:50:08 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
McReal,

>"And, it's likely we will see periodic consequences of climate change that are dangerous: storms; flooding, etc."
These are not attributable to human caused GHG emissions. So this is not an argument for mitigation of GHG emissions, but there is always justification for cost effective adaptation

>"And those consequences are more likely in coastal regions; and their flood plains and river deltas, where many people live."
First, they are not attributable to GHG emissions.

>"We may see the demise of the Australian ski industry. We may see the demise of farming in some inland areas."
So what? That;s one tiny industry more than compensated by other opportunities for far greater productivity elsewhere in Australia and the world.

I'd suggest you consider the global perspective when making your comments

>"But, hey, none of those things will be catastrophic."
Correct. Furthermore, we have no idea whether GHG emissions is dong more good or more harm. Studies (e.g. by Richard Tol) show that increasing GHG concentrations are likely to be net beneficial for most of this century. In fact, if not for the assumed high cost of energy (due to assumed transition to renewables), GHG emissions are likely to be net beneficial for all this century and beyond.

William Nordhaus' modelling results (replotted here to show global net benefits per 5 years http://catallaxyfiles.com/2014/10/27/cross-post-peter-lang-why-the-world-will-not-agree-to-pricing-carbon-ii/) show that the cost of carbon pricing would exceed the projected benefits for all this century and beyond. Any policy that increases the cost of energy will have this effect.
Posted by Peter Lang, Saturday, 25 April 2015 8:33:16 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
EQ, you've overlooked the most crucial aspect: the "sceptics" aren't just putting up empirical doubts: they're also misrepresenting the positions of their opponents. And they're usually also displaying an ignorance of the science, and often ignorance of what the problem is.

In this instance John Robertson has quoted the extent of seasonal Antarctic sea ice, but ignored the decline of the perennial Antarctic sea ice. It is the latter that's significant as it plays a role in holding back the land ice. And as someone else has already pointed out, he quotes the area of land ice as being constant (unsurprisingly as it depends mainly on the area of land) but ignores its volume, even though it's the latter which is a potential problem.

He also wrongly equates progress with more favourable environmental conditions. Farmers have become much better at growing grain, but that doesn't mean that we have conditions more conducive to doing so. And better medicine, rather than anything to do with CO2, is the main reason life expectancy has risen so much.

I don't think anybody is claiming that our Ocean is 'acidic, polluted and nutrient-depleted'. The ocean is not acidic and will always remain less acidic than pure water. But ocean acidification, though it's not a big problem yet, could if CO2 levels keep rising become a serious problem as it would change the environment far faster than many species could adapt to.

Marine pollution is a serious problem, particularly with persistent organic pollutants. As for nutrient depletion, that's usually the natural state, and it means the amount of dissolved CO2 is usually not the limiting factor. But the opposite problem (nutrient overload) is far more serious as fertiliser runoff can upset delicate ecosystems.

As for those whales, 10% annual increase is not remarkable when it comes off a very low base. We're very far from the conditions where food supply is the limiting factor.
Posted by Aidan, Saturday, 25 April 2015 4:15:17 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pollution of any kind is not good and despite the arguments against cleaning up our act, cutting down on pollutants must be a good thing.

Hands up all those who remember London before the Clean Air Act?

When there were deaths of people because they couldn't breathe when the smog came down.
Posted by Is Mise, Saturday, 25 April 2015 4:55:10 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
lol...."Hands up all those who remember London before the Clean Air Act?......:) I don't think the net can support so many wheel-chairs:)...lol.... climate zealots, you'll get them all the time.

Tally:)
Posted by Tally, Saturday, 25 April 2015 6:37:39 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. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All

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