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 perspectives from an animal doctor > Comments

Climate change perspectives from an animal doctor : Comments

By Angela Frimberger, published 4/3/2016

Climate change didn't directly cause the fires, but it set the stage for them to be so catastrophic when they broke out.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. All
The only place to light a fire Yoyo, is under folks like you, whose grasp of intellectual concepts of things like evidence and proof can be dismissed with yet another convenient conspiracy theory.

In a century of recording and measuring average wind speeds, there is little doubt that the average winds have increased ,as have ocean temperatures. And we've just transitioned through one of the hottest years on record. and not because of increased solar thermal activity during a waning (cooling) phase, that started in the mid seventies(NASA)! All while permanently frozen permafrost melted, Alaskan summer sea ice disappeared, and hundreds of new melt water lakes appeared on formerly permanently frozen Alaskan and Siberian plains

I agree that we should not light fires, nor should we continue the stone age land clearing process, given some rainforest vegetation along with giant wombats and other exterminated species, has/have no fire tolerance, and the reason a land once covered from coast to coast in verdant forest is now just a green ring with arid desert land and the skeletons of former species at its centre!

Even so, some of this could be reversed by simply eliminating a practise that not only destroys non fire tolerant species but tons of scarce nutrients as well, which with every fire, are lifted skyward and transported over oceans to eventually create problematic vegetation growth where there were once coral reefs and what have you.

Intensive cell grazing removes the fuel load, while providing protein for those who need it, and allowing the non fire tolerant species to get a toehold and revegetate, and is how one progressively extends the monsoon recharging forest further and further south. An acre of trees, evaporates 2.5 times the moisture of an acre of open water!

Insanity is doing what you've always done while expecting a different outcome.
Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Sunday, 6 March 2016 10:29:38 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
I am surprised Rhrosty, that a usually logical thinker such as yourself can fall for the global warming scam. Perhaps you don't have enough math to understand some of the real science, so here is another way to understand. Although it can have a very minor effect, it is impossible for CO2 to cause catastrophic global warming.

CO2 has a very restricted range of radiation wavelengths it can absorb.

There is a limited amount of those wavelengths transmitted from the earth.

The volume of CO2 currently in the air is absorbing almost all of those wavelengths, & has already has excess capacity to do so. That is, there is no more of those wavelengths available to be absorbed.

With all the radiation CO2 can absorb being absorbed by the current level of CO2, no increase in the volume of CO2 can increase that absorption. Effectively the CO2 hot pot is as hot as it can become.

Please think about these facts, & do a bit of research to satisfy yourself that they are actually fact. If you do, I'm sure we will have another global warming sceptic.

Unfortunately I doubt the same can be said for Suse or Poirot.
Posted by Hasbeen, Sunday, 6 March 2016 11:37:13 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
Rhosty,

The climate change activists have also ignored the inconvenient truth that while temperatures have still increased over the last 18 years, it is far far slower than climate models have predicted or even slower than in the previous decades when CO2 growth was much slower. Given the vastly complex workings of the atmosphere, I remember saying nearly a decade ago, that claiming that the science is known is extremely courageous.

Action needs to be taken, but it needs to be world wide, excluding the largest emitters such as China and India makes this a futile exercise. Secondly, excluding the only proven technology that can produce reliable base load supply (nuclear) is idiotic beyond mention.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Sunday, 6 March 2016 2:59:41 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
Hasbeen

You display the denier trick of making a statement without providing a reference.

Please provide your citations.

Oceans pick up much warmth and they have an impact on climate along with CO2 emissions in the atmosphere..

http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2016/0118/The-oceans-are-heating-up-more-rapidly-than-we-thought.-Why-that-matters

Once again the Iditarod dog sled race is having problems with snow and ice, 4th time in about a decade. A matter of warmth.

http://www.newsminer.com/mushing/iditarod/iditarod-route-in-limbo-as-officials-set-to-talk-a/article_a309fcb8-b907-11e5-8d0f-8b6f0ca70955.html
Posted by ant, Sunday, 6 March 2016 7:46:31 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
Hasbeen, an obvious flaw in your hypothesis is that after absorbing photons of those wavelengths, the energy is usually reradiated in the same form (but in a different direction). So even if there is enough CO2 in the atmosphere to absorb all the photons of that wavelength, an increased CO2 concentration would increase the number of times they're absorbed, and hence their chance of being reradiated back to ground level.
Posted by Aidan, Monday, 7 March 2016 9:59:21 AM
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
Do a bit of your own research Ant, rather than uselessly spouting dogma.

Aidan due to the nature of the planet, a sphere, a higher percentage of any emitted radiation will be directed to space, rather than towards the planet. The more often it is absorbed, the more quickly this happens. The same increases with increasing altitude.

One thing also missing from the argument is incoming radiation. Although a large majority is not in the absorption range of CO2, a fair amount is, almost enough to saturate the CO2 capacity by itself. As above a large proportion of the sun's radiation in the CO2 absorption range is similarly returned to space, without reaching the lower atmosphere. Increasing CO2 COULD thus reduce incoming radiation.

I say COULD as some studies have found a corresponding reduction in water vapour with increasing CO2 in the atmosphere, & water vapour is more effective than CO2 at absorbing these frequencies. [do your own research ant, & become informed, rather that a propaganda merchant].

One other point Aidan, you can't transfer heat from a cooler body to a hotter body, another fact ignored by the scam merchants.
Posted by Hasbeen, Monday, 7 March 2016 11:53:13 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. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. All

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