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 > Turnbull's error > Comments

Turnbull's error : Comments

By Peter Bowden, published 13/7/2016

Out of the 12 seats lost by the Government so far, eight were held by far right politicians who fought against key issues like climate change and funding for our schools and hospitals.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All
You’ve got it back to front. I’m an Abbott supporter, climate realist and son of an immigrant in the first boatload of refugees in 1947. Naturally I’m against queue jumpers. I voted against my local Liberal member because I’m against everything that Turnbull stands for. The Nationals did much better than their partners because it was a swing against Turnbull by conservatives. Faced with a choice of a green left Liberal or green left ALP candidate, I’ll vote for a minor party every time irrespective of the views of the local Liberal candidate. You can’t send a message to a leader by helping them win.
Posted by Little, Wednesday, 13 July 2016 9:40:17 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
Useless voting for independents. Look at that Mcgowan independent and sold out to Turnbull with out a second thought So much for the voters that voted for an independent.
Posted by doog, Wednesday, 13 July 2016 10:41:05 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
@doog, she agreed to supply and confidence bills, you need to comes to terms with a little thing the rest of us call reality rather then the voice in your head mate.

I'm no Abbott fan but I agree with Little i think the Author is reading the situation incorrectly.
Posted by Cobber the hound, Wednesday, 13 July 2016 10:49:52 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
No reality in that lot, you would not know what she agreed with.
She had a liberal going against her, what a disgraceful independent she is.
That was a sham seat.
Posted by doog, Wednesday, 13 July 2016 11:11:50 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
One can agree with most of the post election analysis, And most of the conclusions?

Save the one where he thinks or seems to suggest we should go soft the people smuggling trade, by any means!
Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Wednesday, 13 July 2016 12:17:10 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
Far right wing of the Liberal party? What absolutely insulting rubbish! There are no far right politics in Australian. This fool is a goon of the Left.
Posted by ttbn, Wednesday, 13 July 2016 12:51:03 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
If the Libs wanted to replace Abbott they could have chosen anyone except Turnbull. He is a republican and same sex marriage and climate change fool. Now they need to drop him and get a leader with common sense. Surely they can find someone with practicality.

How about someone that will reduce immigration and stop muslims entering, either as refugees or immigrants. Look at Europe!
Posted by Banjo, Wednesday, 13 July 2016 1:05:01 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
Could this fool Bowden really believe the rubbish in this article, or is he just supporting a fellow traveller lefty in Turnbull. Even the simple minded know it is Turnbull's left leaning tendencies that almost cost him the election.

In fact if it weren't for the very right Nationals gaining a seat, it would be a hung parliament. Still they make these claims, & some are simple enough to fall for it.

If he actually believes this twaddle, it is a perfect reason for closing down all these soft subject areas in universities like Philosophy & Administrative Studies. God can that really be a subject. I suppose it is a nice soft way of getting into the bureaucracy.

If people can fool themselves enough to write this stuff, or are prepared to twist facts so much to promote their politics, they have no place in higher education. Our kids deserve better than this.
Posted by Hasbeen, Wednesday, 13 July 2016 1:08:24 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
Peter shows his colours when her refers to the lefty clown Robert Manne as expressing the sigh of relief of the nation when Turnbull hijacked the Prime Minister-ship from the highly competent Abbott.
All I noticed was an expression of disgust, and a desire for Abbott’s reinstatement.
We have seen Abbott’s results, in defeating Labor, and now the mess Turnbull has made of this election.
As the braying Shorten put it:”After its landslide loss to Abbott, Labor is Baaack”.
Banjo is right, except there is no need to look for a leader, he just needs to be reinstated.
Posted by Leo Lane, Wednesday, 13 July 2016 2:50:54 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
ttbn, we have AFP and One Nation that fit the definition of Far right in this country. The full spectrum of political flavors are readily available for anyone's consumption. Such is this great country of Australia!
Posted by Rojama, Wednesday, 13 July 2016 3:16:28 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
As the others have noted, the article is mostly self-delusion. The dumping of far right MPs would have been more about a reaction to the dumping of Abbott.. if not why the swings in those seats rather than a general swing? And of course, the writer has overlooked the re-emergence of One Nation as it does not fit with his beliefs.

Even the strident, hectoring tone of the article indicates that it is really propaganda rather than a serious piece. Another academic we are paying for who puts his own agenda before analysis.

Note for those use to my previous title of curmudgeon, I'm semi-retired, hence the change..
Posted by curmudgeonathome, Wednesday, 13 July 2016 3:19:39 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
Peter,

We get that you are a left wing supporter, but this meandering self indulgent polemic flies in the face of most poles, and the rise again of Pauline Hanson.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Wednesday, 13 July 2016 3:30:54 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
Rojama,

The AFP has no role yet in governmental politics as far as I am aware, and I would not describe Pauline Hanson as far right. She is an ordinary woman who reflects the views of many Australians who rewarded her with more votes than the Greens and Xenephon put together.

The AFP will have to progress past violent demonstrations and punch ups before they can hope to have any influence. Currently, and in my view, the only extemists in politics are the Greens.
Posted by ttbn, Wednesday, 13 July 2016 4:43:16 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
As a number of posters have commented, this author has it the wrong way round. I take issue with the first line of this essay which states Malcolm Turnbull lost this election. Perhaps Labor Party celebrations and self congratulatory behaviour has filtered too far into the authors mind because I have news for him..... Bill Shorten LOST the election.

The problem, as others have noted is not that Malcolm Turnbull accommodated the Right wing of the Party its that he failed to accommodate it. Politicians must learn if you ignore, belittle or suppress a group of voters they will seek acknowledgement by appointing their own representative - roll on Pauline Hanson.
Posted by Atman, Wednesday, 13 July 2016 4:53:10 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
Peter

With the ramblings in this article, no wonder One Nation polled so well.

Senate will be an extremely interesting time for us between Pauline Hanson, Jacquie Lambie and Greens - take a seat, take a deep breath and watch the circus.
Posted by SAINTS, Wednesday, 13 July 2016 4:58:02 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
There are many assumptions in this article, I will address one of them.

In relation to 'climate change' I would point out to the author that there is no empirical evidence at all that substantiates the claims about increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide now being the prime cause of the irregular warming that occurred last century.

If you doubt this just read the IPCC Reports and their ‘Summary for Policymakers’. They only use unvalidated computer models and circumstantial evidence as the basis for their assumptions. If there was any supportive empirical evidence, it would be enthusiastically highlighted and promoted.

The GCM computer models omit many key climate influencing factors making them unable to reliably predict future climate, as their past failed attempts to do so unambiguously illustrate.

Take one important example. They cannot predict future global cloud cover. This crucial variable is the biggest single determinant of average global temperature because clouds reflect up to 60% of solar radiation back out into space. There are many other deficiencies.

The media are much to blame for their failure to employ proper open-minded investigative journalism in this area. If they had done so they would be surprised to find many holes and conflicting evidence in the widely accepted ‘climate change’ doctrine.

On the other hand carbon dioxide, incorrectly maligned as a pollutant, is in fact vital for all life as we know it. Plants respond very positively to increasing levels, benefitting all biota including mankind.

Historically carbon dioxide has always dramatically varied during Glacial and Interglacial Periods with a long term trend line of reducing atmospheric levels as it becomes locked up in sediments and rocks such as Limestone.

Because of the huge implications and costs involved, it is imperative that policy decisions are soundly based on verified science and evidence.
Posted by Ian McClintock, Wednesday, 13 July 2016 5:29:00 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
" Out of the 12 seats lost by the Government so far, eight were held by far right politicians"
Malcolm Turnbull will prove all you Abbott lovers wrong. The voters have got rid of a bunch of far right loonies and that will enable Malcolm to be his own man. Remember, he has won the election which is more than Abbott could have done.
David
Posted by VK3AUU, Wednesday, 13 July 2016 8:07:22 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
re:The voters have got rid of a bunch of far right loonies and that will enable Malcolm to be his own man. Remember, he has won the election which is more than Abbott could have done.

The voters turned to the Nationals where they had the choice. They turned away from Turnbull's man Hendy who organized the coup. Hendy didn't even show his face in the electorate cos he knew he was gone. Abbott could have won. Turnbull scraped home under protest only because Abbott showed that the party could achieve. Turnbull did nothing but claim credit for those achievements after stabbing the achiever in the back. He will go down in history as doing a Julia/Kevin/Bill.
Posted by Little, Wednesday, 13 July 2016 8:38:23 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
In your dreams.
David
Posted by VK3AUU, Wednesday, 13 July 2016 10:37:02 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
Ian McClintock,

WTF would it take to prove to you that increasing atmospheric CO2 is the prime cause of the global warming that occurred last century and is continuing to occur?

It has been proven beyond all doubt that increasing atmospheric CO2 absorbs and reradiates more of the infrared radiation that the ground emits when the sun's radiation warms it.

Temperature records very clearly show a warming trend. Meanwhile the statistical relationship between temperature and solar activity has broken down as atmospheric CO2 levels increased.

We know that there are positive and negative feedback mechanisms involving clouds. We do know how temperature affects cloud cover and vice versa. Research continues, and recently a big breakthrough has been made – see... http://www.smh.com.au/environment/-gq085t.html
...but we don't actually need to accurately quantify these effects to know what increasing atmospheric CO2 levels will do.

The fact that some CO2 is necessary for life does not prevent it from being a pollutant. There are many pollutants that in lower concentrations are essential for life. BTW the response of plants to increasing CO2 levels isn't always positive; sometimes it results in them producing more toxins.

Historically the carbon dioxide levels only changed very slowly except during mass extinction events. Rapid changes are bad for biodiversity because it usually takes multiple generations for species to adapt. Meanwhile many of these species are already under stress from other human activity. Increased CO2 and a warmer climate are likely to result in a lot of extinctions if we carry on the way we have been.

Because of the huge implications and costs involved, we should not let minor uncertainty about the details be used as an excuse for inaction. The more we delay, the higher the costs will be.
Posted by Aidan, Thursday, 14 July 2016 2:56:49 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
only regressives can see a man killing in the name of Allah and say its got nothing to do with religion. Only regressives can ignore that Hanson has largely picked up Abbott voters because they totally reject idiotic gw dogma and open borders. I thought Peter must of been one of the many dumbed down getup crowd but then realised he was a 'professor.' Talk about denial. Anyone noticed the cold snap lately. Its called winter. How could anyone be so blind.
Posted by runner, Thursday, 14 July 2016 12:03:00 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
Aidan.

The worlds temperatures (and climate) have always changed.

If it is now claimed that increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide has become the primary cause of the warming last century, rather than the normal and natural changes that occur, we do need sound evidence to support this claim.

Yes of course the world has warmed as it has recovered from the disastrous cold of the Little Ice Age and yes carbon dioxide has also increased, primarily from its release from the worlds oceans as they warm (Henry’s Law) and additional relatively small amounts from burning fossil fuels.

No evidence is available however that this increased carbon dioxide has been the cause of this warming despite billions of $’s spent trying to do so. This is not a trivial detail that can simply be ignored as you suggest.

What has been demonstrated back in the late 1800’s is that carbon dioxide, in a flask in a laboratory acts as a ‘greenhouse gas’.

That is, carbon dioxide molecules absorb a limited range of frequencies emitted by Infra Red (IR) radiation (heat rays) emitted by the Earth. They are then immediately re-emitted at the same frequencies in every direction.

This does not stop this radiation from escaping to space as some might imagine, but does slow this process down.

This response by carbon dioxide is however dwarfed by atmospheric water vapour which constitutes some 90-95% of the total greenhouse effect as it is present in much greater volumes and reacts over a much wider IR frequency spectrum.

There are frequency bands where none of the greenhouse gasses are active, allowing heat to be lost to space.

There is very good data illustrating a strong correlation between low level cloud cover (<3000m) and global temperature.

There is also good evidence to indicate that the present speed of temperature change is certainly not outside that in the historical record.

Biota has always prospered in a warming world, the problem will be when the world next cools.
Posted by Ian McClintock, Thursday, 14 July 2016 5:34:01 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
Now let's see. 1.7 million Australian voters voted for right wing Independents instead of the Lib/Lab, Tweedledee/Treedledum parties, and Peter Bowden thinks that Turnbull lost the election because he was not left wing enough?

Oh yeah, Peter. That works.
Posted by LEGO, Thursday, 14 July 2016 8:23:55 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
Aidan, Robert Carter showed in 2009 that the carbon dioxide hypothesis is invalid. It is also a fact that there is no science to show any measurable human effect on climate.
“The IPCC’s computer general circulation models, which factor in the effect of increasing carbon dioxide, project that global warming should be occurring at a rate of +2.0&#778;C/century.”
Also,
“In fact, no warming at all has occurred in either the atmosphere or the ocean for more than the last decade. The models are clearly faulty, and allocate too great a warming effect for the extra carbon dioxide (technically, they are said to overestimate the climate sensitivity). Hypothesis fails”

https://wryheat.wordpress.com/2013/01/30/failure-of-the-anthropogenic-global-warming-hypothesis/

Why can't climate fraud promoters, like you, acknowledge the science, Aidan?
Posted by Leo Lane, Thursday, 14 July 2016 8:39:18 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
Aiden, it is no use trying to argue with fools, don't waste your time.

David
Posted by VK3AUU, Thursday, 14 July 2016 10:52:17 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
Ian McClintock,

The climate is warming the way a CO2 increase the size we have would be predicted to warm it. Meanwhile there is no other plausible explanation for the warming. So I repeat: WTF would it take to prove to you that increasing atmospheric CO2 is the prime cause of the global warming?

"Yes of course the world has warmed as it has recovered from the disastrous cold of the Little Ice Age"
There is no evidence that the Little Ice Age was disastrous, and it's quite probable the LIA was the result of decreased atmospheric CO2 from

"and yes carbon dioxide has also increased, primarily from its release from the worlds oceans as they warm (Henry’s Law) and additional relatively small amounts from burning fossil fuels."
Who told you that rubbish? We know that the oceans remain a net absorber of CO2. We also know (both from estimates of fuel consumption and from isotope analysis of the atmosphere) that anthropogenic CO2 emissions have been about 3 times the amount of the increase in atmospheric CO2.

(tbc)
Posted by Aidan, Thursday, 14 July 2016 11:04:23 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
Ian McClintock (continued)

"No evidence is available however that this increased carbon dioxide has been the cause of this warming despite billions of $’s spent trying to do so. This is not a trivial detail that can simply be ignored as you suggest."
Have you any evidence that billions of dollars have been spent trying to prove this? It sounds unlikely to me – most scientists working in the field already consider it proven, and are working on modelling on the effects of increased CO2.

Whether the chance of increased atmospheric CO2 and the occurrence of the warming that it would be expected to produce being a coincidence is as low as 1 in a billion or as high as 1 in a hundred, it is far too low to justify inaction.

"This response by carbon dioxide is however dwarfed by atmospheric water vapour which constitutes some 90-95% of the total greenhouse effect as it is present in much greater volumes and reacts over a much wider IR frequency spectrum."
But because the amount of water vapour the atmosphere holds is temperature dependent, it's more like a positive feedback mechanism than an initiator of warming.

"There is also good evidence to indicate that the present speed of temperature change is certainly not outside that in the historical record."
What evidence are you referring to?

"Biota has always prospered in a warming world, the problem will be when the world next cools."
Wrong on both counts. A warming world has strong adverse impacts on those organisms which rely on cold conditions, and if it gets much hotter we could end up with significant parts of the world too hot for mammals to survive. There's also the threat of rising sea levels drowning many ecosystems, and also the effect of lower dissolved oxygen in the sea (Henry's law). It would need to get MUCH colder to have effects anywhere near as bad, and increasing atmospheric greenhouse gas concentration (to halt cooling) would be much easier than decreasing it to halt warming.
Posted by Aidan, Thursday, 14 July 2016 11:06:08 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
To Aiden.

The earth began to warm in 300 BC and warmed until 400 AD. This was called "The Roman Warm Period" Then the earth cooled. Scandinavia got too cold to grow crops so the Vikings invaded Britain and France. The Helvetians (Swiss) tried to abandon Switzerland, but the Romans would not let them travel south through their territory and they drove them back. In the east, on the ever freezing steppes, the Huns drove Alaric and his Visigoths west into Roman territory, which led to the fall of Rome.

The earth began to warm again around 950AD, and then cooled again during the "Little Ice Age." We are now in a warming period again. (thank Christ!) Does CO2 have anything to do with it? Maybe. But according to the geologists, there were times when the earth's atmosphere had 20 times more CO2 and it was colder than it is today.

The biggest factor in the temperature of the earth is the temperature of the sun. Continental drift, ocean currents, changes to the earth's orbit, and greenhouse gases also play a part. To what extent, nobody knows.

Climate scientists do not work independently. They are all government employees. As scientists, they are supposed to be impartial. But the media reporters in the ABC are by law also supposed to be impartial, and they definitely are not. Government employees love to big note their departments and find ways to expand their empires and get more funding. In the same way that any young ABC reporter who has right wing views knows he or she had better keep their mouths shut, or their ABC careers are over, I put it to you that young climate scientists know the same thing. If you doubt me, look what happened to Llomberg at the university in WA.

Every generation produces another Apocalypse theory and every Chickenlittle fool falls for it. You are being conned by people who have another agenda. The only thing which will satisfy them is the fall of capitalism within the very free market countries that they choose to live in
Posted by LEGO, Friday, 15 July 2016 5:25:03 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
Aidan,

Henry's Law (in this case) describes the ability of the Oceans to absorb and release carbon dioxide.

You say "Who told you that rubbish? We know that the oceans remain a net absorber of CO2."

Unfortunately for your case, we do not know that.

The ability of the oceans to absorb carbon dioxide varies and is determined by its temperature and the vapour pressure of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

The colder the water the more readily it will absorb and accrete carbon dioxide from the atmosphere until a balance is reached. Then, the warmer the oceans become the faster they will release carbon dioxide back into the atmosphere to create a new lower balance.

As the oceans warm, and because of their size there is a long time lag, (in the order of hundreds of years), they then become net emitters of carbon dioxide. This is illustrated well by the Vostok Ice Core records.

A simple demonstration of this effect is to observe what happens when the cap is removed from a bottle of e.g. chilled carbonated soft drink. When the pressure is reduced by removing the cap, it immediately starts to bubble and emit carbon dioxide. If the container is warmed this process will be greatly speeded up until the soft drink is ‘flat’, that is, it has lost carbon dioxide until it stabilises at the current contents temperature and atmospheric carbon dioxide pressure.

Many advocates of global warming appear not to understand the physics applying here and as a consequence make the incorrect assumption that the recent increase in atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide can be attributed almost entirely to the burning of fossil fuels.

This is clearly not the case and the failure to understand the role of our vast oceans and slowly changing global ocean temperatures in determining atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide, is one of fundamental importance.
Posted by Ian McClintock, Friday, 15 July 2016 9:38:38 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
Ian McClintock,

If I wasn't aware of what Henry's Law is, I wouldn't've referred to it myself in the context of oceanic dissolved oxygen levels.

Unfortunately for your case, you have failed to grasp its implications. You've focussed only on temperature, even though there's only been a small rise, and ignored the effect of the enormous rise of atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

When I stated that "we know that the oceans remain a net absorber of CO2", I was referring to scientific knowledge, not your personal knowledge. Do you want to remain ignorant, spread misinformation and let the rest of the world suffer as a result? (That's not as silly a question as it may sound, for Tony Abbott and Rupert Murdoch, among others, have demonstrated they do.) If (as I suspect) you don't, please take the time to find out what's really going on. If you think you know something the climate scientists don't, ask them; you'll probably find they are well aware of it, and understand perfectly what they appeared to you not to.

We (scientists) know the ocean is a net absorber of CO2. We can measure the resultant declining pH (haven't you heard of ocean acidification? Or did you just dismiss it because of the irrelevant fact that it's less acidic than pure water?). And a significant amount of the carbon ends up as marine sediment, effectively taking it permanently out of circulation.

If we weren't returning the fossil carbon to the atmosphere, the oceans would indeed slowly oscillate between being net emitters and net absorbers of CO2 (though on average they'd be net absorbers due to carbon going into sediment). But this effect is swamped by the enormous increases in atmospheric CO2 from burning fossil fuels.

And as I said, we know roughly how much fossil fuel we have consumed, and therefore how much CO2 we've added to the atmosphere as a result. It's about three times the amount its increased atmospheric concentration accounts for. What were you imagining was happening to it?
Posted by Aidan, Saturday, 16 July 2016 3:13:09 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
Aidan,

Oceanic pH is clearly alkaline and despite the claims by some that carbon dioxide is making them acidic, this is simply another unsubstantiated scare tactic. The buffering capacity of the oceans is almost infinite and while pH will vary in the short term, the oceans will never become acidic.

Historically carbon dioxide levels have been many times higher than todays comparatively low levels and the oceans have remained alkaline.

The oceans continue to absorb carbon dioxide where the water is cold and release it where it is warmer. As they warm up the relative sizes of these areas changes and they clearly at some point become net emitters. This is clearly verified by the historical record, when man was not an influence.

The overriding question however remains, there is not one shred of empirical evidence to substantiate the underlying claims that the small portion of the trace greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, contributed by man has become the predominate driving force behind the current cyclical warming of global temperatures. None.
Posted by Ian McClintock, Sunday, 17 July 2016 8:17:55 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
Ian McClintock,,

"Oceanic pH is clearly alkaline"
Duh!

"and despite the claims by some that carbon dioxide is making them acidic, this is simply another unsubstantiated scare tactic."
No, it's a strawman.
The fossil fuel lobby are spreading the lie that "ocean acidification" means the oceans are turning to acid.

Whereas what scientists mean by "ocean acidification" is that their pH is declining due to an increased amount of dissolved CO2.

Ocean acidification is a serious problem but, as I said, the fact that the oceans are less acidic than pure water is irrelevant. The problem is its pH is, in some areas, too low for some marine creatures to thrive (mainly those with aragonite shells).

"The buffering capacity of the oceans is almost infinite and while pH will vary in the short term, the oceans will never become acidic."
Considering your very limited grasp of the concept of acidity, I'm actually quite surprised you've even heard of Henry's law.

I could explain all this in detail, but others already have – see http://www.skepticalscience.com/Mackie_OA_not_OK_post_1.html
(and the pages that follow it, particularly pages 9 and 10 which have a more detailed explanation of how we're sure that ocean warming isn't the source of the CO2. Pay particular attention to the bit that the sea would have to warm about 10ºC to release that much CO2 according to Henry's law).

No matter how much you deny the existence of empirical evidence, it's overwhelming.
Posted by Aidan, Monday, 18 July 2016 2:57:39 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All

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