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 > Al Gore’s movie meets its match in Stockholm > Comments

Al Gore’s movie meets its match in Stockholm : Comments

By Bob Carter, published 13/10/2006

KTH meeting shows that dangerous global warming remains unproved.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 11
  7. 12
  8. 13
  9. Page 14
  10. All
BT

Still nonspecific and now impotent.

Go Figure!

People coming here and trying to sell something under the thin veil of a discredited global warming theory need to look at the evidence I present and think for themselves.

ITM evidence on paltry fish catches has come to light supporting the claim that SHA extremes at coastal areas off Macleay river(affecting Coffs), Sydney/Newcastle/Wollongong(affecting Hawkesbury and Shaoalhaven) and Bega/Eden are tied to OVERPOPU:ATION and increased wastewater egress from these locations. These are the very locations I have been witnessing to coastal abnormalities associated with wastewater pollutants.

NSW SHA map Oct 28: http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/trinanes/tmp/sha1162030295.gif

Looking at yesterday's SHA map, only those ports on the NSW coast are showing extreme SHAs. Despite nonsense claims of the coastal rivers and their hatcheries drying up, there is more than enough evidence that POLLUTANTS, causing those extreme SHA features, are poisoning fingerlings before maturity. This is especially noticeble around Coffs where the Macleay river continually spews out detergent froth used on farms to break down poor soils.How are fish going to live in that muck, let alone breed?

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/prices-soar-as-stocks-of-fish-dry-up/2006/10/28/1161749358865.html

History is NOW beginning the long process of judging NSW state governments and the iniquitous John Howard in their push to create immigrated profits for a few at the expense of our environment and at the expense of true democratic values. Bushfire, drought and depleted fish stocks are just the beginning of the environmental damage.

Even if current governments KNEW (twice now since OCT 1 there have been days where the SHA extremes have flattened out) that coastal wastewaters were the cause they would be too shame-faced to clean up the problem because it would not only highlight their role, but also take away the biggest bugaboo they have in controlling and farming the Australian population. Farming it on behalf of nepotistic ambition and on behalf of global corporations. If you don't believe we are being farmed then look at your mobile phone bills and ever increasing road toll schemes (which despite the current government loathing, will magically be reinvigorated post NSW election, whoever wins).
Posted by KAEP, Sunday, 29 October 2006 12:07:57 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
Kaep

I'm exhausted perusing all your posts on ocean pollution. I haven't yet learnt of what action you are taking to mitigate the results of wastewater dumping.

Have you approached your local Department of Environment, MP, or met with the Minister for the Environment?

Have you been successful in forming a committee of like-minded citizens where you have requested from your Minister, full participation from the DoE and access to relevant documentation?

Have you officially appealed to the Minister against Licensing Conditions of those industries which are permitted to dump in your area?

If you've received any encouraging advice from any of the above officials, have you been advised where the wastewater will be re-directed to?

Do you know what chemicals the wastewater contains and what specific industries are dumping?

Is wastwater monitored for dangerous chemicals and is there a capping on these pollutants?

Do you realise that changes to environmental/industrial legislation is a result of senior environmental officers' advice to parliament? Are you aware that Departments of Environment defend pollutant industries - not the environment?

Are you aware that any new legislation on pollution will be as arcane as the previous one?!

When you advise that some ocean areas show a reduction in wastewaters, do you realise that this is only temporary?

Can I presume that you and I are in agreement that human activities produce climate change?
Posted by dickie, Sunday, 29 October 2006 1:49:23 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
Many posts ago I was told that the relationship between an increase in Temperature is related to the logarithm of the incremental change in CO2 concentration.

If this is the case a change of CO2 from say 10 ppm to 50 ppm is in terms of the natural logarithm a change from 2.303 to 3.912 or an increment of (3.912-2.303)/2.303 that is about 70%.

On the other hand a change from say 300 ppm +/- 50 ppm is in percentage terms represents a drop in temperature of about 3.2% or an increase of 2.7%.

This surely raises the question is such widespread disruption of industrial activities justified for such a small changes in incremental temperature.

I appreciate that these are crude calculations and that the climate scientists have much more sophisticated models. However, I could not resist doing a few simple sums on the back of the proverbial envelope.

I would be interested to have the views of experts in this area.
Posted by anti-green, Sunday, 29 October 2006 7:25:38 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
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061024/ts_nm/environment_wwf_planet_dc

Humans on this planet are living way beyond their means, and if WE don't take the moral repsonsibility to change our own habits we will tip the scales. You don't have to be a genius to figure that out. But of course, don't tell this to people who wish to live in denial regarding anthropogenic climate change in order to distance themselves from their part in it, or who are in the service of those who profit from that inconvenient truth who spout out information and numbers specifically designed to go over everyone's heads.

And Mr. Carter, the title of Mr. Gore's very important movie is An INCONVENIENT Truth, not an uncertain truth. I would think you could have been more professional in writing this, realizing that if anyone were to write a critique of a project you put your heart and soul into that you would expect that they would at least not mock the title for their own agenda... and doing that gave yours away loud and clear. Mock Al Gore because he came to Australia to tell your boss PM Howard that Australia must come into the 21st Century on this issue. Amazing how your govt can't face climate change, but has no trouble in joining with Bush to fight a war based on LIES. So much for TRUTH, eh?

I also just read an article where it stated that farmers in Australia are committing suicide because of the worst drought in 100 years, because they have lost everything. Perhaps your focus should then be on doing something about this grave issue instead of mocking a good man who sees what this crisis is doing to our world.
Posted by JayM, Sunday, 29 October 2006 11:37:18 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
I would like to disagree with Cathy’s claim (Posted Friday, 13 October 2006) that a doubling of CO2 will only lead to a warming of 0.5 C or less (enough to cancel the 3.7 W/m^2 IR radiative flux). She states that ‘The only way that you can make further CO2 increases alarming is to adopt the IPCC technique of assuming that additional small increments of CO2 will causes a strong water vapour feedback loop.’

The IPCC technique (actually the global climate model approach) does not assume a water vapor feedback. Instead they assume that the laws of physics and chemistry apply to the global climate system. These laws are represented mathematically (Navier-Stokes equation, equations of state, radiative transfer equation, etc) in various degrees of approximation and solved on a global grid (land surface, atmosphere and ocean). The water vapor feedback is a natural consequence of increased evaporation (principally from the oceans) associated with warming the surface. The vapor pressure of water depends strongly (exponentially) on temperature, so to balance the increase associated with a warmer surface the atmosphere water vapor concentration increases. The increase of water vapor in the atmosphere adds to the downward IR flux beyond the CO2 value, and so on. The present stable of climate models disagree on how much additional warming occurs and that is why there is such a large spread in model projections of the warming caused by CO2 increases.

Cathy assumes that there will be no water vapor feedback effect. Somehow the increase in water vapor pressure that results from warming the surface will be miraculously cancelled out by other (unnamed) processes in the climate system.

So the question is, do you want to put your faith in climate models or, like Cathy, do you want to believe in miracles?

Bruneaux
Posted by bruneaux, Friday, 17 November 2006 9:33:09 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
Answers to questions from about article by Bob Carter.

'Why has global temperature not increased since 1998 despite continuing increases in carbon dioxide?'.
Apparently Dr. Carter doesn't read the scientific literature [K. A. Shein and 96 coauthors, State of the Climate in 2005, Special supplement to the Bulleting of the American Meteorological Society, Vol 97, No. 6, June 2006]. 2005 is now the warmest year on record (page S7). 1998 held the previous record because of a strong El Nino;. 2005 was 0.25 C warmer than 1999.

'And why is the Arctic region no warmer now than it was in the 1930s?'
The warmest year on record in the Arctic is 2003, which was 0.5 C warmer than the warmest year (1938) in the Arctic during the 1930's (Figure 5.2, same reference). In fact, the average Arctic temperature for the first five years of the 2000's is 0.7 C warmer than the average for the 1930's.

I would also like to comment on Dr. Carter's qualifications taken from his vita http://myprofile.cos.com/glrmc where he states defines his qualifications ‘include taxonomic palaeontology, palaeoecology, the growth and form of the molluscan shell, New Zealand and Pacific geology, stratigraphic classification, sequence stratigraphy, sedimentology, the Great Barrier Reef, Quaternary geology, and sea-level and climate change.'

Note that Dr. Carter's expertise is in the paleo-climate and the interpretation of past climate from sediments on time scales of millions of years. This has nothing to do with the physics and chemistry of the processes that drive the Earth's climate system. He has never published a single paper in the Journal of Geophysical Research, the Quaterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, or any of the nine journals of the American Meteorlogical Society. These journals contain 95% of the scientific discourse on the climate system.

Bruneaux
Posted by bruneaux, Friday, 17 November 2006 9:49:29 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. ...
  6. 11
  7. 12
  8. 13
  9. Page 14
  10. All

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