Col Rouge

Since you lack any intellectual ability to debate the science of the topic of this thread, I shall take the plunge and infuriate you further by hypothesizing on your beloved “free” market and its role in the evolutionary process of a threatened planet.

Enter the Industrial Revolution and this was good. Then came the eminent scientists who warned that industrial pollution was bad therefore departments of environment and health were established in the West to protect the environment and human health.

The establishment of these million dollar departments in Australia resulted in this nation becoming the largest polluters per capita on the planet. And this was good -- at least for the industrial barons!

Environmental degradation has resulted from these industry aligned departments making environmental concerns secondary to economic concerns, and having decisions made by people who see environmental resources merely as an adjunct to production, which has perpetuated the problem and subverted any potential for political or value-based change.

Change which is obnoxious only to the Jennifers and the IPA et al.

Advocates, like you Col, see promotion of market-based instruments as a way of resurrecting the role of the market in the face of the market's environmental failures. You would claim that economic instruments provide a way that the power of the market can be harnessed to environmental goals.

History says otherwise!

However, since it is the free autonomous market which has contributed greatly to placing this planet and its inhabitants in the most dire of circumstances, it is clear, even to Blind Fred, that the “free” market approach cannot extend to pollutant industries.

It is also clear that allowing polluters to self-regulate and departments to use “persuasive” rather than enforcement tactics has merely increased hazardous emissions to a level of no return.

Your heroes Col Rouge, those despots who insist that the polluters in the "free" market cartel must continue unfettered and unregulated, have not and will not begin to understand that they've already pushed us to the edge of an abyss.

GrahamY

“How do you demonstrate that there has been a change in South Australia's climate?”

Southern Australia, not only South Australia. Observation.

http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/silo/reg/cli_chg/timeseries.cgi

Generate a graph of mean temperature trends in Southern Australia in winter or spring.

“Why do you say that Halocarbons are "manmade" when they occur naturally as well?”

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v399/n6738/abs/399749a0.html

“Measurements of trace gases in air trapped in polar firn (unconsolidated snow) demonstrate that natural sources of chlorofluorocarbons, halons, persistent chlorocarbon solvents and sulphur hexafluoride to the atmosphere are minimal or non-existent.”

“How does colder air give rise to lower pressure?”

Pressure is proportional to temperature. Gay Lussac’s Law(Other Law:1802).

“Might be worth reading the article that you link to. It doesn't support most of what you say.”

Yes, I have read it, but did I claim that it did? I have posted relevant links earlier. Surely you dont want want a myriad of links, do you? Anyway, here is a more technical link on ozone chemistry.

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/ozone-depletion/antarctic

Col

I’m glad you share my optimism. It would have been economic madness to replace the horse and buggy with the motor car c1900, but technology evolves. I agree with you that market forces are a major driver of change, but I dont see them as sufficient. The discovery of the potential danger of halocarbons and their replacement is an example where market forces alone are unlikely to have been as timely or effective.

Dickie “Since you lack any intellectual ability to debate the science of the topic of this thread,”

I never suggested that.

I said I have no scientific credentials.

The title of the thread is “Carbon rationing or freedom “ it refers to the possible curtailment of individual rights and the article ends with the sentence

“It is not just about climatology; it is also about freedom.”

I am not sure what discipline of science you hold credentials in and I don’t really care but I would observe, any “scientist” who presumes this is a “scientific debate” is completely deluded.

I would claim in making your derogatory statements, Dickie, you have clearly indicated your delusions. One wonders what other of your fantasies you have been foisting upon us.

Credibility is like virginity, once lost it is gone forever, from your posts, far from being a pristine virgin, your credibility is in a place commonly reserved for old trollops.

“Advocates, like you Col,”

I refer you to my earlier post “I am arguing reason, common sense, reliability and an expectation of “truth” being a significant component in any scientific submission.”

Reason, common sense, reliability and “Truth” are words which are obviously, beyond you feeble comprehension.

Regarding “Your heroes Col Rouge, those despots who insist that the polluters in the "free" market cartel must continue unfettered and unregulated”

I do not insist on much but now I do.

For you to retain any veneer of decency and what might, in a reasonable person but not in you, have once been considered “credibility”, you will quote where I have ever penned heroic support for any cartel of any shape or form.

It is your “intellectual ability” which is now on the line Dickie,

Show everyone else what you are made of.

For myself I already know and when I smell it, I immediately wipe if off the sole of my shoe.

Fester “market forces alone are unlikely to have been as timely or effective.”

Nice, “speculating” on the effectiveness of market forces.

This is an ironic moment.

Fester, those links don't prove anything. The BOM graph goes back only 100 years which is not long enough to document a climate change; it appears to show rising rainfall (although this is an effect of just two very wet recent periods) and is not of southern Australia. What does that prove?

Halocarbons are also produced by wood fire and volcanic action, neither of which are manmade. The colder an atmospheric system the higher the pressure under it, that's consistent with Guy-Lussac's law.

When you post a link in an argument others expect you to post one that supports your argument, not one that is irrelevant. You've done that again. This final link doesn't support your contention about the South Australian climate, it is just an explanation of ozone depletion over the South Pole, which is not in contention.

And we're way off the original topic which is the discovery that cloud formation appears to be a negative rather than a positive feedback, although we need a longer time set and some more theories to be sure.

“Fester, those links don't prove anything.”

They do, Graham. You need to set the variables manually. With variables “Mean Temperature” and “Southern Australia”, there is a jump to higher temperatures coincident with increasing atmospheric halocarbons and a contracting vortex. A link to the NOAA halocarbon monitoring site:

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/odgi/

“Halocarbons are also produced by wood fire and volcanic action, neither of which are manmade.”

True, but not all halocarbons occur naturally in any quantity. From the above link:

“Methyl bromide and methyl chloride (CH3Br, CH3Cl) are unique among ozone-depleting gases because they have substantial natural components.”

“The colder an atmospheric system the higher the pressure under it, that's consistent with Guy-Lussac's law.”

Consistent with the knowledge you are demonstrating to me, Graham, but meaningless scientifically. The development of the polar vortex, an intense low pressure system, is associated with the cooling. The low pressure systems that bring rain to Southern Australia are known as cold fronts. High pressure systems are associated with warmer weather. This why a contracting vortex can cause elevated average temperatures in Southern Australia during winter and spring.

“When you post a link in an argument others expect you to post one that supports your argument, not one that is irrelevant. You've done that again.”

Not so. The link did support my argument in part, and I have provided other supporting links previously in the thread.

“And we're way off the original topic”

Not really. The credibility of a scientific idea comes a diversity of observations leading to a similar conclusion. Spencer's hypothesis would seem to contradict many observations. Anyway, it has demonstrated to the forum your profound ignorance of some basic science. Now what does this suggest of your competence to discuss things scientifically?

Col

Can you explain to me how market forces might have lead to the discovery of ozone or the effect of atmospheric cfcs? It is all part our civilisation. Are you suggesting that civilisation would function better if part of it were cut off?

Now that is speculating.

Fester, a rule on this forum appears to be that the more abusive the poster the less they are likely to know, and you're demonstrating this law at the moment.

The BOM link still doesn't prove anything. It's got hotter all over Australia (and in fact got hotter in northern Australia first) unless you're blaming global warming on ozone depletion you'll need to find some other indicator.

High pressure systems are formed from colder air, and low pressure systems from warmer air. Both systems can be associated with cold fronts, but you shouldn't confuse the front with the system. I asked you why a colder system would lead to lower pressure, but you haven't done that.

I see you're correcting your error on halocarbons.

And all of this is really a red-herring and off-topic, because none of these effects have any bearing on Spencer's observations which have nothing to do with ozone depletion. You're the one interested in ozone, he's interested in cloud formation.