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 > Countering a climate of scepticism > Comments

Countering a climate of scepticism : Comments

By Roger Jones, published 4/8/2008

The evidence and reviews support the case for global warming.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. ...
  9. 9
  10. 10
  11. 11
  12. All
Ball of Wax - Part 2

Where does all that heat energy go, if it barely tickles a thermometer?

It goes into the water molecules themselves when the ice becomes liquid. You can't "see" all that energy with a thermometer from a satellite, but it's there just the same.

Now you know why the melting of massive amounts of polar ice must make a little "S" curve or a plateau in the mean annual temperature of the planet. Melting ice draws in a tremendous quantity of heat energy from it's surroundings, including the atmosphere. This is exactly how an Esky works. When sufficient ice has melted, the temperature must start rising again if more calories are entering the system than are leaving it.

With every season's melting and freezing, this "hidden" heat flow takes place, because the water-ice interface is a massive heat bank. Unless we can measure the scale of this, references to someone's neat little temperature graphs is a waste of time (are you reading this Andrew Bolt?).

*

OK - are there any more contributions for the toolkit out there?
Posted by Chris Shaw, Carisbrook 3464, Monday, 4 August 2008 1:49:25 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 can accept that global warming is occurring but what I am not convinced about is that human induced CO2 is a significant portion of the problem and secondly that any increase in CO2 will have
significant effect on global temperature.

http://brneurosci.org/co2.html

This graph
http://brneurosci.org/temperatures6.png

Would indicate that doubling the CO2 will have no noticeable effect
on global warming.

Now I cannot vouch for the science in the article but it does seem to
agree with previous information I have read that states that the
effect of CO2 is non-linear.

It seems to me that this part of the global warming problem gets zero
attention and I would think it should be right in the centre of the
discussion. If it is true then all this carry on about CO2 is just
a hideous outrageous beat up that should send some people to gaol.
Posted by Bazz, Monday, 4 August 2008 2:12:11 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
Whether the climate is changing at all is controversial even among scientists working in the field. Whether the earth surface is heating up en toto is also controversial, and whether we are doing it, have done it, or can indeed do anything about it, is the essential question(s) that sit atop all the controversy and hype. Then comes the fact that even if all these permutations give an unequivocal answer of 'yes' - ie the climate is heating up and we (collectively) are doing it and we can and need to stop it happening - our Australian contribution to the problem is equivalent to the effect of a flea on an elephant, and our puny attempts to alter things by eg changing to more efficient home lighting, home solar panels etc is itself equivalent to a flea on a flea on an elephant. I believe that our efforts should be directed towards coping with changing conditions rather than trying to control the universe.
Examples of coping strategies include water conservation, development of renewable energy sources, efficient food production techniques, education of children as to the problems, waste management techniques, and many more. The carbon trading scheme is a knee-jerk reaction that seems to me to be doomed from the start as present European reaction to Kyoto etc clearly indicates - a virtual guarantee of reduced economic circumstances for most of the population. Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater - save the baby and the bathwater.
Posted by GYM-FISH, Monday, 4 August 2008 2:26:00 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
One criticism of the IPCC which has some objectivity is future emissions scenarios. Several analysts conclude that claimed reserves of oil, coal and gas will prove difficult to extract. Even China is hinting that tight coal supplies may slow their economic boom. Contrary to IPCC predictions by around 2030 there won't be that much left to burn, at least not easily dug up. Today's kindergarten aged kids won't be driving petrol cars or using much coal fired electricity as adults. However by that time thawing swamps and rock where snow used to be could have taken over from manmade emissions.

Thus we simultaneously have a cheap energy crisis and a climate alarm. Therefore it seems prudent to 'decarbonise' fairly quickly whether you believe in AGW or not. Note that the oil companies didn't see such high fuel prices coming so I suggest they are not the people to solve the problem. Swift carbon reductions are an each way bet that may or may not solve the climate problem. They will at least prepare us for other economic hurdles that lie ahead.
Posted by Taswegian, Monday, 4 August 2008 3:07:12 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
refer http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2323407.htm to read how meterologists regard the global warming skeptics arguements

Its apparent that many climate scientists think that the artic ice cap melt is irreversible, and we will be farming in Antarctica and Greenland whilst the equatorial areas get hotter and drier. The world's population is expected to peak at 9 billion before reducing to 1 billion within 100 years.

We all have to adapt pretty quickly to a world where petrol is more expensive, food is more expensive and electricity is more expensive.
Posted by billie, Monday, 4 August 2008 3:18:25 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
It was not long ago that the man made hole in the ozone layer was going to kill us or. Then it was the Y2K bug and now it is global warming. When are these foolish men going to stop inventing 'science' to scare people into their inept conclusions. I suppose many of the proponents believe in 'evolutionary science' which is totally flawed. It is no wonder they continue to have to change the story now with the gw crap. Man's arrogance would be very amusing if it was not so sad. They practice a blind faith and deny their very Maker. The earth will heat up one day you can be sure. It it sure won't be through this gw crap. Read your bibles. It has never been wrong before.
Posted by runner, Monday, 4 August 2008 3:22:53 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. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. ...
  9. 9
  10. 10
  11. 11
  12. All

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