Comments on: Nelson’s right, but can he prosecute the adaptation case?

By: Temujin

Temujin — Sat, 02 Aug 2008 00:55:46 +0000

Well… if you accept that co2 is a greenhouse gas then you accept that more co2 should lead to higher temperatures.
Perhaps you think that the impact will be small. Fair enough. But that’s different from saying there is no impact.
The actual amount of current co2 in the atmosphere isn’t important. What matters is exactly how changes in that concentration may change the climate.
I think somewhere between 1% and 99% of the 0.6 degree warming was caused by higher co2. That may seem like a big range… but my point is that those who argue for exactly 0% or 100% are the ones making weird claims out of proportion with the certainty of current knowledge. My range is much more likely.

By: Gillian

Gillian — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 21:24:51 +0000

Thanks, Charles, I read the Wikipedia entry. It was very interesting, but still does not prove to me that an increase in CO2 causes climate change/global warming.

By: Arjay

Arjay — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 21:32:21 +0000

Gillian said,”Graham ,where is the proof that increase in CO2 causes climate warming?”Gillian,Graham is looking at the political reality,not the environmental one.He is saying that Brendan is being too honest since according to the latest poll over 80% of the pop believe in AGW and the need for Carbon taxes.
The game of politics is never simple and since like most market places ,there is never perfect knowledge,nor intelligent design.

By: charles

charles — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 20:50:41 +0000

Gillian if it is truly an explanation as to why a greenhouse gas is greenhouse gases you will find the explanation here.

By: Gillian

Gillian — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 19:47:59 +0000

Yes, Graham, of course CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but is too small in the scheme of things to have any effect. Here is the reference you want http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

By: Graham Young

Graham Young — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 15:17:44 +0000

Gillian, if you are looking for a proof in the sense of someone having a world in one test tube with low CO2 and another world in another test tube with high CO2, then it doesn’t exist.
But if you want proof that CO2 does absorb infra-red radiation, and re-radiate it, then it does exist. Someone might be able to point me to a reference, but it’s just so universally accepted as to be beyond argument.
The arguments are how much it adds to world temperature, and what other negative or positive forcings might exist. I can’t think of a single global warming sceptic who denies that C02 is a greenhouse gas, and I’d be surprised if you could either. The prominent sceptics in Australia like Bob Carter, Ian Plimer, William Kininmonth and Jennifer Marohasy all accept that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

By: Gillian

Gillian — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 13:27:35 +0000

Graham – what proof? I am serious – for some years I have been reading everything I can find about global warming, and I have not yet found the proof.

By: Terry

Terry — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 12:53:01 +0000

Graham
Good policy and Brendan Nelson are never going to go together. As long as he and the Coalition need to complain loudly that the world is going to hell in a handbasket every time Labor implement a policy they were elected to implement, we are just going to watch a conga-line of Opposition leaders going to the 2011 elections without any clear policies on anything. They should cut a deal with the Government on ETS by 2012 and move on.

By: Vee

Vee — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 22:00:47 +0000

Actually Brendan Nelson’s wrong. If Australia can take up an ETS and show that it works, Australia can say they’ve started to or have cleaned up their backyard and we would like to help India and China too.
Thus exporting the idea and moving practically the only muscle we have, international diplomacy.

By: Graham Young

Graham Young — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 21:30:30 +0000

Gillian, the proof is well accepted across the board. It’s about the only thing on which there is a genuine consensus. The issue isn’t whether CO2 causes warming, but to what degree.