astro_surf wrote on May 14^th, 2011 at 5:31pm:


now you are just being stupid and frankly, deceietful. Flannery DID make predictions which even he belatedly acknowledged and each one was badly wrong.

Quote:


Perhaps you should quote him Longy.

longweekend58 wrote on May 14^th, 2011 at 5:20pm:


Massive logical fallacy. Scientists believed in ether until the evidence led them not to believe in it. There is ZERO evidence that a 40% increase in CO2 wouldn't cause exactly the kind of warming we are currently witnessing. Unless you have some? Feel free to present it if you do!

Quote:


A. It does not have 'multiple hoiles'. Feel free to present evidence to the contrary.

B. Yes, you keep repeating it even after it is explained to you why your understanding is completely wrong. Allow me to repeat myself; yes, the oceans emit more CO2 than humans (actually it's a lot less than that, the total that the oceans and the biomass combined is a bit less than 50 times what humans emit, but let's not quibble over something as trivial as accuracy) but they also ABSORB more than humans emit. In fact, the absorb about 40% of human emissions, but it is the other 60% per cent that has accumulated in the atmosphere and caused CO2 levels to rise to the highest they have been in 15 million years.

Quote:


They're not "in line" with ours, some planets appear to have warmed while others have cooled. But each planet has it's own climate mechanisms that cause those warmings or coolings. Take Mars for instance, if Mars' atmosphere changed for the same reason as Earth's then we'd be a frozen ball of ice because we'd be much the same temperature as Mars.

On Mars, the temperature is dictated by the amount of dust in the atmosphere, which reflects sunlight, when dust levels fall it warms, when they rise it cools.

On Earth, what prevents the planet from being a ball of ice is the presence of greenhouse gasses, the most important of which is CO2, and it stands to reason when you increase the amount of any particular greenhouse gas by 40% then it is going to change the temperature of the planet. It is absurd to say that Co2 doesn't keep the planet warm.

Quote:


It's not a matter of assuming anything. We can measure the rate of Co2 output and we can measure the rate of absorption, we have instrumental measurements showing that CO2 has increased dramatically, we have isotopic evidence proving that the Co2 in the atmosphere comes from burnt fossil fuels. We KNOW that there is an imbalance in what was a finely balanced cycle and that we are causing it.

As for the effects; we can measure the rate at which CO2 absorbs and re-emits longwave radiation and know precisely how much heat is trapped by CO2. We have satellites that can directly measure the incoming and outgoing energy and conclusively demonstrate the energy imbalance. We know that the excess heat is accumulating in the oceans, We have instrumental records demonstrating that temperatures are rising, we know that without the sudden rise in CO2 that temperatures should have decreased.

There is nothing, repeat NOTHING that can explain why CO2 wouldn't be warming the planet nor that CO2 isn't causing a current warming or for anything else that could be causing it. You have the grand sum of sweet F all.

Quote:


No I don't. I make an effort to understand something before forming a strong opinion on it. While you make arrogant pronouncements that you, as an unqualified person who has demonstrated a clear misunderstanding of basic concepts underpinning the global climate, is in any position to cast judgment on the scientists who have dedicated their lives to understanding the climate systems based entirely on what you have read in a tabloid newspaper.

That is a shocking display of blind ideology over scientific reason, if ever I've seen one.

creep wrote on May 14^th, 2011 at 5:37pm:



That is chicken feed to someone of Tim Flannerys academic achievments.
You will find Flannery is earning much less than he is entitled to in that position, CEOS of state govt depts get more than double that and according to Abbott its just above the poverty line and should be subsidised with welfare 

adelcrow wrote on May 14^th, 2011 at 6:27pm:




Flannery wouldnt be a 40 hr @ week gig, maybe 1 day a month at best. Else what else is the scaremongering alarmist doing.

Swan decreed that 150K was "rich enough" so why doesnt he cut the wage to Flannery for doing very little except scaremonger.

adelcrow wrote on May 14^th, 2011 at 6:20pm:



That is the incisive analysis we have come to expect from you and other proles parading their arts degrees.

Why the bugger do we have still soooo many ignorant and uneducated people, as you put it, even though education at every level has been Whitlamite for 40 years??? Leftist morons captured the education system a long time ago. WHy are they churning out semi-literates?

We all know the answer.

astro_surf wrote on May 14^th, 2011 at 6:23pm:

LONGY DOESN'T UNDERSTAND POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE FEEDBACK MECHANISMS... ATLEAST HE PRETENDS NOT TOO: THAT'S WHAT THE METH IS FOR!!