longweekend58 wrote on May 15
th, 2011 at 3:21pm:
Quote:1) That the Earth would warm as more CO2 was put into the atmosphere (Svante Arrhenius in 1893)
a circular argument based on the assumption that CO2 is a cause rather than an effect.
It's been shown to you why this is an erroneous assumption on your part. CO2 definitively and demonstrably DOES cause warming, and it is easily proved:
Pretty basic stuff. Also, care to comment on why the Earth isn't a giant ball lof ice, if indeed CO2 DOESN'T warm the planet?
Quote:2) That we'd begin to see noticable changes to Earth's climate by around 2000 (some IPCC scientists ).
expect there HASNT been any such events. [/quote]
Yes there has.
Quote:3) That sea-level would start rising
but it hasnt outside the usual cyclical rise and fall of a few mm [/quote]
Sea rise isn't 'cyclical', you nonce. We can measure the rate of thermal expansion which, unlike your simplistic assumption about CO2, really IS a function of temperature change.
Quote:4) That Earth's Ice would start melting rapidly (James Hanson)
theres that pesky prediction of the artic ice disappearing which simply refuses to happen. and the antarctic has actually MORE ice on one side of the continent. bummer that one. [/quote]
Actually, the Arctic sea ice has declined WAy faster than anyone could ever have predicted
http://nsidc.org/sotc/sea_ice.html Once again you've been sorely misled.
As for the Antarctic, scientists have predicted for well over thirty years that initially AGW would lead to an increase in Antarctic ice mass in Eastern Antarctic (due to increased precipitation and the nature of the Southern ocean which would circulate a lot of cold water), while the Western Antarctic would warm. Well, the Western Antarctic is in a state of decline as the massive collapse of the Larsen B ice sheet demonstrated so graphically. While the Eastern Antarctic is for the first time showing signs of mass loss decades and deecades before anyone had previously predicted:
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/20100108_Is_Antarctica_Melting.html Quote:5) That hurricanes would increase in intensity (this one goes back to Alfred Russel Wallace in 1900)
the worlds foremost expert on hurricanes explicity rejetced that notion saying that hurricanes had been far worse in the past. [/quote]
Source?
Quote:6) That species would start going extinct as a result of climate change.
theyve been going extinct for a couple centuries now. nothing new. [/quote]
No but the CAUSE is, and that's the point.
Quote:7) That Australia would start drying out (Hadley Centre scientists)
tell that to QLD NSW VIC and SA now inundated with RECORD rain. EPIC FAIL. [/quote]
Due to La Nina, which has been amplified by the record high Pacific Ocean temps and have resulted in u unprecedented rainfall events and flooding emergencies across the southern hemisphere. And, we will soon go back to an extreme and extended El Nino, cycles which have demonstrably gotten worse in terms of intensity and duration, longer and hotter, meaning more intense droughts of greater intensity and duration - just like climate scientists have been opredicting for over thirty years.
Quote:8) That tropical diseases would increase
unsupported fanciful imagination [/quote]
http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?q=tropical+disease+increase+climate+change&... Quote:9) That food crops would be adversely affected
simply not true. food supply problems are because of population growth and war - not climate. [/quote]
For starters, this article was written a year or two BEFORE the global food shock, however there is very GOOD evidence that climate change played a critical role in the emergency. We'll get to that later.
Secondly, he is 100% right. Climate change HAS adversely affected food crops, and it will get worse.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=climate-change-impacts-staple-c... Quote:10) That the CO2 would begin to acidify the ocean
despite the fact that the CO2 level is 1/10th of what it has been in histry. [/quote]
Yes, and the ocean was much, much more acidic:
http://theotherco2problem.wordpress.com/what-do-studies-about-past-climate-and-o...So, once again I have demonstrated that you understanding of the issue is based on serious misconceptions and that this is because you limit your information sources to those that confirm your biases becasue this is primarily a political, not scientific issue, for you.
Forum
Pages: 
Should Abbott apologise to Flannery? (Read 72348 times)
