Hey, you can check me out I post on CommSec and also Top stocks (which hilariously you aren't allowed to refer to in this forum just FYI), although not often I must admit and I've only recently started doing so. I'm definitely not a second account of anyone indeed I only began investing in June as I'm only 20, and haven't frequented these sort of sites for longer than 6 months.
@ Ronsterm - how in Christs name do you get out of the following that the temperature increase is slowing: "Global temperature increase from 1901-2010: 0.8 degrees Global temperature increase from 1979-2010: 0.5 degrees". How do you not understand that this means in 78 years from 1901-1979 the temperature increased 0.3 degrees, and from 1979-2010 the temperature increase a further 0.5 degrees for a total increase from 1901-2010 of 0.8 degrees. That is a pretty significant increase, indeed a 100%+ increase.
Admittedly it is not well known why global warming has slowed over the last 15 years, although the best bets are increased volcanic ash in the atmosphere which slightly blocks sunlight as well as pumps sulfides into the upper atmosphere (more on this later) and vastly decreased solar activity. A lot of global warming skeptics like to use solar activity to explain the warming over the last century, but the evidence suggests the sun has been pretty subdued over this period.
Also, that 32-48 billion tonnes actually represents over 10% of all C02 supposedly stored in the ocean water itself, so again that is a highly significant number. The range is pretty large for sure, and is because we simply don't have enough data particularly from extremely deep ocean water to give a more accurate figure. The reason that high levels of C02 in the atmosphere is a bad thing, apart from the warming and other effects is that it will then be absorbed by the oceans.
If you want some reading to do over the weekend then just google something along the lines of "impact of ocean acidification", there has been a tonne of research done on this but I'll give you some highlights to get you started.
Foraminifera shells, which are creatures that sit at the bottom of oceans and form the base of the food chain for many creatures in the ocean are finding it hard to make their shells. A study featured in Nature journal (surely one of your least favourite publications?) shows that one particular species has shells 30-35% thinner now than in pre-industrialized times, and scientists doing what they do can put this down to a more acidic ocean. What happens if these organisms can't make their shells anymore is they will no longer exist, and if they no longer exist well then your food chain may well collapse. What happens then is that fish stock will collapse, and as seafood accounts for over 15% of the worlds protein intake particularly in poorer countries, this represents a significant issue.
Coral has it particularly bad, not only are they hit by increasing temperatures, but decreasing pH also makes it harder for them to absorb Aragonite from the water, chiefly because it is already bonded to carbon molecules in the water. You can Google the significance of coral to the ocean and even to the atmosphere for your self, you might find some pretty worrying stuff.
That organism that releases the solar radiation limiting substance, well it turns out its plankton, you know basically one of the most common life forms on earth. Increased acidity inhibits the production of the compound dimethyl sulphide, which not only reflects harmful solar radiation, but also heat from the sun. So less of that in the atmosphere is clearly not a good thing. Indeed it is believed projected levels of ocean acidification could reduce the level of dimethyl sulphide released by 18% by 2010, which could lead to an increase in temperature of 0.48 degrees over that period on its own.
On Antarctica, it is indeed increasing in ice volume based on recent analysis. However, the modelling also shows that this increase is significantly slower than the decrease in Arctic sea ice and other land bound ice globally. Our best theory on why the increase is occurring is that the prevailing winds have changed direction and ocean currents have undergone changes.
Analysis of ice movements and wind pattern data shows that the change in wind direction pushed sea ice away from the continent and is therefore creating more open sea very close to the continent where it is very cold and ideal for the formation of sea ice. Not only has it changed direction but the power of the vortex winds that circle the Antarctic has increased, amplifying the effect. Certainly we do not understand the situation very well. As with all things Antarctica really, scientific exploration is so limited due to its extreme climate and remoteness that it's impossible to know exactly what is going on.
For what its worth, if you Google Tachyon_Nova with a certain suffix you'll find a treasure trove of info on me, including my address, funnily enough from gaming forums but nothing based in Indonesia. You might even find me on Call of Duty Black Ops 2 if you fancy some TDM on PS3 (as I said, I'm only 20).
My point with the QLD extremes was more that extremes are happening exceedingly more often, be it record floods, droughts, heat, cold, tornadoes, cyclones, and any other weather or climate event you can think of. However heating is the main trend, and there was 2.04 record highs set for every record low over the last decade in the US alone for what it's worth, similar patters were set globally over the last decade, you can find the data if you look for it.
Anything else I can help with, I'll be happy to do my best.
I think you guys fail to see the scale of the issue with Carbon dioxide pollution. There is so much to know that you really have to dedicate a lot of time to reading pretty full on science journals to understand the full implications of it, so it doesn't surprise me that so many people shrug it off, they simply don't understand what it is they are denying. It isn't just a matter of it being a simple greenhouse gas, the greenhouse effect of C02 is such a small part of the issue in fact.
People like you guys are willfully ignorant though. You clearly don't understand what you are talking about, you see numbers that suit you and just latch onto them without looking at them in context or attempting to understand the explanations for them, and you don't ever try and research points made by people such as myself, you just give an automatic denial or discredit the reports for no logical reason. Personally I believe things based on the balance of probability, it seems to me that doubters such as yourselves believe things because either it suits their other beliefs (ie that god is the only one who can control things on that scale), they have a vested interest in slowing climate action (ie oil producers, coal miners etc), they're simply too stupid to understand the science or are simply spouting out the line of their favored right wing political party, which for some reason are universally against climate change action (hint, that reason is that short term they will lose out by dealing with the issue as it will mean spending some money for no immediate monetary gain). The balance of probability is so clearly in favor of human induced climate change that if rich people weren't funding the 'debate' and discrediting science itself, there simply wouldn't be a debate.
