Leo, previously you gave a reference from Andrew Bolt about how Tuvalu has had no impact from climate change. Here is the reference you gave:

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/opinion/theories-fail-to-take-atoll/story-e6frfhqf-1225875224751

This is what is actually happening; completely different than the veritable Bolt says:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNql8BiAijw It works by copying and pasting.

A tendency climate deniers employ is to be insular in relation to what they try and review. The problem is that climate change is happening at the extremes of our planet.
In a post on another thread, I gave a reference to an epidemiological in Canada where water has been contaminated and where Inuit have come down with illness through pathogens being in the water they drank from brooks. The matter being attributed to warmer conditions.
In the same article there was comment about how the Inuit need to be exceptionally careful to travel to areas they had normally visited easily due to lack of stability of the ice. Just to make it clear, the article published in 2012, stated that there is already a 4 degree Celsius increase in temperature; meaning that where ice had been crossable in the past, that is no longer the case.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/04/120405-climate-change-waterborne-diseases-inuit/

In another epidemiological study I have given reference to where encephalitis was seen to be an issue in the 1980s, climate change was seen to be the issue.

Earlier this year temperatures were high in Scandinavian countries as indicated by; the temperature in the early winter of 2014 were 4 to 5 degrees Celsius above normal through the Scandinavian countries; it created unusual circumstances with migratory birds delaying their migratory flights, and flowers showing out of their normal season. While Scandinavian countries were warm during early winter the USA had a cold snap.

http://www.thelocal.se/20140109/winter-on-the-way-for-sweden

As indicated by the epidemiological study in relation to encephalitis temperatures have been anomalous for many years. Most people would realize that epidemiological studies do not occur without a distinct trend being noticeable.

The question arises how do anthroprogenic climate change deniers argue against secondary impacts from climate change.

Hello ant,

In your post you list some circumstantial cases and by inference accuse carbon dioxide of being the culprit. You put carbon dioxide in the dock. Let's have a look at your allegations.

Tuvalu - youtube videos made by greeny advocates have no more or less credibility than Bolt. No case.

Contaminated water in Canadian brooks being attributed to warmer conditions is no evidence against carbon dioxide. No proof of connection. No case.

Inuit concerns over lack of stability of ice has no direct relationship to climate. The ice your referring to is mostly melted from below by water which is always warmer than the ice above it (otherwise it'd be ice too). Circumstantial evidence against carbon dioxide with no direct link. No case.

Outbreaks of encephalitis in the 1980s - climate change was seen to be the issue. By whom? Where's the scientific evidence? Direct relationships? This is utter rubbish. No case against carbon dioxide here.

Hot air temps in Scandinavia, cold air temps in USA. So what? That's weather. No global heating trend for the last 15 years while carbon dioxide levels soar. No relationship here. No case.

"Most people would realize that epidemiological studies do not occur without a distinct trend being noticeable". Most people are fools and buffoons. What trend? What evidence points at carbon dioxide? Nothing. No case only here-say and nonsense.

"...how do anthroprogenic climate change deniers argue against secondary impacts from climate change..." More to the point is, how do anthropogenic climate change alarmists argue the science of primary impacts on climate caused by carbon dioxide? The simple answer is they can't.

There is no case here whatsoever in your allegations directly concerning carbon dioxide. There's no science, just here-say, innuendo and circumstantial hoohah.

In my assessment - case dismissed.

Would someone please post up some science that shows the direct relationships and overwhelming empirical evidence of the actual effects of carbon dioxide on global air temp? Not just more fluffy conjecture.

Cheers all.

voxUnius @ 9.49

I can provide you with an onslaught of articles to satisfy your denial postulations.

Start with this article that is as early as 1975 in a research paper from the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory at Princeton University.

It deals with "The Effect of Doubling of CO2 on Climate of a General Circulation Model" and can be read here;

https://courses.seas.harvard.edu/climate/eli/Courses/EPS281r/Sources/Greenhouse-effect/more/Manabe-Wetherald-1975.pdf

Of course I am sure you will come back with Princeton are part of the left wing communist, anti-industrial conspiracy which deniers are fond of citing. You will also no doubt refer to the use of models while ignoring that all weather prediction is based on the same climate models and no one seriously doubts that the BOM, for example, are pretty accurate on their forecasts. if they were not then all agriculture would fail as agronomists rely on these data to determine plantings and harvest cycles.

However, there are hundreds more so please provide your analysis so we can start on your education...perhaps some of the LNP Senate members could be invited as well.

voxUnius, in relation to encephalitis, I gave a Lancet reference, you took part in that particular thread. Leo, keeps commenting on climate scientists committing fraud. Whether you like it or not, the Inuit are finding it more difficult to live their normal lives due to climate change, it had been happening over a number of years, not just due to variables in weather. Read the reference I gave; voxUnius, its pretty clear what is happening. The only way we know whats happening in other parts of the world is through reports we obtain from sources that experience the particular circumstances. The National Geographic is a reliable source as is The Lancet.

Carbon Dioxide is involved with acidification of water ways, carbonic acid is formed through water and carbon dioxide combining to form carbonic acid. Carbonic acid may fall in rainfall but waterways as well take up carbon dioxide it has been known since the end of the nineteenth century.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Tyndall/

Prior to the Industrial Revolution carbon dioxide was around 270 parts per million, it has increased until it has now reached up to 400parts per million. Climate change scientists say they have gone through every possible variable and carbon dioxide is seen to be the cause of climate change. High levels of carbon dioxide have been associated with warm climates millions of years ago.


Anthroprogenic climate change is a real inconvenience to fossil fuel miners.

You obviously claim that carbon dioxide has no bearing on climate change, where is your proof?
I'd like you to debunk acidification as well.

voxUnius, was Andrew Bolt wrong about Tuvalu? Remember that there has been an increase in sea level; which makes strong storm surges and high tides providing a greater impact than previously.

.

Hi Pete,

Many thanks for the link. I have downloaded the pdf for later perusal.

Aside - When are the academics going to stop stuffing around with paper and dinosaur pdf facsimiles? Don't they know that this is 2014 and a digital age? Why can't they learn to use xml and html like the rest of us?

Back to the point - I'm too busy today to give it time, but I shall later. On first glance it seems to contain what I called "fluffy conjecture". But I will consider it genuinely.

You say - "...no one seriously doubts that the BOM, for example, are pretty accurate on their forecasts". 'Pretty accurate' is a loose term. I'd reckon their forecasts are about 98% accurate for aviation met (6 hour forecasts, about as good as mine), next day forecasts about 80% accurate (about as good as mine from BoM synoptic charts) and about 70% accurate for 3 day forecasts (about as good as mine too) except I don't use computer modelling. I use the knowledge I learnt back when weather really was a science of observation and conclusions, not a computer game.

Anyway cheers and thanks again. I'll get back to you, probably tomorrow.

Along ant lines....

voxUnius wants "overwhelming empirical evidence" to support the CO2 hypothesis.

What if I want that for the existence of atoms? Nobody's ever seen one (tho' some they claim they have with computers). Would I be foolish to assume that a theory which accounts for so much is baseless because overwhelming empirical evidence for their existence doesn't exist?

The existence of atoms is supported by the myriad of theoretical models, in all fields of science, that rely on presumption of their existence. Yet, acceptance of this took a rocky road, such as is briefly discussed here. http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2008-summer/newton-proof-atomic-theory.asp

Some see the light: http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052970204422404576594872796327348 Some won't, boringly banging on about fraud without positing a better scientific basis for observed phenomena, or about a pet hypothesis going against all the science mounted against them.

I'd be a fool to propose an alternative to the atomic hypothesis that does not account for observed phenomena. The CO2 hypothesis is the best we have and we should immediately respond to its dictates given its trajectory, even if by some future discovery we find it is wrong, or that atoms don't exist.