Well, the increase in hurricanes since the 1980's has more or less been an increase in recorded hurricanes. We didn't exactly know about most hurricanes, and since most ended harmlessly out over the open ocean, they weren't typically recorded even if they were identified.
As a result the number of recorded hurricanes has increased, particularly with the advent of satellite technology and total global measuring, but whether there is a statistically significant measurable trend is largely unknown. It will take at least another 30 more years of study to see what happens.
As well, the biggest carbon dioxide sink source is in the ocean, with plankton and algae. In fact, trees only make up a minor carbon sink source; in fact, out of all the carbon sink sources, the ocean, the water itself, absorbs about half the carbon dioxide we produce. So, if trees form about 10%, maximum of all the organic carbon sink sources, over 70% being from algae alone, and then there's bacteria in the oceans, as well, then out of the total carbon sink sources, trees would only form less than 5% of the total carbon dioxide sink sources, since more is absorbed by non-organic sources etc. Which are largely unchanged, since over 90% of the world's forests still persist. It's generally believed that trees only make up about 3% of the world's carbon sink sources, which is relatively insignificant.
As well, there is actually little evidence that the ocean is rising or the polar ice caps are melting. The polar ice caps formed over millions of years, with the earth's tilt being just enough, in the direction away from the sun, to provide a 15 longer day in the winter, and a 15 shorter summer, creating more cold than heat, thus forming ice, which over time formed into large chunks of ice. The stored energy in this far exceeds that of the entire atmosphere; even if we condensed the entire atmosphere into it, it would take thousands of years for the polar ice caps to melt. The thermal energy is significantly higher than the atmosphere. Even though it's colder, think of trying to melt an ice sculpture with a single match. It's not really possible. To give you a rough idea, the ice caps are each over a mile thick. The entire atmosphere, the entire atmosphere, over 10 miles up, 320 miles into the air, provides 1 atmospheric pressure. Just 1. 7.5 feet down in the water, you typically get about 1 atmospheric pressure; at the bottom of the ocean, it's enormous, with many tons of pressure present. 7.5 feet of water is equal to the entire weight of the atmosphere on top of your head all the way into space. So, imagine the amount of raw mass in an ice sheet several miles thick; the fact remains that the density is so huge it would take at minimum thousands of years to melt it even if the atmosphere had double the energy, becuase the thermal energy of the ice, and that which is required to change it's temperature, far exceeds what the atmosphere can provide. More importantly, the poles of the earth don't seem to be experiencing the same warming effect of the rest of the earth, so it's largely irrelevant. There is however, a natural trend of ozone depletion over the Artic, but this is known to be natural, and it's not known if this is exacerbated by man kinds ozone depletion.
In fact, even if the polar ice caps melted, the oceans would not rise much. The tip of an iceberg typically is only about 9% of the total ice berg, since the density of ice is much lower than liquid water. This causes about 9% of it to stick up out of the water, since it is around 9% less dense than water. However, much of the ice is submerged below seal level; in fact, the artic ice sheets have pushed parts of greenland and Antartica more than 2.6 km below sea level, the sheer weight of the ice stacking up on top of itself and lowering the land mass. Thus, the majority of the ice, well over 90%, is already under water. In fact, it is about 10% bigger than water. Should it melt, you should actually see the ocean levels go down. Imagine you removed a giant mountain from the ocean, that was raising the ocean level slightly due to it displacing the water; since the ice is already under water, removing it would lower the levels; since ice is less dense than water, when it melts, it should actually go down.
Additionally, it's true the difference was only about 9 degrees between the ice age and our current age. But the ice age largely effected the most northern and southern parts of the planet, and places like Africa, which are largely desert now, once contained lush forests, which they still do (although there is increased desertification). This is a process which has been occurring over thousands of years, regardless of human intervention. However, changing atmospheric temperatures did not cause this. In fact, the environment determines the temperature of the atmosphere. Let's take a look at the desert; we would think that, at the equator, all things equal, it should be an equal temperature around, but it's not. In the amazon jungle, temperatures are more stable due to the vegetation, which release and retain enormous amounts of water (known as rain forests, since this abundance of water causes lots of rain). The vegetation there largely influences the climate, which solidifies an abundance of water. In the amazon jungle, the amazon river is the widest river in the world, very close in length to the nile; in Africa, the nile river forms the longest river in the world, suggesting an abundance of water in both climates; since all water heads towards the equator, it makes sense you would have the largest rivers in the world at the equator (which is why Australian water flows "up"). However, the flora largely absorbs the water in the Amazon Jungle, stabilizing the temperatures, and ensuring an abundance of life.
However, this does not mean it's colder on average; in fact, water is the biggest greenhouse gas on earth, representing about 98% of all greenhouse gases in terms of mass. Where there is more water, there will actually be higher temperatures. However, at night, in the desert, it's not uncommon for temperatures to drop below freezing. You can go from 105 degree days to below freezing nights, because there is nothing to hold the heat or water in. It all evaporates or disappears during the day. Thus, what determines the atmospheric temperature is the land, and what determines the climate is the land below, be it sandy, rocky, muddy, or filled with vegetation, and typically not the other way around. Thus a changing air temperature doesn't necessarily reflect a changing climate, per say. It is more realistic to think of changing air temperatures being a result of the environment, and not vice versa. Thus, if the air is warming as a result of a greenhouse effect, it won't necessarily indicate that the climate is changing, or necessarily even change the climate, since it has a much more powerful role in determining temperature. Also, it explains why humidity increases the problems associated with heat.
Although your words do not fall on deaf ears, The Dark Empire. I am always open to civil discourse, particularly in fields of science, so some of my potentially harsher statements aren't exactly directed towards you. xP
Edited by Manoka, 07 July 2013 - 12:50 PM.
