Thats a troll post :shock: When something is not proven, and I reacted. :lol:[/quote]
There you go again? It is proven, even the US Govt acknowledges it. I accept that there can be many factors other than emissions that can contribute to global warming, volcanic activity being a significant one.
Firefly wrote:
Nothing!As half of it melts each year already and its already in the water.
Nice trick question
You’d be amazed at how many people don’t know that though…
Close but not quite correct. If the artic ice cap melted and nothing at all else changed, the sea level would drop very slightly. The ice is less dense than the sea water below, which is why it floats. If the seawater had the same salinity as the ice, then the level wouldn’t change.
However, sea water is slightly more dense than fresh water (or sea ice, which is between the two in its salinity). The fresh water dilutes the salinity, but not to the extent that that the volume expands to equal that of the sea water.
All that said, global warming is a fact accepted my most rational scientists not in the pay of interested parties and we should all make evry effort to minimise carbon dioxide emissions.
edit to fix quote codes
Bollocks!
Most “climate change scientists” are in the pay of universities/governments and the promotion of the anthropogenic global warming theory guarantees their funding. That is their vested interest - AGW is a trendy theory and governments throw lots of research money at it.
If there had been a single conclusive piece of evidence for anthropogenic global warming there would be no sceptics. If everything was to do with human CO2 emissions, then why did the global cooling scare of the 60s and 70s happen? If the theory were true, then the temperature wouldn’t have dropped during that period!
EDIT: Here’s a goodun: http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?ide=4
And David Bellamy’s excellent article: http://www.junkscience.com/july04/Daily_Mail-Bellamy.htm
I think we will have to disagree on this one. For every article you bring to the debate, I’ll be able to find one with an opposite view. e.g.
The Friends of Science article says
Average ground station readings do show a mild warming over the last 100 years, but well within the natural variations recorded in the last millenium. The ground station network suffers from an uneven distribution across the globe; the stations are preferentially located in growing urban and industrial areas (“heat islands”) which show substantially higher readings than adjacent rural areas (“land use effects”).
Whereas this article in New Scientist points to a 3 degree rise in 40 years.
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/mg18725124.500
Where Friends of Science talks of no evidence that global warming will cause changes in storms, this link suggests another theory
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/mg18524835.500
and David Bellamy is just a beardy wanker who is in dire need of a good hoofing. I base this on an experience of him a few years ago when he irritated me 
Anyway, if AGW is true, all those living below 77 M AMSL have a problem. My brother (who may work for the same company as you, given your LOCSTAT) calculated it at 66 M AMSL so I made sure my house is well above that!
Kind regards, and really not looking to have a tit-for-tat about this when we could be bitching about IRONCHILD
Fluffy[/quote]
New Scientist stopped being a serious science mag a few years ago & went all populist (and I stopped buying it as a result).
Interestingly, the study “Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Concentrations Over The Last Glacial Termination” tells us what anyone with an A-level in chemistry should know - the CO2 rise lags the temperature rise (the sea is in CO2 equilibrium with the air - a rise or fall in temperature reduces the solubility of CO2, so shifts the point of equilibrium - the same reason that when a glass of cold water gets warm, gas bubbles form).
When some conclusive proof comes out, I’ll accept it. Until then, I’m not prepared to treat any science as “belief”, and shall treat the current global warming hysteria with the same disdain as the global cooling scare from the 60s and 70s.
But you’re right, it’s much more fun to bitch about Tinchild. Did you see that his Arrsepedia entry has grown staggeringly since his return?
Ooops! The Patent Office Clerk blunders again:
"It’s a scary thought, but scientists say the 40 percent of humanity living in South Asia and China could well be living with little drinking water within 50 years as global warming melts Himalayan glaciers, the region’s main water source.
The glaciers supply 303.6 million cubic feet every year to Asian rivers, including the Yangtze and Yellow rivers in China, the Ganga in India, the Indus in Pakistan, the Brahmaputra in Bangladesh and Burma’s Irrawaddy.
But as global warming increases, the glaciers have been rapidly retreating, with average temperatures in the Himalayas up 1 degree Celsius since the 1970s.
A World Wide Fund report published in March said a quarter of the world’s glaciers could disappear by 2050 and half by 2100.
“If the current scenario continues, there will be very little water left in the Ganga and its tributaries,” Prakash Rao, climate change and energy program coordinator with the fund in India told Reuters.
“The situation here is more critical because here they depend on glaciers for drinking water while in other areas there are other sources of drinking water, not just glacial.”
Experts are alarmed."
http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/09/09/himalayan.glaciers.reut/index.html
(8) - Thngamajiggy
(9) - Whatchamacallit
(9) - Whatthefuckisit?
(10) - HowthehellshouldIknow
You don’t actually know what any of that means, do you? That’s why you haven’t put your own opinion on the end, isn’t it?
IronMan, you misread the Stoat. He wasnt stating there is no Global warming, he was saying that he doubted whether or not humans are influencing a general trend.
Ooops! The Patent Office Clerk blunders again:
"It’s a scary thought, but scientists say the 40 percent of humanity living in South Asia and China could well be living with little drinking water within 50 years as global warming melts Himalayan glaciers, the region’s main water source.
The glaciers supply 303.6 million cubic feet every year to Asian rivers, including the Yangtze and Yellow rivers in China, the Ganga in India, the Indus in Pakistan, the Brahmaputra in Bangladesh and Burma’s Irrawaddy.
But as global warming increases, the glaciers have been rapidly retreating, with average temperatures in the Himalayas up 1 degree Celsius since the 1970s.
A World Wide Fund report published in March said a quarter of the world’s glaciers could disappear by 2050 and half by 2100.
“If the current scenario continues, there will be very little water left in the Ganga and its tributaries,” Prakash Rao, climate change and energy program coordinator with the fund in India told Reuters.
“The situation here is more critical because here they depend on glaciers for drinking water while in other areas there are other sources of drinking water, not just glacial.”
Experts are alarmed."
http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/09/09/himalayan.glaciers.reut/index.html
(8) - Thngamajiggy
(9) - Whatchamacallit
(9) - Whatthefuckisit?
(10) - HowthehellshouldIknow[/quote]
Wow! That single post has convinced me that there is global consensus about Global Warming, and that no scientist anywhere, ever has ever expressed the least doubt about the validity of the theory. Perhaps if you pick your favourite line from the above and post it in reply to all meesages left on this forum, it will become true.
No, he said there was no evidence of global warming. Another Patent Ofice Receptionist blunder. There is a body of evidence, and global warming is accepted as fact by the world’s scientists.
So let’s recap shall we?
He said there’s no evidence of global warming.
I posted just one of the thousands of articles quoting scientists that state there is much evidence.
He was wrong.
You did not comprehend his comment or my simple rebuttle.
You don’t actually know what any of that means, do you? That’s why you haven’t put your own opinion on the end, isn’t it?[/quote]
You can’t understand the wording of the article? Is that it?
Ah well, maybe I was wrong then, I should go re-read his posts I think.
To be exact, Stoaty said:
As you appear to be illiterate, I’ve taken the liberty of posting a dictionary definition of anthropogenic below:
My bold.
To be exact, Stoaty said:
As you appear to be illiterate, I’ve taken the liberty of posting a dictionary definition of anthropogenic below:
My bold.[/quote]
I understand what he said, and it is incorrect. You made your second blunder in alluding that I am illiterate, since you do not have the sence to understand that the earth has warmed more since the Industrial Revolution than it did over the previous 3,000 years. In fact, it has risen globally by as much as 1-2 degrees just since 1970 - the era in which the number of automobiles multiplied exponentially.
Now, if you give yourself some time, you might even investigate enough to realize that samples of ice from the polar caps and glaciers around the world show that at different depths within the ice, representing various periods of history, there are rising levels of carbon dioxide, and in the upper levels, there is a layer of ice which contains florocarbons and corbonmonoxide - both man made and contributed to the earth.
It does not take a scientist to understand what the scientists are saying, but it does take a simple-minded skeptic to not believe what is accepted science.
Let us know, please, when you know more about the causes of global warming than all of these learned men. We will be pleased to know that you have a coresponding degree from 32 seperate universities and a personal experience in studying this subject that gores back 35 years.
:lol:
Ummmm… Accepted is putting it rather strongly. There is a preponderence of opinion (including myself) which thinks that global temperatures are increasing and that human emissions of gases (particularly Carbon Dioxide) are the probable cause. There are smaller groups who believe that the evidence is overwhelming and that we must act now, or that the evidence is nonexistent and we don’t need to do anything. My personal view is that the evidence is distinctly underwhelming but that what evidence there is points to a warming trend with at least some contribution from human-related gas emissions. The strength of this trend is very, very unclear.
As it happens, part of my degree did cover atmospheric modelling and particularly the limitations on it. While necessarily rather limited (the subject is inherently fiercely complicated) it was sufficient to give me a good understanding of the inherent capabilities and limits of atmospheric models. You clearly have no grasp of the complexity of the models involved or the limits they are subject to, or you wouldn’t be accepting them as truth simply because large numbers of people believe them to be true.
You clearly didn’t - in response to Stoaty’s statement that he didn’t believe there was any human caused global warming, you said this:
Ummmm… Accepted is putting it rather strongly. There is a preponderence of opinion (including myself) which thinks that global temperatures are increasing and that human emissions of gases (particularly Carbon Dioxide) are the probable cause. There are smaller groups who believe that the evidence is overwhelming and that we must act now, or that the evidence is nonexistent and we don’t need to do anything. My personal view is that the evidence is distinctly underwhelming but that what evidence there is points to a warming trend with at least some contribution from human-related gas emissions. The strength of this trend is very, very unclear.[/quote]
Well let’s put it this way. Human-caused global warming is accepted around the word as fact. Just because there is a small minority od fringers who think it does not exist does not negate the scientific community as a whole. Gloabal warming wass first noticed back in the 1970s if you must know. This is not something really new. :!:
You clearly didn’t - in response to Stoaty’s statement that he didn’t believe there was any human caused global warming, you said this:
[/quote]
Sure, I understood it. You falsely assumed otherwise.
EDITIED TO ADD:
I don’t know about you, but in relation to global warming, the single most discussed cause, since the 1970’s, has been human causes. So, unless you’ve been alseep all that time, and in your classes, you missed the crux of it all. You might want to start over.
I also think that humans have contributed to global Warming. However I aso know that the World was warmer in the recent past. The Romans gre grapes in England and as Stoat has pointed out, Greenland was far more hospitable in 1000AD. Also the Orkneys were much warmer and grew a lot more crops than they can today.
Nevertheless, human output contributes maybe 10% of all the carbon dioxide pumped into the air today, while not a great figure, I do believe that it is enough to imbalance the natural chain of dealing with it.
At the end of the day, it wont be the end of humanity or the planet, the planet has gone through much worse and life will still be here. Its only we humans that think we are the planet, im sure the roaches will do just fine, they were there before us and will be long after were gone.