Global warming - what global warming

[The Major]

In the second paragraph you quoted! :icon_lol:

*Gulp!*:icon_redf

 

[Real Sharapova]

Not sure where you get 97% from Macky.

Maybe meteorologists aren't the best people to ask but you'd think they'd know something.


Only my opinion but it seems to me that climatologist have a vested interest in believing in global warming because without any global warming there wouldn't be any research grants.

And where do you think petroleum geologists might stand on this matter?:icon_bigg

 

[The Major]

And where do you think petroleum geologists might stand on this matter?:icon_bigg

Well obviously they have a vested interest too.

I don't claim to know the truth of the matter. It just seems to me that GW is being used as an excuse for everything, stop defending the coast from coastal erosion because of GW even though coastal erosion has been going on forever.

Floods, nothing to do with tarmacing over the flood plains.

The high taxes on petrol reluctantly raised to save the planet.

When you add that to the pious lecturing from self righteous cranks then the GW lobby can go and fvck themselves.

 

[Dour]

Not sure where you get 97% from Macky.

Maybe meteorologists aren't the best people to ask but you'd think they'd know something.


Only my opinion but it seems to me that climatologist have a vested interest in believing in global warming because without any global warming there wouldn't be any research grants.

Intriguing, though, that 47% of petroleum geologists believe it, despite effectively being paid by organizations that would rather they didn't.

 

[Brauny Blue]

In the second paragraph you quoted! :icon_lol:

:icon_bigg

 

[SwedeFox]

I haven't heard anyone seriously denying that this is a problem for a long time now, the consensus over here is definitely that this is a problem that needs to faced.

 

[Lako42]

I haven't heard anyone seriously denying that this is a problem for a long time now, the consensus over here is definitely that this is a problem that needs to faced.

And as announced over here today, is one that will be faced.

 

[Matt_B]

Unfortunately the pro-global warmist cause looses another large chunk of my respect

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/6127552/Icecap-photo-shows-mother-nature-in-tears.html

 

[Singth]

Unfortunately the pro-global warmist cause looses another large chunk of my respect

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/6127552/Icecap-photo-shows-mother-nature-in-tears.html

Yes but it's "crying" beighton! I hope you feel guilty when you start your fuel injected car in the mornings

:icon_wink

 

[Willlow]

The following paragraphs seemed confusing.

He said the Austfonna icecap has been shrinking by as much as 160 feet every year for several decades.

"The geometry of the ice cap is changing. The fronts are retreating, the lower parts are getting thinner, with a thinning rate of about three feet-per-year while the interior of the ice cap is thickening with about 1.6 feet-per-year," he said.

"The ice cap is losing about 1.6 cubic miles of ice every year."

The article suggests the Austfonna ice cap has shrank by AS MUCH AS 160 feet for several years, but then points out that in fact it is only shrinking by 1.4ft per year because the ice cap is thinning by 3ft per year, but thickening 1.6ft per year.

However, it then says the ice cap is losing "about" 1.6 cubic miles of ice every year. How do they work this out?

Also for somebody who has been studying the ice cap for over 20 years they arent very specific with numbers.

I'm not arguing about GW just saying that these facts seem vague and confusing

 

[Matt_B]

The following paragraphs seemed confusing.



The article suggests the Austfonna ice cap has shrank by AS MUCH AS 160 feet for several years, but then points out that in fact it is only shrinking by 1.4ft per year because the ice cap is thinning by 3ft per year, but thickening 1.6ft per year.

However, it then says the ice cap is losing "about" 1.6 cubic miles of ice every year. How do they work this out?

Also for somebody who has been studying the ice cap for over 20 years they arent very specific with numbers.

I'm not arguing about GW just saying that these facts seem vague and confusing

That's key to their argument

 

[Real Sharapova]

The following paragraphs seemed confusing.



The article suggests the Austfonna ice cap has shrank by AS MUCH AS 160 feet for several years, but then points out that in fact it is only shrinking by 1.4ft per year because the ice cap is thinning by 3ft per year, but thickening 1.6ft per year.

He is talking about two different parts of the ice cap, one which is getting thinner and one which is getting thicker. The net loss he refers to is presumably because the part that is thinning covers a greater area than the part that is thickening.

 

[Willlow]

He is talking about two different parts of the ice cap, one which is getting thinner and one which is getting thicker. The net loss he refers to is presumably because the part that is thinning covers a greater area than the part that is thickening.

We shouldnt have to presume though, I suppose that simply putting that it is losing that amount will have the desired effect, and so do bother actually explaining it.

I just struggle to trust figures that have 'about' in front of them. Especially when someone has spent 20 years coming up with them. :icon_lol:

 

[Real Sharapova]

We shouldnt have to presume though, I suppose that simply putting that it is losing that amount will have the desired effect, and so do bother actually explaining it.

I just struggle to trust figures that have 'about' in front of them. Especially when someone has spent 20 years coming up with them. :icon_lol:

The calculations would be quite simple to be honest, because you know the area involved exactly - the thinning/thickening would be a variable that obviously would not be constant throughout the area under consideration so an average amount of thinning/thickening would have to be applied to a particular area. Because he is talking about such huge areas he is quite right to add the caveat " about " to his figures. I would be more concerned if he said he knew to loss the the nth degree - then I would assume he is a charlatan.

 

[Willlow]

The calculations would be quite simple to be honest, because you know the area involved exactly - the thinning/thickening would be a variable that obviously would not be constant throughout the area under consideration so an average amount of thinning/thickening would have to be applied to a particular area. Because he is talking about such huge areas he is quite right to add the caveat " about " to his figures. I would be more concerned if he said he knew to loss the the nth degree - then I would assume he is a charlatan.

No point arguing about semantics it just seems that when it concerns GW specialists IMO seem to quote figures for affect more than relevance.

 

[Dour]

No point arguing about semantics it just seems that when it concerns GW specialists IMO seem to quote figures for affect more than relevance.

I'd suspect the problem is more likely to be a journalist who has no idea what they are writing about and is numerically illiterate.

The 160 feet per year is probably how far the radius of the ice cap has shrumk while the 1.6 ft refers to the depth of the ice.

 

[fcukcov]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8299079.stm

 

[Steven]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8299079.stm

I wanted to post that but was fearful of being called a heretic. :icon_conf

 

[Singth]

I wanted to post that but was fearful of being called a heretic. :icon_conf

Gentlemen, start your engines

 

[Jeff]

I wanted to post that but was fearful of being called a heretic. :icon_conf

Have you actually read the article?