Soldato
- Joined
- 5 Jul 2007
- Posts
- 5,505
- Location
- London
incorrect. would you like me to give you a full explanation?
Clarkson get's some free poo
- Thread starter Muffin`
- Start date
incorrect. would you like me to give you a full explanation?
The effect of thermal expansion is really rather small, as even my Biology A-level taught me that much of the ocean's temperature is ~4°C due to that being the temperature at which water takes up the least space.
Anyway, I feel this debate is rather pointless.. since eminent/experienced scientists have been having this very debate for some time now, I somewhat doubt a bunch of (relatively) ill-informed laypeople on an internet forum are going to come up with anything very worthwhile.
The debate is not over how Governments react. I completely agree. In fact using an environmental facade to increase taxes is completely irresponsible.
Your argument about the earth being equipped to deal with CO2 is just as naive as what I have said. Of course it's equipped to deal with CO2 naturally, but the levels humans are producing are far greater.
I don't understand why anyone is doubting the causality when figures have shown that global temperature rise is correlated with technological evolution and thus pollution. It's far more likely than the Earth just suddenly deciding to heat up for no apparent reason.
I'd find it a lot easier if people just said "I don't care about the environment" rather than try and claim that global warming doesn't exist and/or has nothing to do with pollution levels.
Your argument about the earth being equipped to deal with CO2 is just as naive as what I have said. Of course it's equipped to deal with CO2 naturally, but the levels humans are producing are far greater.
I don't understand why anyone is doubting the causality when figures have shown that global temperature rise is correlated with technological evolution and thus pollution. It's far more likely than the Earth just suddenly deciding to heat up for no apparent reason.
I'd find it a lot easier if people just said "I don't care about the environment" rather than try and claim that global warming doesn't exist and/or has nothing to do with pollution levels.
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Jan 2009
- Posts
- 4,325
Everyone has the right to protest, to stand up for their beliefs.
It's their right living in a free country.
My theory is, even if there is no completely conclusive evidence on global warming, even though it does make sense (you pump out a load of **** into the air and water, it's not exactly going to yield good results) and oil companys actually employ people to try and disprove global warming, which is largely where "It's a load of government lies" comes from. We can see we are wasting non renewable resources, when theres a big energy crisis and no petrol to stick in your car, have fun.
Clarkson actually doesn't deny global warming exists either for the record.
Last edited:
It's actually not as clearcut as you'd think. Land-based ice clearly raises sea levels on melting. But with sea-based ice you have to take into account the proportion of the ice melting under current sea level versus that melting above, and take into account the additional space taken up by ice below sea-level. So while it's likely the melting of sea-ice will raise the sea-level, it's not definite until someone works that out.
A citation demonstrating that humans are responsible for a significant proportion of CO2 production?
And, correlation does not indicate causality! Not to mention regression to mean etc.
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Jan 2009
- Posts
- 4,325
Why not? It's part of the protest.
No, it's trespassing and vandalism.
The funny thing is that those protesters interpreted Clarkson's drive to the Arctic in a Toyota Hilux as an assault on Planet Earth and on their own beliefs. Why?
I interpreted it as a BBC documentary (partially sponsored by Toyota) about the Arctic. The camera footage and vistas were brilliant. If anything, it was a nature conservation program. Just without the David Attenborough voice over. Hell they even touched upon how the ice was thin in places due to global warming... what more do these eco-hippies want?
I interpreted it as a BBC documentary (partially sponsored by Toyota) about the Arctic. The camera footage and vistas were brilliant. If anything, it was a nature conservation program. Just without the David Attenborough voice over. Hell they even touched upon how the ice was thin in places due to global warming... what more do these eco-hippies want?
Soldato
- Joined
- 5 Jul 2007
- Posts
- 5,505
- Location
- London
A Marine based ice sheet doesn't explain itself very well through its title.
I'll run you through it. This is what I imagine you to think a marine based ice sheet would look like:
A very poor picture of an actual marine based Ice sheet. Western Antartctic Ice Sheet. (WAIS)
I'm going to be naughty here and quote wikipedia:
A small rise in temperature can destabilise the head of the ice sheet, letting the sea encroach under the ice sheet causing it to disintergrate very quickly. Such rapid disintergration could lead to extremely rapid sea-level rise. Levels of circa 6m are talked about.
If your more interested in this website has some nice animations of ice sheets
http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/20010117ice.html
Geography lesson over.
Last edited:
I agree with what others have said, in that this thread is not about the governments response to CO2 because in my opinion they are obviously just using the whole CO2 thing as a way to make money.
I will freely admit i don't know what is causing the global warming - mostly because that's the million dollar question. I don't think anyone's opinion on here carries much weight, because the only person i would listen to would be a scientist very familiar with the in's and out's of global warming.
I will freely admit i don't know what is causing the global warming - mostly because that's the million dollar question. I don't think anyone's opinion on here carries much weight, because the only person i would listen to would be a scientist very familiar with the in's and out's of global warming.
I would want about 1,000 scientists from different countries to all come to the same conclusion before I believed it.
It really is the million dollar question. It's almost on the same scale as "are we alone in the universe?".
You're either incredible ignorant or incredibly stupid, I can't quite decide which :/
How can you honestly sit there and state that humans have a right to dump manure on someones personal property!!!
Last edited:
id say 75% (random number) of the problem is down to us cutting tree's down and ruining the carbon "life cycle" more than it is burning so much fuel.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 1 Mar 2008
- Posts
- 26,303
Or that it's a natural cycle?
I agree. Science is simply a collection of theories. Something is taken as "fact" when many other scientists agree with it, or show evidence that supports the original theory.
However there will ALWAYS be people that don't agree with a theory, and try and present evidence to disprove it, but what must then be considered is how good their counter-evidence is and whether it will be cited by other scientists.
I come from the background of a strong scientific education, and I cringe when I look at the certainty limits and error limits on most climate change pieces. Put simply it wouldn't be published in most other areas with such wide error margins.
The tendancy of the media and the armchair climatologists to then say 'but the science says' as if it is equally valid as more robust scientific disciplines makes it even more annoying.
As part of my protests for the improvement of the content within the OcUK Forums, I will use my right to protest by setting both your car and your house on fire, I may even sleep with your girlfriend if you have one. All in the name of free speech and the right to protest in a 'free country'.
Everyone has a right to protest, but these soap dodging, sweater knitting hippies are clearly abusing this and making epic **** of themselves in the eye of the public and the media. To be honest I'm sure if I had a few curries I could belt out a load bigger than that. The 'protest' was weak and feeble in every respect.
Not picking on you, but this is it. People don't have a clue what their talking about and only scientists who have shown strong evidence, which has been cited by others, should be really listened to.