Arguments about climate change

Well at least Cactus realises she has made a total fool of herself.

Do you understand that the raising of the ocean floor by several meters will result in a change of sea level.

It is not a trick question, do you

understand, yes or no.

youngdan wrote:

Well at least Cactus realises she has made a total fool of herself.

Do you understand that the raising of the ocean floor by several meters will result in a change of sea level.

It is not a trick question, do you

understand, yes or no.

Yes, youngdan, of course it will. Is that your preferred explanation for sea level change?

Good you understand. You also understand that earthquakes and plate shifts are constantly taking place. You understand that the elevations of mountains are changing. You understand that Ireland at one time was underneath sea water. You undertand that the continents are drifting apart. The only thing that is a mystery to you is how the sea level rose by 0.2 inchs last year. Are you for real.

youngdan wrote:

Good you understand. You also understand that earthquakes and plate shifts are constantly taking place. You understand that the elevations of mountains are changing. You understand that Ireland at one time was underneath sea water. You undertand that the continents are drifting apart. The only thing that is a mystery to you is how the sea level rose by 0.2 inchs last year. Are you for real.

So you are saying that your preferred explanation is that somewhere or other the sea floor has gone up sufficiently to raise global sea level by 0.2 inches. Outstanding. Over what sort of area would that need to occur to achieve such a rise, would you say? And what would cause such a rise, do you think?

Are you aware that all of these ideas have been looked at over the last 30-40 years?

If you look at the Thai situation you will find
that the area that rose was 700 miles by 100 miles by several meters high, so get out your calculator. That is just one incident. But you insist everything is static and the ice is melting.

The Earths mantle is moving all the time but that dosn't suit your simple view that the ice is melting and the water is rising

Ibis, what is your degree in again.

youngdan wrote:

If you look at the Thai situation you will find
that the area that rose was 700 miles by 100 miles by several meters high, so get out your calculator. That is just one incident. But you insist everything is static and the ice is melting.

The Earths mantle is moving all the time but that dosn't suit your simple view that the ice is melting and the water is rising

Ibis, what is your degree in again.

This is unbelievable nonsense youngdan.

At least Bellamy had the typo/possibly-going-senile excuse*, but what's yours?

*
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2005/05/10/junk-science/

Quote :

So, in Bellamy’s poor typing, we have the basis for a whole new
front in the war against climate science. The 555 figure is now being
cited as definitive evidence that global warming is a “fraud”, a
“scam”, a “lie”. I phoned New Scientist to ask if he had requested a
correction. He had not been in touch.(18 )

It is hard to convey just how selective you have to be to dismiss
the evidence for climate change. You must climb over a mountain of
evidence to pick up a crumb: a crumb which then disintegrates in your
palm. You must ignore an entire canon of science, the statements of the
world’s most eminent scientific institutions, and thousands of papers
published in the foremost scientific journals. You must, if you are
David Bellamy, embrace instead the claims of an eccentric former
architect, which are based on what appears to be a non-existent data
set. And you must do all this while calling yourself a scientist.

youngdan wrote:

If you look at the Thai situation you will find
that the area that rose was 700 miles by 100 miles by several meters high, so get out your calculator. That is just one incident. But you insist everything is static and the ice is melting.

The Earths mantle is moving all the time but that dosn't suit your simple view that the ice is melting and the water is rising

Ibis, what is your degree in again.

Geology, youngdan, with an MSc in environmental science. That's partly how I know you are really talking desperate horsecock here.

Still, go on - it will be interesting to see what you pull out of your ass next. To produce a rising trend in sea level through raising the sea floor you need to have a trend of rising sea floors - and we have had a rising trend for the last century... That would be really quite a major geological event - and regrettably one unrecorded by any monitoring whatsoever. Indeed, the rise in the Indian Ocean floor you are talking about had some quite noticeable consequences.

I always thought that ce melting will cause less of an increase in sea level than expansion due to oceans warming. Though across the world glaciers are certainly on the retreat.

Squire wrote:

I always thought that ce melting will cause less of an increase in sea level than expansion due to oceans warming. Though across the world glaciers are certainly on the retreat.

Thermal expansion is currently the main cause of rise, and is the main term in the IPCC scenarios, which is nice because it's both slow and predictable. Melting of the Antarctic or Greenland ice caps, however, would be a much larger contributor, and much faster - if it happens.

youngdan wrote:

This guy is pointing out that Gore is a fool for not understanding Archimedes principle. You don't understand it either and you are making a fool of yourself.

The data is in the article but you don't understand the article either.


I'll make it easy for you. When an iceberg melts it does not raise the water level. OK

That was precisely my point. The little piece of satirical journalism that you linked made out that the case for global warming rested on that fallacy. Straw dog with red nose, as I said. And as I said, it is the warming of the water that mainly accounts for sea level rise. Of course, if land based ice melts and enters the ocean that will contribute to raising sea level.

Are you not concerned that Bush was caught out suppressing the scientific evidence?

When you are in a hole stop digging. More foolish you sound each time Cactus.

Then we have Pax saying that there is no geological movement and Ibis saying there is plenty of movement with as he says himself quite noticeable movements.

I have 3 clowns. One who dosn't know anything at all about the principle or indeed the newspaper The Investors Business Daily. Then the other two are contradicting each other on whether the plates move on not.

Of course everyone else knows about the plates moving, resulting earthquakes, continental drift, mountains rising, Ireland having been covered by water, a land bridge between Asia and North America, also between Ireland and Britain.

But no, the sea level changes by 0.2 inchs and it is because a liquid expands when heated.

Hey Pax, Have you the answer, did Ireland rise or did the sea level fall. You might tell us what you think caused the tsunami if it were not an earthquake.

What caused that big wave Pax.

youngdan wrote:

When you are in a hole stop digging. More foolish you sound each time Cactus.

Then we have Pax saying that there is no geological movement and Ibis saying there is plenty of movement with as he says himself quite noticeable movements.

I have 3 clowns. One who dosn't know anything at all about the principle or indeed the newspaper The Investors Business Daily. Then the other two are contradicting each other on whether the plates move on not.

Of course everyone else knows about the plates moving, resulting earthquakes, continental drift, mountains rising, Ireland having been covered by water, a land bridge between Asia and North America, also between Ireland and Britain.

But no, the sea level changes by 0.2 inchs and it is because a liquid expands when heated.

Hey Pax, Have you the answer, did Ireland rise or did the sea level fall. You might tell us what you think caused the tsunami if it were not an earthquake.

What caused that big wave Pax.

The "Investor's Business Daily", that well-known and reputable science journal......?

Stop digging Cactus, that is like saying The Wall Street Journal can not have a section on health or the NY Times can not have a section on music.

When it is pointed out just how stupid it is to talk about 0.2 inchs when the sea level has been hundreds of feet different the other two tin foil hats dissappear.

If you are worried about the sea level just move your computer from the basement to the attic and you will be safe for 900 years at 0.02 inchs a year. Do you feel better now.

youngdan wrote:

Stop digging Cactus, that is like saying The Wall Street Journal can not have a section on health or the NY Times can not have a section on music.

When it is pointed out just how stupid it is to talk about 0.2 inchs when the sea level has been hundreds of feet different the other two tin foil hats dissappear.

If you are worried about the sea level just move your computer from the basement to the attic and you will be safe for 900 years at 0.02 inchs a year. Do you feel better now.

It all depends where you are youngdan, as well as the extent of icemelt from the land: some areas, like Florida, are sinking. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise

You follow the economy too, youngdan. Some people think that everything in life moves in a gradual and predictable way. Then a tipping point of some kind is reached and a leap or a crash takes place, giving them a bit of a surprise. Nature is the same, and can't be taken for granted.

Youngdan's take and attitude are probably quite representative of people in Massachusetts, despite the associations with high-tech there.

I'm reliably informed that Boston has no plan to deal with the rising sea level. In fact, the mayor recently proposed building a new City Hall 20 yards from Boston Harbor. No doubt they'll find an architect who doesn't believe in global warming.

At least that post shows some common sense Cactus. Were Florida to suddenly sink then the sealevel would rise everywhere.

The alarmists sometimes appear worried about a tipping point leading to a situation where we end up like Venus. This scenario makes plenty of good points but they can not use it for 2 reasons. They would be asked when this tipping point will occur and it would be pointed out to them that unless there was once life on Venus that it was a nutural occurance.

If global warming was natural it would spoil their foolishness.

They do not want to hear about warming or cooling happening on the other planets, they do not want to hear that everyone knows that the Earth was way warmer when the dinosaurs were hopping about and way co
lder when Ireland was covered by ice.

They do not want to hear about the amounts of methane released from volcanoes but are worried about what comes out of a bullocks arse.

They do not want to consider that lava pouring out from a undersea volcano might, surprise surprise, heat up the water

These people are whack jobs.

Then you have the parrets who do not think,
like our favourite poster who just swings by an parrots drivel with a rollie eye. His track record on every subject speaks for itself

Fair play to Soubreauts for making the rest of them look smart.

Today the danger of frostbite is such that the schools are closed in an emergency measure

http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2008/12/boston_public_s.html

You are always good for a laugh and I will keep my eyes open for the sea to rise up

youngdan wrote:

Stop digging Cactus, that is like saying The Wall Street Journal can not have a section on health or the NY Times can not have a section on music.

When it is pointed out just how stupid it is to talk about 0.2 inchs when the sea level has been hundreds of feet different the other two tin foil hats dissappear.

If you are worried about the sea level just move your computer from the basement to the attic and you will be safe for 900 years at 0.02 inchs a year. Do you feel better now.

There comes a point where one realises that one is dealing with the equivalent of a creationist. The rubbish about how displacement of the seafloor could produce a steady rise of sea level over the course of a century is a really typical piece of creationist-style pseudoscience - you've picked something that causes sudden and miniscule displacements in random directions (ie, bits of the ocean floor are as likely to go down as up - anything else would mean the ), and handwaved it about as an explanation for a steady global rise in sea level. It's pure drivel, and there's little point in engaging with it, because there's nothing more to it than thinking "that sounds a bit right". It's indicative of denial - and denial means that rational argument is a waste of time. We're on my degree area here - I know the stuff you're proposing is gibberish.

So, I have two choices - I can deride you, or I can simply not bother. So, on balance, you'll have to wait until I'm bored!

Well if you want to chill come to North America then. You will be either cured or frozen to death but at least you won't sound foolish. Come on a ship just in case Logan Airport is submerged by the time you get here

-------
Suite à un grand nombre de réponses, ce sujet a été automatiquement divisé. Vous pouvez retrouver la suite de ce sujet ici :
https://machinenation.forumakers.com/viewtopic.forum?t=1766

The results of a Market Research Report commissioned by John Gormley on Climate Change.
The methodolgy is interesting.

http://www.change.ie/Global/PDF Files/Climate Change pres May 2008.pdf

youngdan wrote:

Then we have Pax saying that there is no geological movement

Quote where I said that.

youngdan wrote:

Well if you want to chill come to North America then. You will be either cured or frozen to death but at least you won't sound foolish. Come on a ship just in case Logan Airport is submerged by the time you get here

A ship would be fine - the tide is in my favour these days.

We will have the welcome mat out for you Ibis as soon as you set sail. Don't choose a fancy liner because an ice breaker would be a better plan.

You won't answer any question Pax so you were tempted to discuss plate movements. Sure enough you were back to say that you recognise geological plate movements. I am copying your tactics as I never mentioned Belamy or Mombot

Maybe you will say that the sealevel was not hundreds of feet different in elevation in the past. Anyone that talks of the sea level rising 0.2 inchs while whole continents drift apart is a fool.

Maybe you think that global warming is causing the continents to drift as well.

Pax. Did Venus get hot from little green men farting too much.


I don't expect a straight answer out of you either. At least come up with something better than calling me a Creationalist though like Ibis. If I believed that I would not be able to laugh at people who try to ignore the fact that the Earth was sweltering when the dinosaurs were here. What caused it to cool Pax was it Fred Flintstones car heavy on gas .

youngdan wrote:

We will have the welcome mat out for you Ibis as soon as you set sail. Don't choose a fancy liner because an ice breaker would be a better plan.

You won't answer any question Pax so you were tempted to discuss plate movements. Sure enough you were back to say that you recognise geological plate movements. I am copying your tactics as I never mentioned Belamy or Mombot

Maybe you will say that the sealevel was not hundreds of feet different in elevation in the past. Anyone that talks of the sea level rising 0.2 inchs while whole continents drift apart is a fool.

Maybe you think that global warming is causing the continents to drift as well.

Pax. Did Venus get hot from little green men farting too much.


I don't expect a straight answer out of you either. At least come up with something better than calling me a Creationalist though like Ibis. If I believed that I would not be able to laugh at people who try to ignore the fact that the Earth was sweltering when the dinosaurs were here. What caused it to cool Pax was it Fred Flintstones car heavy on gas .

I'm not calling you a creationist! You're just using creationist-style logic. A five foot rise of the sea-floor over 1000 square miles produces a displacement of 0.94 cubic miles of seawater - the volume of Earth's oceans is 310 million cubic miles. Sea levels have rise 8 inches over the last century - which implies an increase in volume of 17,550 cubic miles (175.5 cubic miles per year). That's about 200 tsunamis a year - one every working day, time off on weekends to recover.

On the other hand, the thermal expansion coefficient of seawater is about 1 part in ten thousand per degree. Global temperatures have risen by c. 0.5 degrees in the last century, which gives a thermal expansion of the oceans of 15,500 cubic miles.

This is what I mean by "creationist logic" - they will happily take something like hydrodynamic sorting (where a fall through water sorts falling objects according to density, size, etc), and use that as an "explanation" for the consistency of the fossil record. Never mind that hydrodynamic sorting doesn't work like that, or on that scale, or under the proposed conditions - the mechanism sounds good. Pseudoscience.

So on the one hand we have your "explanation", which can't get into the ballpark without causing tsunamis five days a week - and on the other we have an observed temperature rise which certainly is in the ballpark. To call yourself a sceptic on the basis of preferring the former over the latter is simply turn the term into a synonym for 'suspicious fool'.

The Pope reckons that homosexuality is as much a threat to human life on earth as climate change, or at least RTE says he does.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/1223/pope.html

There's a topic for the Christmas table.