Skashion said:Supporter? As in believe it's happening?BulgarianPride said:I am not a supporter of global warming. Like i said, i would like to see a model that predicts the steady state of earth. All we can be seeing is just fluctuations caused by us that have no effect on the future. In way, i do support your point. However that calculation is flawed just the way other models are flawed. They are based on a bunch of unknowns. On rates we don't know. These rates may affect the temperatures we are observing, but essentially go back to "natural" over time. I've asked Damo in a previous thread, and i don't think i got an answer. Can there not be higher order factors that are "guiding" the overall response of the environment? That what we are seeing is local fluctuations, and do not predict the over all response of how our environment will change?
It's not flawed. It's simply a calculation of the average rate it would have to melt it to get get 60m of sea level rise in only a few thousand years. It is not a projection that ice will melt at a constant rate. Of course it won't. If it was at a rate of 1 now and acceleration was constant that would mean sixty times the Greenland average three thousand years from now, but the calculation would still be correct as it is merely an average. However, it's very very extreme. It's completely unsupported by current science. Absolutely no credible scientist I know of is predicting 60m sea level rises even three thousand years from now. If there is one, find them for me.
BP, you're being a complete mind-fuck tonight. I'm going to bed.BulgarianPride said:No. I don't believe humans are making a major contribution, and that it is not a "runaway global warming" and that such thing will not occur. It is why i am concerted with a steady state. Anything we do might have very little influence on the natural model.
It's been proven that the overwhelming factor to ozone damage was/is the methane generated by peat bogs and animals arses. Chloroflorocarbons had a very minimal effect in comparison. It's repaired itself as a natural act unforeseen by various scientists.i kne albert davy said:Only thanks to international co-operation in banning CFCs just a thought like.2sheikhs said:When the scientists and the green party kept spouting off about the hole in the ozone layer, did they ever take into account that it could actually repair itself? Because it is doing.
You need to read a bit more about ozone depletion mate, CFCs were the main cause not Methane which contributes more to global warming,if the World as one had not taken action in banning them it could have been a serious problem.2sheikhs said:It's been proven that the overwhelming factor to ozone damage was/is the methane generated by peat bogs and animals arses. Chloroflorocarbons had a very minimal effect in comparison. It's repaired itself as a natural act unforeseen by various scientists.i kne albert davy said:Only thanks to international co-operation in banning CFCs just a thought like.2sheikhs said:When the scientists and the green party kept spouting off about the hole in the ozone layer, did they ever take into account that it could actually repair itself? Because it is doing.
I'll have a good read up on it and if I'm wrong, I'll apologise and admit that I got it wrong. If I'm mistaken, I'm never dogmatic and pigheaded, I always hold my hands up rather than dig my heels in and look like a twat. I've been educated and had my mind swayed more than once on here so it wouldn't be the first time.i kne albert davy said:You need to read a bit more about ozone depletion mate, CFCs were the main cause not Methane which contributes more to global warming,if the World as one had not taken action in banning them it could have been a serious problem.2sheikhs said:It's been proven that the overwhelming factor to ozone damage was/is the methane generated by peat bogs and animals arses. Chloroflorocarbons had a very minimal effect in comparison. It's repaired itself as a natural act unforeseen by various scientists.i kne albert davy said:Only thanks to international co-operation in banning CFCs just a thought like.
No problem mate National Geographic did a good write up on how the ozone layer was repairing itself after the banning of CFCs a few years ago and how ozone was damaged by them can't remember it all but its something to do with chlorine in them, the evidence was pretty damning and banning them was the first treaty signed by every nation in the U.N. which speaks volumes in itself.2sheikhs said:I'll have a good read up on it and if I'm wrong, I'll apologise and admit that I got it wrong. If I'm mistaken, I'm never dogmatic and pigheaded, I always hold my hands up rather than dig my heels in and look like a twat. I've been educated and had my mind swayed more than once on here so it wouldn't be the first time.i kne albert davy said:You need to read a bit more about ozone depletion mate, CFCs were the main cause not Methane which contributes more to global warming,if the World as one had not taken action in banning them it could have been a serious problem.2sheikhs said:It's been proven that the overwhelming factor to ozone damage was/is the methane generated by peat bogs and animals arses. Chloroflorocarbons had a very minimal effect in comparison. It's repaired itself as a natural act unforeseen by various scientists.
Chris in London said:Corky's next thread:
"My sister in law produced a logarithm proving conclusively the existence of God but then she completely forgot it because I smashed her back doors in so massively while the wife was out christmas shopping."
Part 3 that relates rising sea levels to melting Arctic ice is complete bollocks which suggests the rest of it might not be completely reliable.In the headlines again. Good page here from the BBC:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-5aceb360-8bc3-4741-99f0-2e4f76ca02bb