Global Warming

[stonerblue]

Which aspect of 'global warming' ?

 

[CTID1988]

Nope. It's all natural. End of an ice age and all that

 

[Challenger1978]

Ok I've just checked with the mother in law and I was wrong. The medical book didn't recommend smoking and a brew in the morning for a bad chest. It actually recommended smoking and drinking coffee is you had asthma. If I can find the book I'll scan the page and post a pic here for you.

 

[Damocles]

Ok I've just checked with the mother in law and I was wrong. The medical book didn't recommend smoking and a brew in the morning for a bad chest. It actually recommended smoking and drinking coffee is you had asthma. If I can find the book I'll scan the page and post a pic here for you.

Just a title and year will do thanks mate

 

[gaudinho's stolen car]

Ok I've just checked with the mother in law and I was wrong. The medical book didn't recommend smoking and a brew in the morning for a bad chest. It actually recommended smoking and drinking coffee is you had asthma. If I can find the book I'll scan the page and post a pic here for you.

Just a title and year will do thanks mate

Are we saying that smoking has contributed to "Global Warming"?

 

[Damocles]

Let me try and bring this down to more common language as we're getting into technical language here and this argument will go a bit mad.

You are stating that a Level of Scientific Understanding for the different factors that drive climate change are low, with the exception of the one that we understand the most, that points to a large warming. Then you provide a paper on radiative forcing.

And you think that despite have a large understanding of a primary cause of temperature and is showing a clear correlation, we should what? Ignore it? Say that we don't know?

I don't understand what you are trying to say, especially with "By marvellous coincidence"?

Erm, no, no that's not what I'm saying is it Damocles. I'm saying look at the margin of error for the cloud albedo effect. The cloud albedo effect could be a huge negative forcing but we do not have enough data to know either way. THAT, is what I'm saying. More balanced science aimed at building scientific understanding of negative forcings.

To put in laymans terms, as you seem to want, the climate is a scale balance, with weights on either side, some make the temperature go up, some make the temperature go down. We currently have no idea what the ones that make the temperature go down weigh so we don't know where we stand. The climate could be very close to balance or heavily stacked on the warming side. I want science to end the uncertainty through trying to plug that gap in knowledge. I would have thought you, least of all people, would disagree with the prospect of more scientific understanding.

By marvellous coincidence I mean I'm not naive enough to believe that scientific funding comes with no strings attached, or, that, for instance, it isn't easier to secure funding for research on greenhouse gases than aerosol effects.

I'm all for more scientific understanding. I just don't think that we ignore the bit that we currently have. Do you disagree with this?

Also, I'm not even going to dignify the last paragraph with an answer. Conspiracy theories have no place in this debate.

 

[Anonymous]

Mankind or the human race if you prefer is totally conceited to think we have any impact on global warming at all, the earth is simply doing what it has done thousands if not millions of times before long before we were around, so unless T rex used deodorant sprays and drove around in a 4X4 we have had no effect on proceedings what so ever.

 

[Damocles]

Mankind or the human race if you prefer is totally conceited to think we have any impact on global warming at all, the earth is simply doing what it has done thousands if not millions of times before long before we were around, so unless T rex used deodorant sprays and drove around in a 4X4 we have had no effect on proceedings what so ever.

Fucking hell, that's mental.

 

[Skashion]

I'm all for more scientific understanding. I just don't think that we ignore the bit that we currently have. Do you disagree with this?

Also, I'm not even going to dignify the last paragraph with an answer. Mental conspiracy theories have no place in this debate.

Where have I even made a hint of a suggestion for that?

Everyone's mental but you... I have little doubt your science is better than mine but I also reckon my knowledge of the history of scientists will match or surpass yours - especially when scientists have been used for the purposes of war, which is to say, since the dawn of recorded history. Science has a propensity to serve the truth but it is not incorruptible. What is your opinion of 'climategate' by the way? Also, what is your explanation as to why there appears to be such a strong correlation between positive forcings and higher LoSU and negative forcings and low LoSU?

 

[SWP's back]

It was a trick to see who agreed with your opinion.

It was a trick to see if people who don't keep up to date with climate science understand that the planet is changing rapidly to a point where their grandchildren will have to fight to survive. This isn't an argument on which you can have opinions. It's a fact which you either understand or you do not.

Bollocks. Just bollocks.