Met Office Predictions

[sten_super]

Now however there is an assumption: "There has been an increase in CO2 and an increase in temperature. Therefore the increase in CO2 has resulted in the incease in temperature." It's that assumption (let's be polite and call it a theory) that I have difficulty in swallowing completely as it ignores all other variables such as sun activity (to name but one). Who knows? It could be the increased C02 that's holding back the next ice age!

Assumption?!? That's hilarious. You know full well that there is a large volume of scientific theory behind that deduction. FWIW I agree with you in so far as what is presented in most cases is a major simplifaction. However to say that a scientist somewhere simply saw two variables and 'assumed' causality, and that this causality has never been checked but simply accepted is complete nonsense.

 

[wellquickwoody]

A couple of technical points;
I thought it was glaciers that they were concerned about melting, not icebergs? There are many many glaciers above sea level (not to mention the south pole, which is a sheet of ice on top of a land mass), which would contribute to a rise in sea levels if they melted.
Even assuming that your above supposition is right, your maths isn't. 90% below water + 10% above water = 100%. If 10% of the volume of the ice disappears as it melts, we are left with 100%-10% = 90% of the volume as water, which is exactly the same amount as was contributing to sea levels in the first place. So in your example it would lead to no change in the sea levels, not a fall.

Your maths is correct sir, if my original figures were researched and found to be correct. I was just pointing out that as ice melts it takes up less volume.

 

[wellquickwoody]

Jeremy Clarkson was right all along.

Are you beginning to get a grasp of how the real world thinks?

Clarkson for PM!

 

[beorhthelm]

El Nino has nothing to do with climate and everything to do with weather.

did you really write that?

But that's the thing, it's not an assumption... It's as close to FACT as is possible in the world of science. The temperature rises have coincided exactly with industrialisation and yes, the temperatures have always fluctuated, but they're rising far faster than has ever happened before.

it is not a "fact", it is a propositon from one set of data that we now know had to be fudged. added to this, in the period of indutrialisation there has been periods of change and decline in temperature while the CO2 measurements follow a near linear path, with a kink that accelerates at the point of introducing a new data source. This is just the problem, data presented as fact with not enough scrutiny, then a hundred papers based on the same. too much faith and not enough science.

meanwhile we have unworkable solutions to the proposed problem as politicians jump on each badnwagon that passes with troope of lobbyist. we have electric vehicles (massive carbon footprint to extract and process materials) and hydrogen (not enough key catalyst exists) touted to replace cars but no one dares say we should reduce car useage outright. a few years ago the attempt to push biodiesel (backed by Bush of all people) led to food shortages as third world countries started growing palms instead of grain. all because of one graph.

 

[Brovion]

But that's the thing, it's not an assumption... It's as close to FACT as is possible in the world of science. The temperature rises have coincided exactly with industrialisation and yes, the temperatures have always fluctuated, but they're rising far faster than has ever happened before.

No, it IS an assumption. Look I don't disagree, but in with all the facts is circumstantial evidence, EPI extrapolation and pure hysteria.

OK, I give in, everything I learnt in my environmental science masters was bollocks, Jeremy Clarkson was right all along.

Now you're just being stupid. You made a sweeping one-sentence general assertation that was wrong - and now you're making another one.

 

[Brovion]

Assumption?!? That's hilarious. You know full well that there is a large volume of scientific theory behind that deduction. FWIW I agree with you in so far as what is presented in most cases is a major simplifaction. However to say that a scientist somewhere simply saw two variables and 'assumed' causality, and that this causality has never been checked but simply accepted is complete nonsense.

That's not really what I'm saying. I'm trying to precis the argument as it's presented to us, the public. And how it's presented is: Increased Co2 = Global Warming. Period. End of debate. And as you well know the history of science is littered with well-known 'facts' that on further analysis turn out to be false. However, yes, until it DOES prove to be false it is the best analysis we've got - but just to assume that it IS correct and call anyone who questions it a 'climate change denier' is a bit unscientific.