"The end of snow" takedown by science writer Peter Hadfield.
What you have there was posted in the Independent UK paper, and it was not made a scientist but by a staffer with no knowledge in the subject and he had to misinterpret what the scientists told him.
That and the rest of the points you are making are indeed “the equivalent of school yard gossip”
What’s the point being made here? When polls are wrong, we don’t dismiss the entire field of statistics, or meteorology when the weather forecast is wrong.
And I’m interested in the answer to a previous question: normally, when hundreds of experts say A and three say B, we usually assume, and pretty safely, that A is true. Why not apply it to this issue too?
Nope, it is because those comments and critiques were dismissed before, and in this very message board years ago. The first item for example was showed by Peter Hadfiled a few years back that it was a misrepresentation of the science by the reported of the Independent newspaper.
But this is really only shows to all that you are an ignorant on the issue. “Climate forcings” is an item that even climate skeptics use because it is part of the science.
So unless you are willing to toss one of the few climate change contrarians out there under the bus, you need to take your dismissal of “Climate forcings” back.
Dr Woodstock is obviously a very clever man: in the same interview in the Yorkshire Posthe reveals as well as seeing through the climate change hoax he has come up with a radical new theory of matter :dubious:
A guy resigning because he doesn’t think scientists should say that global warming is absolutely positively caused by human activity isn’t even remotely “global warming is a fraud.” Not even a little tiny bit.
Is this a significant effect? What is the increase in volume of a fixed mass of water that increases in temperature from 30 degrees F to 40 degrees F? I would have thought it was so trivial an amount as not to contribute meaningfully to sea-level rise. This is the first time I’ve ever heard this point made.
I ain’t saying you’re wrong, but, er… Do you have a cite?
(I looked for a graph online and found one that suggests the increase would be about 1/5 of one per cent. Over an entire ocean…that’s non-trivial, so I guess you’re right about this! I’d just never heard it mentioned before.)
A quick Google search indicates that the average depth of the ocean is ~12,000 feet. So an increase of .2% would be an increase of 24 feet. Given that I live in the greater Charleston, SC area (average height above sea level’s something like 10 feet) I, at least, find this significant.
… flying exploding icebergs, rain that falls up, yellow snow, storms of googly eyed English lords, singing polar bears going “it’s a trick, it’s a trick, with your tricky hockey stick”…
Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! Rivers and seas boiling! Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes…The dead rising from the grave! Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together… mass hysteria!
I know the guy is gone, but I just want to add FTR that I was using “sciency” to characterize the water argument just to contrast it with the ad hominem Gore-flies-in-planes non-sciency arguments
I’ve enjoyed seeing Monkton’s reaction to the Pope’s climate concern’s. He’s a real conservative catholic and you can see on his face the indigestibility of the infallible pope telling him he’s wrong.
I have the coefficient of thermal expansion of water (linear) at 69 x 10[sup]-6[/sup] ºC[sup]-1[/sup]. So for your 3,000 m water column, the rise would be 0.2 m ºC[sup]-1[/sup]. Looks like around a 15ºC temperature increase to make grief in Charleston due to just thermal expansion, but I’m afraid the rise due to ice melting will get you a lot sooner.
You and all the Florida refugees can work together to build higher seawalls …
