Re: Global warming 'past the point of no return'
 

Why was there more hot air that year from the Sahara?

Re: Global warming 'past the point of no return'
 

Perhaps a climate change conference was held there. :D

Re: Global warming 'past the point of no return'
 

Doesn't matter why, the Sahara was cooler and north of the Sahara(eg France and UK) were hotter. Combining the areas, the amount of heat was the the same, not more.

There have been two recent nature/wildlife programmes on the BBC where it was stated that, in the area that they were in, the weather was the coldest on record.

Re: Global warming 'past the point of no return'
 

OK, your in-depth explanation has convinced me.....;)

Except for the fact you have contradicted yourself re the Sahara being hotter and cooler. :D

Re: Global warming 'past the point of no return'
 

New estimate for sea level rise by 2100 - up to 1.4m

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8387137.stm

Re: Global warming 'past the point of no return'
 

Good article on Global Warming: http://arstechnica.com/science/news/...ate-change.ars

Obviously written by a Scientist.

Re: Global warming 'past the point of no return'
 

I'd better dig out my snorkel then. :)

Re: Global warming 'past the point of no return'
 

No point worrying then.

Re: Global warming 'past the point of no return'
 

:confused: Where was I saying that the Sahara was hotter? Just think of two rooms connected via a door. One room is 'hot', the other a 'normal' temperature. Open the connecting door and the hotter air will escape and make the 'hot' room cooler and the 'normal' room hotter. Overall the heat in the two rooms is the same, the heat was moved from one place to another. Overall, no warming has taken place.

Re: Global warming 'past the point of no return'
 

:erm:

Re: Global warming 'past the point of no return'
 

Where were you saying that the Saraha was hotter? That would be in the post that stated -
One would assume if hot air was coming from somewhere (up from the Sahara), it was because that area (the Sahara) was hotter (or has the second law of thermodynamics been repealed? ;) ).

btw, I think you may find that the model of atmospheric heat equilibrium is a little more complex than that. :D

Re: Global warming 'past the point of no return'
 

Ans here is the other side of the argument.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/ar...t-control.html

No doubt the Global Warming fundamentalists will have you shot for reading this, let alone agreeing with much of it.

If the estimate of rising seas is correct, which I doubt, then I'd start building some defences

Re: Global warming 'past the point of no return'
 

Ain't that the truth. I'll remember to quote it again the next time we're having a Creation/evolution thread. :D

Re: Global warming 'past the point of no return'
 

People are indeed vulnerable to vested Interests. After all he himself is the owner of some mining companies whose profitability would be under threat by measures to reduce Global Warming:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Pli...ning_interests

Kind of rich he should accuse the majority of scientists who concur with climate change of being motivated by cash. Although not-unexpected from the Daily Mail who have a habit of negligent to mention vested interests by their expert contributors. Especially evident in MMR where their 'concerned doctors speaking out' often stood to gain financially from the scaremongering.

Although it is less convincing that the vast majority of scientists are won over by commercial gain. Many of these are academics. So why do the majority of scientists agree with Global Warming being at least made worse faster by Human interventions? (Incidentally he uses natural CO2 emissions as proof global warming is natual but obviously we still have those emissions combined with our own).

Science is a process. It is not a religion. However it is a process which seeks to understand though testing and re-testing and trying to, as best we can, prove facts about our universe. As such it's findings do have some weight. Some people seem to think it's just a point of view, a 'side', among many which is what is annoying about the Creationism 'debate'. The idea that religions belief is an equal, on Scientific terms, to evolution is wrong.

Re: Global warming 'past the point of no return'
 

Bearing in mind the topic of this thread ... ;) ... you're addressing the scientific method as the ideal means to 'do science'. Prof. Plimer, on the other hand, is addressing the people who do the science, and pointing out that they are as fallible as anyone else.

You can praise the method as much as you like, but the fact is, once you expect human beings to perform it, it becomes as prone to 'fads, fanatics and frauds' as anything else.

To quote him again, with added emphasis: