Am I still allowed to question climate change?

[maxmaximus]

If the sea had risen 4 to 8 inches, would that not mean we would have seen thousands of tiny islands disappear over the period? The Maldives for example where the majority of their country is only a few cm's above sea level. I know some islands have put in barriers to protect their coral reef, but have any of the islands become uninhabitable over this period?

 

 

Rising sea levels in the Maldives Only 3 minutes and worth watching.

 

Aparantly Sea level does not rise uniformly across the globe.

[Cyclone]

Since the amount of water on the planet in its various forms remains constant and expands as it warms, one would have to wonder where it went. The only feasible explanation would be more of it was water vapour which remained in the atmosphere and contributed to the warm period.

 

I suspect that the thermal expansion of water is insignificant and would have no measurable affect on sea levels.

The purported change is to come from ice sheets melting. The ones that sit on land (ie the Antarctic) will drain into the sea and the level will rise. The ones that are floating (ie the Arctic) would have no effect.

[maxmaximus]

I suspect that the thermal expansion of water is insignificant and would have no measurable affect on sea levels.

The purported change is to come from ice sheets melting. The ones that sit on land (ie the Antarctic) will drain into the sea and the level will rise. The ones that are floating (ie the Arctic) would have no effect.

 

Ice loss from Antarctica and Greenland has accelerated over the last 20 years, research shows, and will soon become the biggest driver of sea level rise.

 

A rise of similar size is projected to come from a combination of melt water from mountain glaciers and thermal expansion of seawater.

[Obelix]

Since the amount of water on the planet in its various forms remains constant and expands as it warms, one would have to wonder where it went. The only feasible explanation would be more of it was water vapour which remained in the atmosphere and contributed to the warm period.

 

The atmosphere doesnt have that carrying capacity, and if it did then the surface pressure would have risen dramatically which would have been noticeable to say the least...

 

---------- Post added 18-03-2013 at 10:39 ----------

 

I suspect that the thermal expansion of water is insignificant and would have no measurable affect on sea levels.

The purported change is to come from ice sheets melting. The ones that sit on land (ie the Antarctic) will drain into the sea and the level will rise. The ones that are floating (ie the Arctic) would have no effect.

 

Take a full glass of water and increase it's temperature by a degree. It's volume goes up by 0.2% You can do this at home on a slowly warming stove...

 

If you take say the Atlantic at 5km deep, 0.2% of that is a rise of ten meters. Seawater warming is a very real effect that needs to be considered...

[Cyclone]

Ice loss from Antarctica and Greenland has accelerated over the last 20 years, research shows, and will soon become the biggest driver of sea level rise.

 

A rise of similar size is projected to come from a combination of melt water from mountain glaciers and thermal expansion of seawater.

 

But it was warmer in the holocene (ie 2,500 years ago), so a global mean temperature increase of 1 degree (in fact it's zero in the last 25 years isn't it) wouldn't and doesn't explain the change. Which brings into question whether it's anthropogenic at all, or rather whether it is some mechanism which we haven't understood.

 

---------- Post added 18-03-2013 at 10:54 ----------

 

 

Take a full glass of water and increase it's temperature by a degree. It's volume goes up by 0.2% You can do this at home on a slowly warming stove...

 

If you take say the Atlantic at 5km deep, 0.2% of that is a rise of ten meters. Seawater warming is a very real effect that needs to be considered...

 

If on the other hand you do that in a shallow bowl instead of something with vertical sides... what's the rise then. (Obviously this depends on the angle of the bowl, but I hope you take my point).

[El Cid]

You can remember the temperature of the last several thousand years, shall we call you Methuselah?

 

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/03/11/holocene_was_warmer/

 

That link shows the temperatures similar todays, both are around .5/.6

 

It depends on whose information you trust. I have never heard of the Register, there are many sceptical news agencies that pick a 'fact' because it makes a good story.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png

 

---------- Post added 18-03-2013 at 11:01 ----------

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

 

If you look at the temperature from the graph above, at 2,000 years ago, and compare it with your graph at 2,000 years ago....

[dawny1970]

Climate warming scaremongers are always going to bleat on, even though there is no scientific proof to back up their position, they just want somthing to bleat on about even when real scientific proof flies in their face and makes them look silly!!!

 

---------- Post added 18-03-2013 at 12:03 ----------

 

I challenge and global warming scaremonger to show us all 100% scientific proof about global warming, i suspect that we will be waiting a while tho!!

[Cyclone]

That link shows the temperatures similar todays, both are around .5/.6

 

It depends on whose information you trust. I have never heard of the Register, there are many sceptical news agencies that pick a 'fact' because it makes a good story.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png

 

---------- Post added 18-03-2013 at 11:01 ----------

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

 

If you look at the temperature from the graph above, at 2,000 years ago, and compare it with your graph at 2,000 years ago....

 

It's primarily an IT news outlet, one of the largest online news outlets in the country I believe (maybe the world).

 

---------- Post added 18-03-2013 at 12:17 ----------

 

Climate warming scaremongers are always going to bleat on, even though there is no scientific proof to back up their position, they just want somthing to bleat on about even when real scientific proof flies in their face and makes them look silly!!!

 

---------- Post added 18-03-2013 at 12:03 ----------

 

I challenge and global warming scaremonger to show us all 100% scientific proof about global warming, i suspect that we will be waiting a while tho!!

 

Science doesn't actually deal in proof you know...

[maxmaximus]

But it was warmer in the holocene (ie 2,500 years ago), so a global mean temperature increase of 1 degree (in fact it's zero in the last 25 years isn't it) wouldn't and doesn't explain the change. Which brings into question whether it's anthropogenic at all, or rather whether it is some mechanism which we haven't understood.

 

 

It’s increased over the past 25 years but not by as much as first forecast, when you look at solar output it should have cooled and if there had been no human activity on the planet it would be much cooler than it is now. The fact that humans have contributed to global warming is undisputable, what's disputed is how much we have affected it and how bad it will get.

[Cyclone]

It’s increased over the past 25 years but not by as much as first forecast, when you look at solar output it should have cooled

Climate change proponents had for ages been denying that the sun had any influence on the climate, as it was rather inconvenient for their models.

and if there had been no human activity on the planet it would be much cooler than it is now.

That is the contention yes, but it's far from proven.

The fact that humans have contributed to global warming is undisputable, what's disputed is how much we have affected it and how bad it will get.

No, whether anthropogenic GW exists at all is most definitely disputed.