BBC jakes GW demo?

[The Medway Handyman]

Once again, f*ck all information, just a referal to a Wikipedia page.

[george [dicegeorge]]

4 - if wikipedia is misleading or inaccurate it is possible to update it thus increasing and improving the common treasury of knowledge. [g]

[The Medway Handyman]

Perhaps Dennis thinks for himself & doesn't need to constantly refer people to Wikipedia pages?

[The Medway Handyman]

Exactly

Alledgedly.

There are so many black swans about its hard to belive anyone ever saw a white one.

[dennis]

What is there to cite? I said there is energy in the atmosphere that doesn't increase its temperature and you post irrelevant stuff about temperatures. That says a lot about you BTW.

[dennis]

What has that got to do with what i said?

[Roger Chapman]

Something to back up what you say.

Remember this from up thread:

**********************************

There is a lot of energy in the atmosphere that is does not increase its temperature. The energy does, however, drive storms.

*********************************

ISTM that the nature of temperature is relevant.

If you want to put forward the curious notion that a warmer atmosphere will not be more energetic then you do need some convincing evidence. That you would have great difficulty in finding any evidence at all, let alone any convincing evidence, is the real reason why there are no cites to back you up.

[Roger Chapman]

You won't get that past TMH. He thinks Wikipedia is run by a cabal of global warmers who won't let anyone who disagrees with them edit.

[The Medway Handyman]

And you think Wikipedia is the one true light?

Global warmers don't like anyone who dares to disagree with them do they? They use terms like denier, maverick, lunatic etc.

[Bob Martin]

(Groan.)

[dennis]

It also has "negative" latent energy.

"Negative" in that it will absorb a lot of energy while staying at the same temperature. But I expect /you/ already knew that and the others won't listen anyway.

[dennis]

OK. I cite primary school science, go and read some primary school books.

[Fredxx]

while ago.

[Fredxx]

I actually keep an open mind. We know there are some mechanisms which supply positive feedback to the earths climate, and some which provide negative feedback. One thing is different to all other periods of warming, is that CO2 in the atmosphere has peaked during a warm period, not before, so we have no example of this man-made effect.

The best scientific evidence suggests that man is increasing CO2 in the atmosphere at an unprecedented rate. To me that rapid change sounds bad news, and we ought to minimise the impact we have on potential climate change.

The best models do indicate that global warming will occur. I also respect not all models are reliable but as time goes on I would hope they might well become more so.

I keep an open mind about modelling, I recall some years ago there were some disputes over changes in sea level, where some models said it would rise, and others said it would fall, on the basis of increased precipitation over the Antarctic, which would fall as snow and be locked into the ice sheet.

You can choose to bury your head in the sand if you wish, and call every tree hugger a wanker, but by doing so you are distancing yourself from plain common sense of scientific reason and keeping an open mind. If on the other hand you have a crystal ball, do let on.

[Roger Chapman]

When I was at primary school science was what we looked forward to do when we got to grammar school. ISTM even now primary school science can't be a rigorous discipline because children of that age wouldn't understand it if it was. The experiment that began this thread is probably the sort of thing The Medway Moron would meet in primary school science if he ever progressed that far.

[The Natural Philosopher]

well I cite a university degree in engineering. But then, you know it all already.

[The Natural Philosopher]

I give up.

If you cant see that much, I don't think I could explain anything to you whatsoever.

[The Natural Philosopher]

and gets a little warmer as a result. :-)

E=mc^2 and all that.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Indeed, which is one reason tempearatures havent yet rocketed, as the ice is all melting at the poles.

Once it has, though...

[dennis]

Really? How much of the permanent ice sheet has actually gone? /If/ it has gone is that due to a lack of precipitation or something else?