One of the reasons the discussion on climate change gets muddied is because there is a tendancy to look at specific trees instead of the forest... on one extreme we have people claiming "Hey the winter here was the coldest this century, therefore global warming is bunk". I am sure most here understand that while such claims are appealing at the gut level, they are fallacious and dishonest. The global warming argument can only speak to broad trends in time and global distribution. This is not an indication of the argument being based on shakey science, it is a result of adhering rigorously to the science. This puts those arguing that climate change is a serious issue at a rhetorical disadvantage, it does NOT change the fact that the argument is extremely sound.
Space/Science » in reply to re: Global Warming and Sea Level Change
I will go over the points in detail later today, but let me just say this now
The whole thread (59 posts)
- Part 1: Global Warming and Sea Level Change READ TO THE END before responding
- Temperature rise
- How much new arable land becomes available due to a global warming cycle?
- For temperature rise on the low side of the range...
- The world will definitely be worse, much worse.
- re: Part 1: Global Warming and Sea Level Change READ TO THE END before responding
- Thermocline and temperature structure of the ocean
- Thermal expansion of ocean water.
- re: Global Warming and Sea Level Change
- re the antarctica data...
- Okay, are you sure you put the right link?
- I will go over the points in detail later today, but let me just say this now
- sea ice extent currently is BELOW the recent mean
- Ocean temperature update
- Arrrrgh, not sure how it became IIPC it should read IPCC (n/t)