Global Warming?

This article has been widely trashed for being unscientific and inaccurate. They make some convenient assumptions (for example, that the Prius will be scrapped after 80,000 miles, while the Hummer will last over 300,000) that lead to their findings. If you build 4 Priuses and 1 Hummer, you'd tend to lose out on the fuel advantages of the Prius.

Now this is what mystifies me. You have seen the results of having peer review (which I hurriedly mentioned in my previous post) over what seems to be a faulty and perhaps even a biased study. And yet you choose to believe in the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) side. I'm man enough to accept these new findings and change my thoughts accordingly. When will you people do the same?

By the way, the simulation that the Pacific Institute did used three Priuses, not four.

When has number of scientists (or people with bachelor of science) who agree with a theory determine whether it's correct?

Exactly! Reason why many paint the whole AGW side as a religion. Because they have to believe (falsely) that their side holds the truth because there is a "consensus" (i.e. as if this is an election/popularity contest) that this is the case. Just look at Vathek as an example. These ignorant fools have the belief of the science process is actually that simple.

You do have to realize how ironic and anti-AGW this statement of yours is when politicians and such use "consensus" to end the argument, right? Or perhaps are you playing devil's advocate here?

Going by the numbers on Wikipedia, it's easy to work it out. 25 million cubic km of ice. The Earth's total surface area is 361 million square km of water.

If all of that melted, and distributed evenly, it would end up being a 70m rise (it'll end up being less, since it spreads over low lying areas, eg. Bangladesh, England, New York). So the 0.145% per year represents ~10cm(4 inches) per year. In 30 years that's a 10 foot rise... and that's only if we continue at current rates.

Nice little sensationalized anecdote you did there. Too bad you overlooked two important items from that source, one of which I included in my post.

First, this is sea ice in question. Most of the displacement has obviously already been done. Factoring in the 9% of increased volume due to being frozen and the impact of at least the non-submerged ice will at most be minimal. Or put in a non half-baked manner, "The melting of sea ice -- fast ice and pack ice -- does not cause sea levels to rise because the ice is in the water. Sea levels may rise with losses from freshwater ice sheets on the polar caps" (source).

And second, the seasonal variation runs at about 25% (source). Do we see massive coastal floodings worldwide? Absolutely not. Thus putting your calculated fear mongering number of 10 feet in 30 years irrelevant.

I must confess, I really am wondering if either I unwittingly or sub-consciously laid out this trap to note how solid your feet are standing on Earth. It was most probably unwittingly considering, like you, I wrongly assumed that melting sea ice may have an effect on sea levels.

Thank you, Stereo. Glad to see someone who actually bothered to debunk the misleading statistics being used in this thread.

You do realize that the only effective rebuttal he supplied was in reference to the Toyota Prius, right? All else came from Fantasia in "The Neverending Story" movie (saw it yesterday, so couldn't help including it).

And all data suggests that we are, and will, because we cannot stop the chain reactions occuring right now from the CO2 we emitted yesterday, or 10 years ago, or 100 years ago.

Stop it, now. Like all AGW people here, stop using emotions as your argument. There is no such thing as "chain reactions" or "run away" in relation with carbon dioxide. The amount of potential warming with increasing CO2 does not increase linearly but logarithmically.

Consider this. A rise of 180 ppm to 280 ppm is historically associated to 8 degrees Celsius of warming. While the concentration of 280 ppm in the year 1800 to 380 ppm around 2005 is only associated with about 0.7 C of warming (source). You guys should really read this report if your scientific grasp is minimal.

I've never seen Al Gore's movie. Don't treat one layman's-terms film as the basis of an entire debate, especially a debate that is so fundamentally scientific, and especially a film that is purposefully provocative.

You're wrong there. It's not us who is using it as the basis, but your side. Plus, he has won the Nobel Peace Prize and (ironically) the Roger Revelle award. Hence why we have every reason to mention and attack it.

Sirrah,

I regret to inform you that you are an imbecile

This appears to be a genetic condition; it is implicit, and there is naught to be done about it

good day to you.

Cordially,
Vathek.

Grow up. Your childish and ignorant antics do not change what reality actually is. One has to wonder if Al Gore is a better man than you.