Q&A and Protagoras. Sincere apologies to both, I was wrong, you were right. I read only the first paragraph as a quote. I should have picked that up on the second reading so thanks for the requested clarification.

Fungochumley, thanks for your support.

Eclipse Now, sorry I can’t help with your questions and I certainly cannot prove or disprove anything to do with climate change as I’m not qualified. I take it from your post that you are qualified. Q&A has stated his qualifications, might we know yours?

Why do I have to be qualified? What I'm asking is whether or not your climate scepticism comes from having seen these questions addressed. Because I can *read* I happen to know that these basic matters of physics are what the whole system of thought is based on. I'm not even a scientist! (But topped my social science studies if that counts. ;-)

I was born with a "humanities brain", it's just the way I'm wired.

But here's the thing. I can read, and after reading stacks of executive summaries understand the climate sceptics to be arguing at cross purposes to the actual data they need to confront in the basic theory.

EG: Even in my non-scientific mind I can "get" that when Tim Ball gets up and raves about what a tiny little % of the atmosphere Co2 really is, he hasn't disproved what a tiny little % of Co2 might DO.

The climate physicists repeatedly explain that these basic sciences are the foundations for global warming. NOT the history of climate (although there are some VERY interesting and important lessons there). The climate physicists *demonstrate* the math behind the amount of energy they say is trapped by Co2.

No sceptics attack at that basic level of calculation! They say "But it's only 385 parts per MILLION of the atmosphere" as if you and I are able to evaluate what the heck that means? Do YOU know? Do I? NO! But sceptics selling books run that way, flattering you and I as if we are trained in these things.

The REAL climatologists can tell you EXACTLY what that means, and what 450 ppm means, and what preindustrial 280ppm means. It's all there in the Radiative Forcing Equation (RFE). I'm not asking you to run the figures yourself, but whether or not you thought to look for papers that disprove these BASIC FOUNDATIONAL arguments to the whole of climate science.

Listen you argumentive as#@($. Stop your bickering & answer my F'n questions.
What? Not got an answer?

“What is the problem with Global warming?
Is it that the Ice cap will melt?
Is it that the seas will rise?

“What? Not got an answer?” (Jayb)

http://www.amnh.org/sciencebulletins/

1. Go to “Earth” (left hand column.) 2. Click on “Features.” 3. Click on “Melting Ice Rising Seas.”

What? Not got an answer?” (Jayb)

http://www.amnh.org/sciencebulletins/

1. Go to “Earth” (left hand column.) 2. Click on “Features.” 3. Click on “Melting Ice Rising Seas.”

Yes, fine. That's not telling me something I didn't already know. It's just saying what's going to happen. Not, does it really matter.
The question is, "So What?" People will just have to adapt. Just like life had to every other every other time it happened, both warming & cooling. It's the natural way of things on earth. life migrated & or addjusted to its new surrondings. I don't see it as a bad thing or a good thing it just natural change in the cycle of life on earth. We have to accept that. The only ones that are really worried about it are the Real Estate people. All the High priced land is by the sea & that will go down in value. So what? It's unrealistically priced anyway.

Jayb,
Real estate... is that all you can imagine?

How many climate refugees do you want flooding the Australian economy when Bangladeshi agriculture fails? What about INDIA and CHINA's agriculture massively failing?

Just how much international turmoil do you think we can "adapt" to? We're talking about massively rising food prices, failed states, possibly even war, or at least massive refugee problems unlike anything we have EVER witnessed.

Try this:
http://www.earth-policy.org/Updates/2008/Update71.htm

"On top of this already grim shrinkage of underground water resources, losing the river water used for irrigation could lead to politically unmanageable food shortages. The Ganges River, for example, which is the largest source of surface water irrigation in India, is a leading source of water for the 407 million people living in the Gangetic Basin.

In China, both the Yellow and Yangtze rivers depend heavily on ice melt for their dry-season flow. The Yellow River basin is home to 147 million people whose fate is closely tied to the river because of low rainfall in the basin. The Yangtze is China’s leading source of surface irrigation water, helping to produce half or more of China’s 130-million-ton rice harvest. It also meets many of the other water needs of the watershed’s 368 million people. (See data.)

The population in either the Yangtze or Gangetic river basin is larger than that of any country other than China or India. And the ongoing shrinkage of underground water supplies and the prospective shrinkage of river water supplies are occurring against a startling demographic backdrop: by 2050 India is projected to add 490 million people and China 80 million."