The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > And So The Climate Change Ripoff Continues

And So The Climate Change Ripoff Continues

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. Page 9
  10. All
//but I ask that you consider the ocean level as a mean level and then calculate everything above it and not below mean level.//

Like I just did for the Greenland ice sheet, which as we've already established is definitely above sea level by virtue of being atop Greenland?

Tell you what, ALTRAV, if it makes it easier to show us your math why not just limit yourself to the Greenland ice sheet like I did? If you can demonstrate that its melting will raise sea levels significantly less than the 7.26m I've calculated and the 7.2m claimed in the literature, that would help your case. Which at the moment is pretty flimsy because it consists entirely of an assertion that we're expected to take on faith, and you blew your credibility along time ago with your your many and varied absurdities.

//I am that sure of my position or numbers.//

You might be, but nobody else is. And they're not going to have any reason to be until your show us your working.

What's wrong, have you forgotten how to do arithmetic or something?
Posted by Toni Lavis, Saturday, 23 June 2018 9:04:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Toni, Ican't give any details because it was a long time ago.
Look I accept that your math's seem to corroborate your position.
I cannot and therefore will not attempt to justify my mine.
I remember thinking that the notion of 60 to 70m rise was way out of reasonable limits and that's why I turned to the maps.
It's not that I don't want to believe the result, nobody does, but that it is just too extreme when one looks at areas of ocean compared to the areas of ice and snow, even taking the depth into account.
It just doesn't look right, and so I take a more pragmatic view of these facts and figures.
I do confess not having done any 'in depth' research.
It was of interest to me years ago, not so much today.
I suppose it ultimately, (I know you will scoff), comes down to it simply being my opinion based loosely on very 'loose' information.
But seriously Toni.
Don't you think numbers like 60 or 70m seem a little extreme to you? Because that's what set me off in the first place.
But I have to give it to you.
Your figures do not lie, it's basic math's.
The facts are probably where I would find some flaws.
So if the facts and the figures are correct then, there is nothing more to say, we're all screwed!
Posted by ALTRAV, Saturday, 23 June 2018 12:40:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. Page 9
  10. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy