What kind of twisted logic is that? Come on, Chief. Your smart enough to know the problem with that assumption. Who is going to sign the petition? If I get a petition in the mail and I agree with it I'll sign it and send it. If I disagree, I'll throw it out. So if 1,000,000 petitions were mailed wouldn't you assume that the people who didn't respond did not agree with the petition?
The petition itself is confusing. Did the the people sign because they were against Kyoto or because they do not accept AGW?

But my whole point was that without knowing the methodology or total mailings, the number "19,000" is meaningless. If I show you a petition signed by 19,000 soldiers against the Iraq War will that change your mind and will you call for a troop withdrawal? If I show you a petition for keeping abortion legal signed by 19,000 doctors will you be pro-choice?

__________________
If electricity comes from electrons, does morality come from morons?

Okay now. I have a lot of questions on this subject. So I will post them one at a time until they are all answered responsibly and accurately. I am no scientist. I am just a cop. That being said I am neither stupid or ignorant as to common sense. So rhetoric will not fly here.

First question.
According to the scientists that were just on the show "Expedition Alaska" one of the reasons and effects of global warming is the melting of sea ice in Alaska and around the world, and as such that warms the planet because the sea ice in Alaska reflects 70% of the sunlight back into the sky and thus raising surface temperature even more. Also as was referenced earlier in this thread the ice in the north and south is apparently thicker than it has been in the past.

How can this be true? For ice to reflect that much light 70% of the world would have to be covered in ice. As Alaska and the other areas that are covered in ice are minuscule in proportion to the non ice covered parts this effect would be almost unmeasurable.

If you are a skeptic and do not know, then just say that you do not know. Same goes for a proponent.

If you are just going to respond with insults then please shut your mouth. The idiocy is not needed here.

__________________
“It is anomalous to hold that in order to convict a man the police cannot extract by force what is in his mind, but can extract what is in his stomach.”

It seems pretty simple to me. If there are five thousand people that agree and 19000 that do not. The majority does not agree.

Also, if 19000 from around the world do not agree, then it kind of throws out your idea that there is only controversy in the United States.

__________________
“It is anomalous to hold that in order to convict a man the police cannot extract by force what is in his mind, but can extract what is in his stomach.”

Can you show me where the quote 'worlds top 2000 scientists' comes from? Is that who the IPCC claims are their contributors?
I've already shown you that the IPCC makes no claim about the contributors being scientists, only that they are "experts in all regions of the world and all relevant disciplines". So I will agree with you; not all the contributors are scientists.

__________________
If electricity comes from electrons, does morality come from morons?

But....but....but...the co2 level continues to rise, I thought the earth had a fever?

You are talking about albedo - the amount of sunlight a body reflects

Perhaps the show you watched didn't explain it clearly. I think they were trying to say that the sea ice in Alaska will reflect 70% of the light hitting the sea ice in Alaska - not the light hitting the whole world.

Generally - fresh, flat snow will reflect 90% of the light hitting it. Bare earth will reflect much less - perhaps less than 10%. The figure of 70% for sea ice sounds about right. The average albedo for the whole Earth is about 30% - ie 30% of light hitting the planet from the sun is reflected.

Reflected light is also reflected heat. If AGW causes surface temperatures to rise and ice/snow to melt, it is predicted that the loss of snow will reduce the earth's albedo, creating a feedback mechanism that thereby further increases warming. However - higher temperatures may also result in more water vapour and more clouds and hence an increased albedo - leading to some amount of cooling.

Which scenario is correct? I don't know - but it is one more factor in the complexities of global climate that suggest it is a good idea to try to limit the emissions that may impact on global climate.

Albedo is explained well here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albedo

__________________
Have you ever stood toe to toe with someone that was intent on kicking your arse? C-D-P

Who are these scientists saying the Ice Caps are 25% thicker than average? What is "average"?
Generally, the Milankovitch Cycle
Thanks for your contribution

__________________
Have you ever stood toe to toe with someone that was intent on kicking your arse? C-D-P

Terrestrial climate is greatly influenced by ocean currents.
Ocean currents are driven by ocean temperature gradients.
If ocean surface temperatures change, this may impact on ocean temperature gradients, and hence ocean currents.
Areas generally warmed by warm currents, may become cooler if rising ocean temperatures reduce the velocity of these warm currents.

What is it about that don't you understand?

__________________
Have you ever stood toe to toe with someone that was intent on kicking your arse? C-D-P

But that's the point Rino. Robinson won't release the total number of mailings so all we have to go on is what appears to be a large number and we don't know if there is a majority. I've tried to get a very rough estimate of the number of mailings and I don't see how 19,000 could be a majority.
Here is the petition:
Did the signers sign because they were against Kyoto or disagreed with AGW?

And to add to bugalugs' post: Total area of the arctic sea ice is about equal to the continental US. Add Greenland ice, northern Canada and Siberian ice and you have the whole "top of the world". So the effects of a change in albedo is in no way minuscule.
I didn't see "Expedition Alaska" so I let me know if this addresses your question.

__________________
If electricity comes from electrons, does morality come from morons?

Maybe they were mistaken because they said the world.


Ok good enough. I guess the global warming scientists were just wrong on the show.

Maybe you answered it already but I have not seen it.

Earlier in the thread a poster explained that humans provide something like 2% of the CO2 the rest is natural, and if you factor in water vapor we provide something like .02%.

How can such a small amount honestly be expected tip the scales to disaster?

__________________
“It is anomalous to hold that in order to convict a man the police cannot extract by force what is in his mind, but can extract what is in his stomach.”