Jump to content

Global Warming or Not

Lt Kije

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 200
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Global warming is a fact, you are quite correct in that. The global temperature has been rising, on average, since the end of the last ice age. The argument at present is how much, if any, warming can be attributed to the actions of mankind. In my opinion, and in the opinion of many scientists, man has had very little, if any, effect on global temperature. Carbon dioxide is not a driver of global warming or climate change. In fact this trace gas (380 ppm) is at a very low level compared with most of earth's history, and is essential for life on earth. talk of reducing atmospheric CO2 is pure nonsense.


Any one else got an opinion?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with the comment that it has been happening for years. It is more to do with what's under the ground than what is in the sky, PLUS the ever-changing cycle of the planet.


However, man is destroying the surface of the planet, that is having a negative effect on the quality of life in the future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Global warming caused by sn very ignorant and pompus mankind & that includes all of us without exception.


However there will be another ice age (it comes around every so many years) but too far in the future for it to reverse the damage that we have done.


Mankind will survive in some form but not as we know it Jim :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's an interesting set of observations to start with...




Scientists have been saying that IF three is any validity to a 2012 galactic plane crossing or magnetic pole reversal, it would begin showing up more increasingly in weired weather patterns. I'd have to say that the year 2007 was verification that something is changing. Did we see tremors of the coming planetary earthquake that will shake our world immeasurably in 2007?


Let's look at some statistics- maybe evidence!


1-January was the warmest first month on record worldwide?1.53 degrees above normal. It was the first time since record-keeping began in 1880 that the globe's average temperature has been so far above the norm for any month of the year.


2-As 2007 drew to a close, it was also shaping up to be the hottest year on record in the Northern Hemisphere. U.S. weather stations broke or tied 263 all-time high temperature records, according to an Associated Press analysis of U.S. weather data. England had the warmest April in 348 years of record-keeping there, shattering the record set in 1865 by more than 1.1 degrees Fahrenheit.


3-There were other weird weather events as well. A tornado struck New York City in August, inspiring the tabloid headline: "This ain't Kansas!" In the Middle East, an equally rare cyclone spun up in June, hitting Oman and Iran. Major U.S. lakes shrank; Atlanta had to worry about its drinking water supply. South Africa got its first significant snowfall in 25 years. And on Reunion Island, 400 miles east of Africa, nearly 155 inches of rain fell in three days?a world record for the most rain in 72 hours.


Strictly coincidences?


Individual weather extremes can't be attributed to global warming; however, "it's the run of them and the different locations" that have the mark of man-made climate change, said top European climate expert Phil Jones, director of the climate research unit at the University of East Anglia in England.


Worst of all?at least according to climate scientists?the Arctic, which serves as the world's refrigerator, dramatically warmed in 2007, shattering records for the amount of melting ice.

Thus, 2007 seemed to be the year that climate change shook the thermometers, and those who warned that it was beginning to happen were suddenly honored.


Former Vice President Al Gore's documentary "An Inconvenient Truth" won an Oscar and he shared the Nobel Peace Prize with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, an international group of thousands of scientists. The climate panel, organized by the United Nations, released four major reports in 2007 saying man-made global warming was incontrovertible and an urgent threat to millions of lives. Through the first 10 months, it was the hottest year recorded on land and the third hottest when ocean temperatures are included.

Smashing records was common, especially in August. At U.S. weather stations, more than 8,000 new heat records were set or tied for specific August dates.


More remarkably that same month, more than 100 all-time temperature records were tied or broken?regardless of the date?either for the highest reading or the warmest low temperature at night. By comparison only 14 all-time low temperatures were set or tied all year long, as of early December, according to records kept by the National Climatic Data Center. More than 60 percent of the United States was either abnormally dry or suffering from drought at one point in August.


More coincidences?


In November, Atlanta's main water source, Lake Lanier, shrank to an all-time low. Lake Okeechobee, crucial to south Florida, hit its lowest level in recorded history in May, exposing muck and debris not seen for decades. Lake Superior, the biggest and deepest of the Great Lakes, dropped to its lowest August and September levels in history. Los Angeles hit its driest year on record. Lakes fed by the Colorado River and which help supply water for more than 20 million Westerners, were only half full.


More coincidences?


Australia, already a dry continent, suffered its worst drought in a century, making global warming an election issue. On the other extreme, record rains fell in China, England and Wales. Minnesota got the worst of everything: a devastating June and July drought followed by record August rainfall. In one March day, Southern California got torrential downpours, hail, snow and fierce winds. Then in the fall came devastating fires driven by Santa Ana winds.


And yet none of those events worried scientists as much as what was going on in the Arctic in the summer. Sea ice melted not just to record levels, but far beyond the previous melt record. The Northwest Passage was the most navigable it had been in modern times. Russia planted a flag on the seabed under the North Pole, claiming sovereignty. The ice sheets that cover a portion of Greenland retreated to an all- time low and permafrost in Alaska warmed to record levels.


Coincidences, 2012 tremors, or?


And from National Geographical - there web page entitled 'What is Global Warming?'




And then there is James Hansens speach to congress


Global Warming Twenty Years Later: Tipping Points Near

James Hansen1

My presentation today is exactly 20 years after my 23 June 1988 testimony to Congress, which

alerted the public that global warming was underway. There are striking similarities between

then and now, but one big difference.

Again a wide gap has developed between what is understood about global warming by

the relevant scientific community and what is known by policymakers and the public. Now, as

then, frank assessment of scientific data yields conclusions that are shocking to the body politic.

Now, as then, I can assert that these conclusions have a certainty exceeding 99 percent.

The difference is that now we have used up all slack in the schedule for actions needed to

defuse the global warming time bomb. The next President and Congress must define a course

next year in which the United States exerts leadership commensurate with our responsibility for

the present dangerous situation.

Otherwise it will become impractical to constrain atmospheric carbon dioxide, the

greenhouse gas produced in burning fossil fuels, to a level that prevents the climate system from

passing tipping points that lead to disastrous climate changes that spiral dynamically out of

humanity?s control.

Changes needed to preserve creation, the planet on which civilization developed, are

clear. But the changes have been blocked by special interests, focused on short-term profits, who

hold sway in Washington and other capitals.

I argue that a path yielding energy independence and a healthier environment is, barely,

still possible. It requires a transformative change of direction in Washington in the next year.

On 23 June 1988 I testified to a hearing, chaired by Senator Tim Wirth of Colorado, that the

Earth had entered a long-term warming trend and that human-made greenhouse gases almost

surely were responsible. I noted that global warming enhanced both extremes of the water cycle,

meaning stronger droughts and forest fires, on the one hand, but also heavier rains and floods.

My testimony two decades ago was greeted with skepticism. But while skepticism is the

lifeblood of science, it can confuse the public. As scientists examine a topic from all

perspectives, it may appear that nothing is known with confidence. But from such broad openminded

study of all data, valid conclusions can be drawn.

My conclusions in 1988 were built on a wide range of inputs from basic physics,

planetary studies, observations of on-going changes, and climate models. The evidence was

strong enough that I could say it was time to ?stop waffling?. I was sure that time would bring

the scientific community to a similar consensus, as it has.

While international recognition of global warming was swift, actions have faltered. The

U.S. refused to place limits on its emissions, and developing countries such as China and India

rapidly increased their emissions.

What is at stake? Warming so far, about two degrees Fahrenheit over land areas, seems almost

innocuous, being less than day-to-day weather fluctuations. But more warming is already ?inthe-

pipeline?, delayed only by the great inertia of the world ocean. And climate is nearing

dangerous tipping points. Elements of a ?perfect storm?, a global cataclysm, are assembled.

Climate can reach points such that amplifying feedbacks spur large rapid changes. Arctic

sea ice is a current example. Global warming initiated sea ice melt, exposing darker ocean that

absorbs more sunlight, melting more ice. As a result, without any additional greenhouse gases,

the Arctic soon will be ice-free in the summer.

More ominous tipping points loom. West Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets are

vulnerable to even small additional warming. These two-mile-thick behemoths respond slowly

at first, but if disintegration gets well underway it will become unstoppable. Debate among

scientists is only about how much sea level would rise by a given date. In my opinion, if

emissions follow a business-as-usual scenario, sea level rise of at least two meters is likely this

century. Hundreds of millions of people would become refugees. No stable shoreline would be

reestablished in any time frame that humanity can conceive.

Animal and plant species are already stressed by climate change. Polar and alpine

species will be pushed off the planet, if warming continues. Other species attempt to migrate,

but as some are extinguished their interdependencies can cause ecosystem collapse. Mass

extinctions, of more than half the species on the planet, have occurred several times when the

Earth warmed as much as expected if greenhouse gases continue to increase. Biodiversity

recovered, but it required hundreds of thousands of years.

The disturbing conclusion, documented in a paper2 I have written with several of the world?s

leading climate experts, is that the safe level of atmospheric carbon dioxide is no more than 350

ppm (parts per million) and it may be less. Carbon dioxide amount is already 385 ppm and

rising about 2 ppm per year. Stunning corollary: the oft-stated goal to keep global warming less

than two degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) is a recipe for global disaster, not salvation.

These conclusions are based on paleoclimate data showing how the Earth responded to

past levels of greenhouse gases and on observations showing how the world is responding to

today?s carbon dioxide amount. The consequences of continued increase of greenhouse gases

extend far beyond extermination of species and future sea level rise.

Arid subtropical climate zones are expanding poleward. Already an average expansion

of about 250 miles has occurred, affecting the southern United States, the Mediterranean region,

Australia and southern Africa. Forest fires and drying-up of lakes will increase further unless

carbon dioxide growth is halted and reversed.

Mountain glaciers are the source of fresh water for hundreds of millions of people. These

glaciers are receding world-wide, in the Himalayas, Andes and Rocky Mountains. They will

disappear, leaving their rivers as trickles in late summer and fall, unless the growth of carbon

dioxide is reversed.

Coral reefs, the rainforest of the ocean, are home for one-third of the species in the sea.

Coral reefs are under stress for several reasons, including warming of the ocean, but especially

because of ocean acidification, a direct effect of added carbon dioxide. Ocean life dependent on

carbonate shells and skeletons is threatened by dissolution as the ocean becomes more acid.

Such phenomena, including the instability of Arctic sea ice and the great ice sheets at

today?s carbon dioxide amount, show that we have already gone too far. We must draw down

atmospheric carbon dioxide to preserve the planet we know. A level of no more than 350 ppm is

still feasible, with the help of reforestation and improved agricultural practices, but just barely ?

time is running out.

Requirements to halt carbon dioxide growth follow from the size of fossil carbon reservoirs.

Coal towers over oil and gas. Phase out of coal use except where the carbon is captured and

stored below ground is the primary requirement for solving global warming.

Oil is used in vehicles where it is impractical to capture the carbon. But oil is running

out. To preserve our planet we must also ensure that the next mobile energy source is not

obtained by squeezing oil from coal, tar shale or other fossil fuels.

Fossil fuel reservoirs are finite, which is the main reason that prices are rising. We must

move beyond fossil fuels eventually. Solution of the climate problem requires that we move to

carbon-free energy promptly.

Special interests have blocked transition to our renewable energy future. Instead of

moving heavily into renewable energies, fossil companies choose to spread doubt about global

warming, as tobacco companies discredited the smoking-cancer link. Methods are sophisticated,

including funding to help shape school textbook discussions of global warming.

CEOs of fossil energy companies know what they are doing and are aware of long-term

consequences of continued business as usual. In my opinion, these CEOs should be tried for

high crimes against humanity and nature.

Conviction of ExxonMobil and Peabody Coal CEOs will be no consolation, if we pass on

a runaway climate to our children. Humanity would be impoverished by ravages of continually

shifting shorelines and intensification of regional climate extremes. Loss of countless species

would leave a more desolate planet.

If politicians remain at loggerheads, citizens must lead. We must demand a moratorium

on new coal-fired power plants. We must block fossil fuel interests who aim to squeeze every

last drop of oil from public lands, off-shore, and wilderness areas. Those last drops are no

solution. They yield continued exorbitant profits for a short-sighted self-serving industry, but no

alleviation of our addiction or long-term energy source.

Moving from fossil fuels to clean energy is challenging, yet transformative in ways that will be

welcomed. Cheap, subsidized fossil fuels engendered bad habits. We import food from halfway

around the world, for example, even with healthier products available from nearby fields. Local

produce would be competitive if not for fossil fuel subsidies and the fact that climate change

damages and costs, due to fossil fuels, are also borne by the public.

A price on emissions that cause harm is essential. Yes, a carbon tax. Carbon tax with

100 percent dividend3 is needed to wean us off fossil fuel addiction. Tax and dividend allows the

marketplace, not politicians, to make investment decisions.

Carbon tax on coal, oil and gas is simple, applied at the first point of sale or port of entry.

The entire tax must be returned to the public, an equal amount to each adult, a half-share for

children. This dividend can be deposited monthly in an individual?s bank account.

Carbon tax with 100 percent dividend is non-regressive. On the contrary, you can bet

that low and middle income people will find ways to limit their carbon tax and come out ahead.

Profligate energy users will have to pay for their excesses.

Demand for low-carbon high-efficiency products will spur innovation, making our

products more competitive on international markets. Carbon emissions will plummet as energy

efficiency and renewable energies grow rapidly. Black soot, mercury and other fossil fuel

emissions will decline. A brighter, cleaner future, with energy independence, is possible.

Washington likes to spend our tax money line-by-line. Swarms of high-priced lobbyists in

alligator shoes help Congress decide where to spend, and in turn the lobbyists? clients provide

?campaign? money.

The public must send a message to Washington. Preserve our planet, creation, for our

children and grandchildren, but do not use that as an excuse for more tax-and-spend. Let this be

our motto: ?One hundred percent dividend or fight!?

The next President must make a national low-loss electric grid an imperative. It will

allow dispersed renewable energies to supplant fossil fuels for power generation. Technology

exists for direct-current high-voltage buried transmission lines. Trunk lines can be completed in

less than a decade and expanded analogous to interstate highways.

Government must also change utility regulations so that profits do not depend on selling

ever more energy, but instead increase with efficiency. Building code and vehicle efficiency

requirements must be improved and put on a path toward carbon neutrality.

The fossil-industry maintains its strangle-hold on Washington via demagoguery, using

China and other developing nations as scapegoats to rationalize inaction. In fact, we produced

most of the excess carbon in the air today, and it is to our advantage as a nation to move smartly

in developing ways to reduce emissions. As with the ozone problem, developing countries can

be allowed limited extra time to reduce emissions. They will cooperate: they have much to lose

from climate change and much to gain from clean air and reduced dependence on fossil fuels.

We must establish fair agreements with other countries. However, our own tax and

dividend should start immediately. We have much to gain from it as a nation, and other

countries will copy our success. If necessary, import duties on products from uncooperative

countries can level the playing field, with the import tax added to the dividend pool.

Democracy works, but sometimes churns slowly. Time is short. The 2008 election is

critical for the planet. If Americans turn out to pasture the most brontosaurian congressmen, if

Washington adapts to address climate change, our children and grandchildren can still hold great


1 Dr. James E. Hansen, a physicist by training, directs the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, a laboratory

of the Goddard Space Flight Center and a unit of the Columbia University Earth Institute, but he speaks as a private

citizen today at the National Press Club and at a Briefing to the House Select Committee on Energy Independence &

Global Warming.

2 Target atmospheric CO2: where should humanity aim? J. Hansen, M. Sato, P. Kharecha, D. Beerling, R. Berner, V.

Masson-Delmotte, M. Raymo, D.L. Royer, J.C. Zachos, http://arxiv.org/abs/0804.1126 and


3 The proposed ?tax and 100% dividend? is based largely on the cap and dividend approach described by Peter

Barnes in ?Who Owns the Sky: Our Common Assets and the Future of Capitalism?, Island Press, Washington, D.C.,

2001 (http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=116&subsecID=149&contentID=3867).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By quoting those two frauds, James Hansen and Al Gore, you've shot your own argument down Geoff. Gore is so convinced that sea levels are going to rise dramatically that he has bought a sea front condiminium in San Francisco. His film, An Inconvenient Truth, has been found in a British court of law to be full of half truths and inaccuracies (including the famous "hockey stick" graph that even the IPCC has dropped like a hot brick.)

The Arctic isn't melting away. The ice area reduces every year in summer and increases every winter. Depending on wind and currents the amount of decrease and increase varies from year to year. this winter the ice are of the Arctic is the same as it was in 1976.

Nobody knows what the optimum temperature of the world is, or, for that matter what the temperature of the world is at the moment!!

The media always play up climate change scares because it's news. Nothing to worry about is not newsworthy and so gets ignored. So the gullible are taken in and the politicians seize on an opportunity to increase the tax take "to save the planet". And Prince Charles finds an excuse to take a jolly around South America.

We could all be wiped out by an asteroid tomorrow so worrying about non existent warming is a bit sad. :roll::roll::roll::roll::roll:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By quoting those two frauds, James Hansen and Al Gore, you've shot your own argument down Geoff.


You are entitled to your opinion and that is why Climate change is often debated.


True ice melts in the Summer and Freezes in the Winter BUT the overall impact is that the volume of the ice caps and majority of glaciers are shrinking.


The World Widlife Fund writes

Global Warming is melting glaciers in every region of the world, putting millions of people at risk from floods,

droughts and lack of drinking water.

Glaciers are ancient rivers of compressed snow that creep through the landscape, shaping the planet?s surface. They

are the Earth?s largest freshwater reservoir, collectively covering an area the size of South America. Glaciers have

been retreating worldwide since the end of the Little Ice Age (around 1850), but in recent decades glaciers have

begun melting at rates that cannot be explained by historical trends1.

Projected climate change over the next century will further affect the rate at which glaciers melt. Average global

temperatures are expected to rise 1.4-5.8?C by the end of the 21st century2. Simulations project that a 4?C rise in

temperature would eliminate nearly all of the world?s glaciers (the melt-down of the Greenland ice sheets could

be triggered at a temperature increase of 2 to 3?C). Even in the least damaging scenario ? a 1?C rise along with an

increase in rain and snow ? glaciers will continue to lose volume over the coming century3.

Although only a small fraction of the planet?s permanent ice is stored outside of Greenland and Antarctica, these

glaciers are extremely important because they respond rapidly to climate change and their loss directly affects

human populations and ecosystems. Continued, widespread melting of glaciers during the coming century will

lead to floods, water shortages for millions of people, and sea level rise threatening and destroying coastal

communities and habitats.




Since the early 1960s, mountain glaciers worldwide have experienced an estimated net loss of over 4000 cubic

kilometers of water ? more than the annual discharge of the Orinoco, Congo, Yangtze and Mississippi

Rivers combined; this loss was more than twice as fast in the 1990s than during previous decades.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The WWF proposes


Worldwide, accelerating glacier loss provides independent and startling evidence that global warming is occurring1.

It is now clear that the Earth is warming rapidly due to man-made emissions of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping

gases, which blanket the planet and cause temperatures to rise2. Climate change is already happening, but we

can strive to keep global warming within tolerable limits if we act now.

Based on scenarios of projected damage to ecosystems and human communities, WWF seeks to limit global warming

to a maximum of 2?C over pre-industrial levels. Although a warming of 1-2?C will clearly threaten human

health, water supplies and vulnerable ecosystems, a warming of at least 1?C appears unavoidable. Warming beyond

2?C is likely to result in rapidly escalating damages, with severe threats to human populations and the loss of unique

and irreplaceable ecosystems. It is therefore imperative that emissions of the main heat-trapping gas, carbon dioxide

(CO2), are significantly reduced, in order to avoid exceeding this 2?C threshold.

The majority of CO2 pollution is released when fossil fuels such as coal, oil and natural gas are burned for transportation,

heating, or the production of electricity. Coal is particularly damaging, as it produces 70% more CO2

emissions than natural gas for the same energy output. Electricity generation is the single largest source of manmade

CO2, amounting to 37% of worldwide emissions.

WWF is challenging the electric power sector to become CO2-free by the middle of this century in industrialized

countries, and to make a significant shift towards that goal in developing countries. A number of power companies

have already signed on to WWF?s vision, but in order to reduce emissions significantly, power utilities, financial

institutions, consumers, and policy makers must all play a role:

? Utilities can support meaningful global warming legislation, improve the energy efficiency of power plants,

increase their use of renewable energy sources, and halt investment in new coal plants and coal mining.

? Financial institutions can call upon the companies they invest in to disclose their emissions policies, and switch

their investments to companies that are striving to be more competitive under future limits on carbon emissions.

? Electricity consumers should opt for ?green power? where it is available, demand this choice where it is not, and

invest in highly efficient appliances.

? Policy makers must ease the transition to a carbon-free energy industry by passing legislation that creates favorable

market conditions, shaping new frameworks for change, and ensuring that the Kyoto Protocol, the world?s primary

legal tool to combat global warming, enters into force as soon as possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

this winter the ice are of the Arctic is the same as it was in 1976.


Does that mean we are going to have a scorcher this summer???

I wore a full length plaster that year, so I remember it well.


One thing that people tend to ignore, is the effect that the devastation of the rain forests has on the climate.


That plus the moving of the Gulf Stream and the movement of the earth on its axis is bound to change the climate.


The experts need to take a look at nature instead of clutching at straws and coming out with(money making) knee-jerk reactions. :roll:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These factors are included in the experts climatic model.


Having allowed for these natural effects Climatic change is found to be accelerating as a direct consequence of the impact of man.



What previous experience have they had over the last 500 years? :shock::?

Link to comment
Share on other sites



Current climate models predict that if greenhouse gas emissions continue to increase, the component of the gulf stream driven by the differences in water density is likely to decrease by 25% in the next 100 years. As the gulf stream becomes weaker, it may become less stable and therefore be more likely to shut down completely in the future.




A reduced gulf stream would mean that less heat is brought to north-west Europe and therefore harsher winters. However, current climate model predictions are confident that the increase in temperatures resulting from an increase in greenhouse gas emissions is much greater than the potential cooling effect, so a cooling of the UK climate is unlikely this century.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These factors are included in the experts climatic model.


Having allowed for these natural effects Climatic change is found to be accelerating as a direct consequence of the impact of man.


Geoff you are so gullible!! the "experts climate models" are computer programmes that have been proved to be wildly inaccurate. Unfortunately there are so many people who are willing to accept these scare stories without question (or even looking out of the window occasionally). If we get a particularly cold day the "climate experts" dismiss it as "weather", but a particular hot day is evidence of climate change. All these "climate experts" are being paid handsome research grants to prove that man made climate change exists. They aren't going to say they were wrong are they? It's a load of baloney to put it mildly. I suggest you widen your reading to include people who know what they're talking about and forget Messrs Gore and Hansen and their buddies. :wink::wink::wink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites



Current climate models predict that if greenhouse gas emissions continue to increase, the component of the gulf stream driven by the differences in water density is likely to decrease by 25% in the next 100 years. As the gulf stream becomes weaker, it may become less stable and therefore be more likely to shut down completely in the future.




A reduced gulf stream would mean that less heat is brought to north-west Europe and therefore harsher winters. However, current climate model predictions are confident that the increase in temperatures resulting from an increase in greenhouse gas emissions is much greater than the potential cooling effect, so a cooling of the UK climate is unlikely this century.


As I said in my previous post --- BALONEY :o:o:o:o:o

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some scientists are saying that global warming might cause the gulf stream to stop, If it does the UK will get a lot colder :shock:


If the argument was so clear cut; they would ALL being saying that.


It is a load of nonsense being enhanced to suit the tax making governments of the West. No body in the East is the slighteset bit bothered about global warming. What about their scientists? What are they saying? Are they ALL of the opinion that the world is doomed like you seem to think we are?


When every eminent scientist in the world tells me that driving my three and a half litre is wrong and damaging to the environment, I'll get a bike. Until then, stuff 'em because they are all talking nonsense

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Create New...