A brief introduction to the warming world
Published: 1 April 2009
Author: Radhika Holmström
[ 2 ] Recommendations
[ 22 ] Comments
Climate change is still strenuously denied by a few (mostly by those with a vested interest in denying it, but Sir Nicholas Stern's review helped to establish it as a mainstream concern. And in an about-face with the previous administration, President Obama has put it on his crowded "urgent" list.
The science in brief
The main culprit is an increase in the greenhouse effect: the fact that the earth is being wrapped up in a blanket of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other gases. We've always had this blanket to an extent - and it's crucial for trapping the sun's energy and warming the planet to sustain life. However, we are now producing disproportionate amounts of these gases by burning fossil fuels (oil, coal and gas) and cutting down the tree cover which absorbs them.
As economies like China and India increase their GDP, they become major contributors to climate change. China builds two new power stations a week - although mainly to serve Western markets. And at the moment, the average carbon footprint in China is five times less than one in the US.
As a result, the planet is overheating dangerously. Don't be fooled by 2008's disappointing summer: year on year, global temperatures are rising.
The damage
The Met Office says the global average temperature will rise a couple of degrees this century. Doesn't look much? Well, it adds up to a greater climate change and associated heatwaves, storms and flooding than in the past 10,000 years. Moreover, the problem is the speed of the change.
As temperatures rise, so will the likelihood of extreme weather - not only heatwaves, but flooding as the polar ice melts and sea levels rise. Already, large parts of Australia which used to be fertile land are dustbowls, while more than 17 million people in Bangladesh live in areas that will be flooded by rising sea levels. The UK's not immune either - researchers warned recently that we should expect more torrential rain and floods.
Greenpeace estimates that 150,000 people die every year due to droughts, floods and famine. The Department of Health has taken the threat seriously enough to publish a major document on the potential effects on health.
Take action
Rainforest Action Network estimates that every year, 50,000 species of tree become extinct
Few people still deny climate change, but not enough are willing to act.
Most of us are familiar with energy-saving measures like thicker loft insulation, draught proofing and energy-efficient lightbulbs. These are all minor shifts but they could constitute a huge saving in energy nationwide. So is switching to fuel-efficient electrical equipment and a less polluting car. Less palatably, one of the biggest culprits is air travel, which constitutes 13 per cent of UK emissions and is set to quadruple.
Most climate change campaigners are focused on the UN climate summit in Copenhagen, December 2009. There's still time to halt the damage, if the polluters commit to radical action in their own domestic economies, as well as an international agreement. But that time is running out - and encouraging though recent commitments have been, we may still carry on overheating.
Comments
What truly appalling and dishonest rubbish. The comments have rightly treated the content of this article with disbelief and derision.
RW
Reviewing the National Geographic map of the Artic ocean reveals the fact that in 1980 the Artic ocean covered 3.01 million square miles, in 2005 it covered only 2.16 million square miles, a loss of 1/3rd in size in only 30 years!! That means in another 60 years it could diaappear!! Does anyone think that would not affect our climate??
Reviewing the National Geographic map of the Artic ocean reveals the fact that in 1980 the Artic ocean covered 3.01 million square miles, in 2005 it covered only 2.16 million square miles, a loss of 1/3rd in size in only 30 years!! That means in another 60 years it could diaappear!! Does anyone think that would not affect our climate??
" the planet is overheating dangerously. Don't be fooled by 2008's disappointing summer: year on year, global temperatures are rising"
But Global temperatures have been flat for over ten years while Co2 atmosphere content has increased. Why?
"Climate change is still strenuously denied by a few (mostly by those with a vested interest in denying it)"
Meanwhile, some 32,000 scientists, 9,000 of them PhDs, have signed The Petition Project statement proclaiming that Man is not necessarily the chief cause of warming and that the phenomenon may not exist at all, .... hardly a FEW is it? The number of acredited scientists against the IPCC view grows every day.
Belief in AGW =
Al Gore gets richer from his carbon credit/green companies.
Governments get more control and raise more tax. AGW supportive scientists get to keep their jobs and get more funding.
The church of AGW gets to point a crooked finger at technology, our way of life and their perceived evil of human progress.
Let's reflect on the good that mankind can bring about with its technologies, so that we can all expect a better and longer life. Lets direct our efforts at defeating crime, poverty, illhealth and discrimination.
The CARBON agenda is a distraction and a waste of resources.
"Rainforest Action Network estimates that every year, 50,000 species of tree become extinct"
What an hilarious comment... just googled how many tree species are there in the world, answer 100,000; therefore if we are to believe yet more outrageous, unsubstantiated claims from the church of AGW, then we'll have no trees in 2 years time... Ha ha!
Think about what man has done to Mother Nature over the past 100 years.
Ok, how many of those things were nice?
Now, how many of those nice things man has done to her were only done to compensate for damage we had already caused?
We have no idea of the true side effects of mans activities on our Eco system, the same as I don't know the true side effects that smoking will do to me. The only time I will know is when it becomes apparent. But then it will be to late.
Now, I take that risk as only I will die.
I will not how ever take the risk that mans activities of pollution, consumption and destruction of our Eco system has no direct connection to Climate Change, which in-turn could destroy our future generations environment.
Survival is not about what is right or wrong, for only when it happens will that be known. The whole point of survival is not letting anything that could be wrong from happening.
Quote# 'water vapour is the biggest greenhouse gas, co2 is well down the list and considered irrelevant by the real scientists'
Submitted by tony wrigley on Sun, 11/10/2009 - 18:17.
Its a vicious circle. We produce Methane(us, cows ect), CO2(industry and lifestyle) and chop down the trees(CO2 regulator). This in-turn heats the planet just enough to melt a bit more ice(main sun ray reflector) and vapourise a bit more water(biggest green house gas) than would have normally happened. This in-turn heats the planet a bit more which melts a bit more ice, vapourises a bit more water, maybe dries out a few peat bogs and so on. While at the same time we increase our activities of pollution, consumption and destruction.
What chance has she got?
And why are some of you lot prepared to take the risk of losing our futures standard of life, just because you aren't prepared to sacrifice your lifestyles?
"Climate change is still strenuously denied by a few (mostly by those with a vested interest in denying it"
I have no vested interest except trying to ensure my (BIG) taxes don't get wasted on this rubbish.
oh for god's sake Johnny OK, that is just hokum. Global warming is man-made and real and the whole scientist debacle doesn't disprove that. What the hell is all the crap about a big conspiracy about?! There are so many problems in the world, I seriously doubt the governments of the world have time to cook up a few more!
These arguements are by now wholly discredited.
See the following link : -
http://westinstenv.org/sosf/2010/01/26/the-daleo-watts-report-on-surface...
for addition proof of the ''man-made CO2 global warming'' SCAM.
The truth will out !!
Interesting reading this, The article spouts loads of "facts" but not one comment supports the article. The answer to AGW is simple reduce Politicians, large governing bodies, and large research labs on grants. AGW is so important is it? thats why the Goddard centre, CRU and Hadley centre are the main source of data yet they are all in cahoots with one another, not competition. We need more individuals like Hooke and Newton at least there was a lively rivalry.
Interesting reading this, The article spouts loads of "facts" but not one comment supports the article. The answer to AGW is simple reduce Politicians, large governing bodies, and large research labs on grants. AGW is so important is it? thats why the Goddard centre, CRU and Hadley centre are the main source of data yet they are all in cahoots with one another, not competition. We need more individuals like Hooke and Newton at least there was a lively rivalry.
has the Met Office taken lack of Sunspot activity into it's computor models, which has a direct influence on the Earths climate.
When oh when will there be a sensible debate on the subect of Global Warming? All we hear from the media is catastrophic warnings of what may happen if we contiue the lifestyle that we currently enjoy. Sadly the many scientist who suggest there is a different scenario are branded as being fools and should be ignored. Still, I suppose news reports of impending crises rather than less horific stories sell newspapers
Rainforest Action Network, its worth finding out more about them before quoting their 'facts' oh! and its quoted that China builds 'about' two power stations a week, thats different to saying they actually do. Ive noticed that some people are more than happy to hype this whole climate change scam up a bit.
The 'so called' concensus that global warming, if indeed it exists at all, will result in catastrophy, is slowly, but surely being shown by research paper after research paper, to be nothing more than political hype, principally to exort more money from the public.
As for Al Gore, just what will he do with the billions he going to earn from pushing the global warming catastrophy?
What about CH4 ?
You know, the stuff all life forms produce in one way or the other, with the molecular formula CH4, a potent greenhouse gas with a 7-year half-life global warming potential or 50-100 years of our life.
Methane (CH4) is also dubbed the mega-fart of mother Earth, and is in prodigious quantities in many part of the world, from permafrost to frozen bogs and underneath sea bed or by-products of oil fields, exported as liquefied natural gas.
By the state of human nature, the half-life of methane ultimately decomposed to form carbon dioxide.
And scientists found that our livestock alone now produce a third of the world's (about 37%) human induced methane, the potent greenhouse warming gas, primarily from our meat producing cattle, chicken or pig.
CH4 is a significant contributor to global warming and the Kyoto protocol seeks to regulate its emissions.
By selling more thin air to put food on the table? That selling is analogous to rubbing the poor off their meals. What a fine theoretical frameworks of paradigm shift.
Ice melts, breaks off and reforms. I thought that was nature but now its called 'Global Warming' You only have to watch a episode of Deadliest Catch to understand ice movement, but no doubt there will be an explanation for that or should I say excuse to blame it on 'Climate Change' I say its just another way to get the taxpayer to part with yet more money. Being more environmently friendly is more to do with common sense, this is a throw away world. I myself was 'recycling' years before and I still do but I use what I need and have very little waste. The public is always being told to save this and recycle that but why when we can all see retail premises happily burning electricity with large signs and lights during the night when they are closed and all in the name of capitalism. The world is cleaner now than it has been in years but one thing, why send a rocket up into the atmosphere to look for climate change ? Am I the only one to notice that big cloud of pollution coming out of it, and please dont mention pulse propulsion.
Since the turn of the century atmospheric co2 has increased by approximately 60 ppm. That is total co2. the man made bit is a tiny fraction of that. these figures are those of the IPCC.
Their own figures suggest that a giant leap of faith is required if their claims are to be believed.
The green brigade wont be happy until this country has been flooded, not with sea water, but nuclear power stations, is this what they really want? WHY IS THE REAL SCIENCE BEING IGNORED? science that has been available all along trom the Vostock ice core samples. I cant wait for the inevitable climbdown that is facing these pigheaded anti progress morons.They will change from green to a bright shade of rsd.
The air quality in all western continents has never been cleaner even Los Angeles air is better than ever and is improving all the time.
water vapour is the biggest greenhouse gas, co2 is well down the list and considered irrelivant by the real scientists
The real scientists who are not in the pocket of the poiliticians
or the pro nuclear lobby.
we have been much hotter in the medieval warm period, the IPPC deny that there was ever any such thing, or at least they forgot to include it in their material, conveniently.
The whole thing makes me fear for the collective sanity of mankind
it is illogical to think that a gas that constitutes 0.038% of the total, and has raised by a whopping 0.0015% as a result of man, now drives, above all other factors, a climate that has always changed throughout history.
And all the while we ignore the real environmental damage that our so called civilisation is inflicting.
Lets get our priorities right here - its time to stop being so individualistic - worries about nuclear waste, gm foods, and fluoride are inconsequential in the face of what we will have to endure as the planet continues to heat up. When it comes to basic survival who cares about fluoride, where the energy source is coming from - except when its killing our planet and ultimately killing us, or what's in the food? There will be human deaths - mostly due to starvation when vast areas the planet become desert - and there will be wars when we have to fight for what little resources (land for growing food, water for irrigation) that we have left - which will certainly not be enough to feed the 6 billion that people that are on this planet. There will be many deaths from floods and freak weather. Of course the weather is unpredictable - there is no way a computer can predict what is happening with our climate. The evidence is seeing for ourselves how fast the sun-reflecting polar ice caps are melting and how fast the deserts are encroaching. Countries with temperate climates will be flooded with climate refugees, and they will have to tighten their borders and coastlines. With regards to the abundance of CO2 - WE are the highest producers of this gas just by breathing - us and our pets and livestock - because there are too many of us. Even if half the population were to suddenly disappear it would take this once beautiful earth 100,000 years to re-stabilise itself. Cutting on CO2 emissions from the burning of fossil fuels will help slow down the runaway climate - and nuclear is the only feasible answer. We are not talking about the survival of a few humans here we are talking about the survival of the human race.
We have been told by those "Conspiracy Theorists" that this whole scam was dreamt up by the Club of Rome.
The current push by those within our establishment (whose allegiances I cannot mention due to Anti-Defamation Leugue) who continue to push these deceptions, all seem to have vested interests.
Most ordinary people on the street are fully aware that what they experience with our weather, bares no relationship to the IPCC (another UN - Rockerfeller institute) propagandists.
The ever present assertion that there exists a consensus is just one more lie, since 35,000 scientists who now denounce that anthropogenic induced global warming is a reality.
It is true that we should manage our resources more efficiently, but CO2 is the wrong parameter to target. We should instead be seeking to eliminate those pollutants that reduce diversity. Nuclear (esp. Depleted Uranium), Genetically Modified Organisms, the vast array of agricultural chemicals and especially relevant at this time Hydrosilifluoric Acid a.k.a Fluoride.
I think you'll find that dangerous 'Climate Change' is contested by many people, many of whom, like myself, don't have a vested interest.
About your science .... Firstly, while all people must concede that an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere causes the globe to warm. Considerable debate exists as to the possible extent of that warming. It is generaly accepted that every time you double the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, the increased warming is half the previous warming, in short we head towards a saturation point. Real debate alspo exists on possible feedbacks, things like ice-albedo and clouds. Models that are used to predict future climate make (perhaps educated) guesses at the number and strength of these forces.
You mention that global temperatures are rising, but that is arguable. It depends on what data set you use. Over the last ten years the candidates are three, fallen slightly, static, rissen slightly. Not what Gore was preaching with his hockey stick in the mid 90s.
I also note that you quote a figure of 50,000 species of tree becoming exting every year. It is my understanding that it is estimated that there are about 100,000 different species of tree in existence. If my figure is correct it would seam to make a nonesence of your.
If no compelling case exists for positive feedback the size of a Chinaman's carbon footprint matters not at all.
You also mention the UK Met Office. These people have been grasping at Summer forecasts for the last three years and have got it wrong every time. This year, their predicted 'Brbercue Summer' was a complete wash-out. If you have any evidence at all that the Met Office have a proven track record of predicting climate ... please indicate when they started doing this and where the predictions are published. Otherwise you should treat their politicised guesses with the contempt they deserve.
As far as human deaths from 'Climate Change', a fabrication. Life expectancy across the globe continues to increase. In the UK it has risen dramaticaly over the last 100 years. In 2002, life expectancy at birth for females born in the UK was 81 years, compared with 76 years for males. This contrasts with 49 and 45 years respectively at the turn of the last century in 1901.
Take action ... Don't beleive the crazy dogma