We started a discussion about global warming in some thread or other and I thought it might be a good idea to let people hash it out in its own thread.

Most everybody reads articles about global warming telling us that terrible things are happening to the earth's climate because of the actions of men. There are also books and articles out there that give a different view, but are less commonly available.

Myself? I'm not sure who is right. But since everybody has seen lots of information that was PRO-Global Warming, let me start with the example--it's just one example--of the sort of thing that makes me suspicious.

Here's a picture of the top of Mount Kilimanjaro in Africa taken very recently:

http://www.northsoutheastwest.org/images/natural-environment/natural-environment-1.jpg

and here's a more "normal" picture of the top of Mount Kilimanjaro taken a bit longer ago:

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/images/0314-01.jpg

The article tells us that it's the first time the top of Kilimanaro has been ice free for 11, 000 years. What vivid proof of global warming and how we are destroying our climate, right? Who can deny it?

And this first pic was used in 2005 at an EU conference to impress government ministers with the need to regulate carbon emissions.

Gathering in London for a two-day brainstorming session on the environment agenda of Britain's presidency of the Group of Eight rich nations, the environment and energy ministers from 20 countries will be handed a book containing the stark image of Africa's tallest mountain, among others.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0314-10.htm

Okay, now let's look at something else.

Here's an article from June 12, 2007, published by the internation news agency, Reuters. Reuters is not a "conservative" or "anti-environment" news organization and the author of the study cited even believes in man-made global warming:

The snows of Mount Kilimanjaro in Tanzania have been diminishing for more than a century but probably not due to global warming, researchers report.
....

Kilimanjaro's icy top, which provided the title for an iconic short story by Ernest Hemingway, has been waning for more than a century, according to Philip Mote of the University of Washington in the United States and Georg Kaser of the University of Innsbruck in Austria.

Most of the retreat occurred before 1953, nearly two decades before any conclusive evidence of atmospheric warming was available, they wrote.

"It is certainly possible that the icecap has come and gone many times over hundreds of thousands of years," Mote, a climatologist, said in a statement.

http://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUSN1225401620070612?feedType=RSS&rpc=22

Okay, so if this latest story is correct, one famous example used to prove global warming by mankind's carbon emission is not an example of that at all. Because it started shrinking long before global warming is supposed to have started and the fastest shrinking took place around 1953, not recently.

In other words, it looks terrible. It sounds terrible. If you show people the pics and connect them to carbon emissions, they naturally get upset. But it turns out, there may well be no connection at all. The melting may be purely natural and unconnected to man's activities.

What do you think? Do you believe in global warming by man strongly? Or are you not so sure? Or do you think it's all nonsense?

I heard someone talk about this, and how the wheather will change and the rate of Cyclones will increase, due to global warming. *Sigh*

There is no solid scientific proof that the so called global warming is the end result of different actions by humans inhabiting planet earth

I heard someone talk about this, and how the wheather will change and the rate of Cyclones will increase, due to global warming. *Sigh*

Yeah, it's worrying, but is it true?

I can't decide! :(

But I will say that many people who have investigated the question have come away much less convinced than when they started.

Anyway, I don't think you have to worry about cyclones. Oman won't have another one in your lifetime.

This is a tricky one indeed but at the end of the day we all agree that carbon emissions are not environment friendly. In other words limiting those emission is an honorable call and the right thing to do. The only thing I fear regarding Global Warming is that if it turns into more of an economic issue rather than environmental .. i.e companies fighting each other to prove it's happening or not just to make some profits...

Regarding the provided example of Mount Kilimanjaro I am sure that there are other examples that would support the theory (or whatever you want to call it) of Global Warming. One of the most obvious things we can study is the temperature of the planet and the amount of Carbon oxides.. Let's investigate those and then decide...

^^

Well, this is not a bad point, I think. Another good point is that most cientists seem to believe it (though this is challengeable, too).

But I think the first question has to be: Exactly HOW environment unfriendly?

And the second question has to be: How great are the costs of "doing something about it"?

There are lots of things that are environment unfriendly and money spent on global warming is money not spent in other areas.

Now, there is evidence of warming today. But there are also objections to the evidence. For example, we know that the earth has warmed and cooled before and that had nothing to do with carbon emissions.

We know that global warming trends correlate at least as well with sunspot activity as they do with carbon emissions.

We know that there is evidence today that other planets are warming--such as Mars: its ice caps are melting!--and that has nothing to do with carbon emissions.

You have to start these discussions somewhere. I started with Kilmanjaro because it is pictures and examples like this that are usually what is offered to the public as proof. So one place to start is with the most graphic examples.

I am starting to become a skeptic on man made global warming. Yes there is a trend in warming which started BEFORE mass production of CO2 by man but its not as alarming as the "hockey stick" graph that is shoved into our faces.

http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.gif

The thing is about this graph is up until the 1850 it is ice core samples (it in fact goes up to 1860 but for graph smoothing it is omitted) , after that the samples are taken from Mauna Loa in Hawaii.. do people see a problem with this? Its very dodgy science. If you also notice the graph there is a slight cooling in the 1950's where you'd expect it to rise, it was post WWII when industry was really picking up.

Also I wouldn't put too much faith in the weather computer models, they are not really that good. A quote I heard about one of them is that it has as much rainfall happening over the Sahara as Europe.

Another thing I have heard is that its only the northern hemisphere that is warming, the Southern is cooling and right now I can believe that. Sydney is experiencing the coldest June for 15 years.

And no I am not on the exxon payroll but I am on the payroll of the major pharmaceutical companies :P

This is a tricky one indeed but at the end of the day we all agree that carbon emissions are not environment friendly.

By far the largest contributer of CO2 into the atmosphere is from the oceans. We need Carbon its what our world is based on. But what isn't environmentally friendly is pollution which is a cocktail of chemicals.

I also want to say that 90% of greenhouse gasses in water vapour. CO2 is minute in comparison.

Very interesting stuff, Kara...

I've known several people--including my sister who's a big environmentalist--who have also become skeptical. And I've read of others who decided it was mostly nonsense, too.

Then again, I recently encountered a blogger I respect who decided to research a post showing it was piffle. He's a very thorough researcher and he came back and said, "Now I'm not so sure! No post!"

From what I have seen amongst the scientists is that there are 3 kinds (isn't there always)
1. its man made global warming
2. sitting on the fence
3. its natural global warming

But what I find they all tend to agree upon is that the science is incomplete. There is not enough consistent data to work with.

So it's been warming up for the past 100 years.

How long has man been using and burning coal/oil/fuels?

It's not just about C02 emmissions. It's also about cutting down trees which used to be the earth's natural way of dealing with naturally occurring C02.

Being environmentally friendly is not a bad idea at all. We should look after out planet, not just take and take from it.

It serves some people to scare others about global warming, but it also serves many others to brush it off as a figment of a crazy scientist's imagination.

One thing is for sure, this thread should be in politics sabla, because there is nothing about Global warming that is not directly effected by politics. And amazingly, for some, even religion.

Enormous climate changes have occured in the past without humans causing global warming. Although I am not sure about how global warming might affect us in the near future, I am convinced the future generations will see and feel its affects.

As for my views, it is a fact that the U.S. is responsible for the greater percentage of all the problems caused. And as a world leader, it should take responsibility and do all it can to change this.

Enormous climate changes have occured in the past without humans causing global warming. Although I am not sure about how global warming might affect us in the near future, I am convinced the future generations will see and feel its affects.

As for my views, it is a fact that the U.S. is responsible for the greater percentage of all the problems caused. And as a world leader, it should take responsibility and do all it can to change this.
hahahaha you are joking.

1) it is not responsible for the majority of it. I'm sure of that, although I'm not saying that their responsability is neglibible.

2) You can dream on if you think it will seriously address the issue. First they have to admit they believe in it! :rolleyes:

We are all to blame for the deterioration of our ozone, of our evnironment and pollution.

Those who will not recognise or atleast try to be kinder to earth, are more to blame because they will continue to rape the planet until it's ruined. And how far away is that day? Will earth give us 1,000 more years at this rate?

Maybe the earth knows how much we are destroying her and is trying to kill us off. :D

"Damn humans, who grew a brain" :hyper:

To all you who disagree with taking steps towards cleaner air and less polution... tell me, what bad can possibly come out of it?

Call me a tree hugger as much as you all will. I believe the earth is like a piggy bank. If you give something back to it, and not just take, you'll actually leave something for your kids.

Again, there is no such thing as global warming

But the so called environmentalists won't admit it, who wants to shut down a multi billion industry

On average the temperature of the earths atmosphere has been warming not cooling, nor is it static. I'm not sure if that is actually debatable.

The troposphere is however still cool. Where as you'd expect an increase in the temperature there with the increased CO2 absorbing the infrared radiation. But its not. CO2 can only absorb certain nanometers of IR, Water Vapour has a much larger absorption.

What is debatable is the science and "propaganda" that is used to say "you naughty people burning your fossil fuels and driving your car, you are killing us all."

Jeff has given us Mount Kilimanjaro above ..
There is the discredited hockey stick graph used by Al Gore in his movie.
Another are the poles. The pro GW like to show picutures of the Artic Circle breaking off and melting etc. What they don't tell us is that there is something like 30+ active volcanoes under the ice.

So its really just making you sit back and think, hey this whole thing may not be our fault after all. And if your still worried then take the advice from my favourite TV show and stop breathing :) (ok only joking)

Fengy is right however, it is all rather Political.. left vs right. But I'll try and keep it about the science.

Billions of dollars are being spent for creating an unnecessary fear, for a theory that cannot be proven scientifically & unfortunately the media is playing it's role for propagating this dogma

Frauds

Well, the media always prefers thinks that get buyers or viewers, of course. And scientists like things that get them grant money. And the government likes to have something to "protect us from."

"Earth warming! Caused by cars! All will fry! Cyclones will destroy all!" sells newspapers and attracts lots of money for research. And you can fund projects.

But "data suggest a possible warming and/or cooling trend and the cause is unclear" puts people to sleep.

Billions of dollars are being spent for creating an unnecessary fear, for a theory that cannot be proven scientifically & unfortunately the media is playing it's role for propagating this dogma

Frauds

You're quite right and Jeff is too, the news stories are becoming more sensational and alarming, it sells the newspapers. Every bit of "strange" weather is now caused by global warming, its not merely enough to say its a part of the normal greenhouse effect.... like Jeff said that kind of story would put people to sleep.

But Jeff, I found out some more info on Mt Kilimanjaro. Because its a dry, cold and low pressure area the ice sublimates. That is it evaporates directly from the ice. But the keyword is dry, no precipitation to top up the ice. And why is there no precipitation, because its cooler. And now we come to thermodynamics. As altitude increases, temperatures drop and precipitation changes i.e. from rain to snow to nothing because its all precipitated out before it can reach some altitudes.

But for a laugh here is a something on the warmest June in Sweden
http://www.climateaudit.org/ (you will have to scroll down a bit)

You're quite right and Jeff is too, the news stories are becoming more sensational and alarming, it sells the newspapers. Every bit of "strange" weather is now caused by global warming, its not merely enough to say its a part of the normal greenhouse effect.... like Jeff said that kind of story would put people to sleep.

But Jeff, I found out some more info on Mt Kilimanjaro. Because its a dry, cold and low pressure area the ice sublimates. That is it evaporates directly from the ice. But the keyword is dry, no precipitation to top up the ice. And why is there no precipitation, because its cooler. And now we come to thermodynamics. As altitude increases, temperatures drop and precipitation changes i.e. from rain to snow to nothing because its all precipitated out before it can reach some altitudes.

But for a laugh here is a something on the warmest June in Sweden
http://www.climateaudit.org/ (you will have to scroll down a bit)



Interesting on Kilimanjaro. Given by Queen Victoria to her cousin Kaiser Wilhelm as a birthday present. That's why it's in Tanzania not Kenya! :p

Here is something that just appeared by a professor of Earth Sciences in Canada.

He's been tracking the correlation between sun activity and climate change on earth for a huge chunk of history and he says they've solved the anomalies and it tracks almost perfectly now. I.e., climate changes on earth are caused by the sun. (Which kinda makes sense, because, well, that's what causes warm and cool from hour to hour and day to day too! :p )

Anyway, here's what he says:

In some fields the science is indeed "settled." For example, plate tectonics, once highly controversial, is now so well-established that we rarely see papers on the subject at all. But the science of global climate change is still in its infancy, with many thousands of papers published every year. In a 2003 poll conducted by German environmental researchers Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch, two-thirds of more than 530 climate scientists from 27 countries surveyed did not believe that "the current state of scientific knowledge is developed well enough to allow for a reasonable assessment of the effects of greenhouse gases." About half of those polled stated that the science of climate change was not sufficiently settled to pass the issue over to policymakers at all.

Solar scientists predict that, by 2020, the sun will be starting into its weakest Schwabe solar cycle of the past two centuries, likely leading to unusually cool conditions on Earth. Beginning to plan for adaptation to such a cool period, one which may continue well beyond one 11-year cycle, as did the Little Ice Age, should be a priority for governments. It is global cooling, not warming, that is the major climate threat to the world, especially Canada. As a country at the northern limit to agriculture in the world, it would take very little cooling to destroy much of our food crops, while a warming would only require that we adopt farming techniques practiced to the south of us.

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/comment/story.html?id=597d0677-2a05-47b4-b34f-b84068db11f4&p=4

I.e., scientists admit they don't know what causes climate change...but the best recent evidence is for global COOLING not warming. And caused by the sun, not mankind.

No wonder I can't make up my mind! :p

"What An Inconvenient Truth!"

Jeff, I once watched a documentary where there talked about how global warming can stimulate a "global cooling" and dramatic tempreture drops around the world. In other words, Ice Age. Also, if you remember, there was a movie about the same thing.

From what I remember, it was something about global warming melting the ice in the north pole, as a result, changing the components of the sea and raising the water levels, and eventually this causing a ice age or somthing?

There are two, Global Dimming and Global Warming.

Jeff, I once watched a documentary where there talked about how global warming can stimulate a "global cooling" and dramatic tempreture drops around the world. In other words, Ice Age. Also, if you remember, there was a movie about the same thing.

From what I remember, it was something about global warming melting the ice in the north pole, as a result, changing the components of the sea and raising the water levels, and eventually this causing a ice age or somthing?

Hypothetically this can happen, if too much fresh water mixes with the salt water this can disrupt the ocean currents that move warm water to cooler parts of the world and then the cool water back to be warmed up again, like the Gulf Stream that keeps England from being an icy tundra.

But the poles are still frozen and I'm thinking that by the time the poles melt the earth will be uninhabitable anyway because it will be way to hot. And there is also a limit to how hot this earth can get, because the sun is so far away..

I'm more worried about a polar shift :)

Here is something that just appeared by a professor of Earth Sciences in Canada.

He's been tracking the correlation between sun activity and climate change on earth for a huge chunk of history and he says they've solved the anomalies and it tracks almost perfectly now. I.e., climate changes on earth are caused by the sun. (Which kinda makes sense, because, well, that's what causes warm and cool from hour to hour and day to day too! :p )

Anyway, here's what he says:



http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/comment/story.html?id=597d0677-2a05-47b4-b34f-b84068db11f4&p=4

I.e., scientists admit they don't know what causes climate change...but the best recent evidence is for global COOLING not warming. And caused by the sun, not mankind.

No wonder I can't make up my mind! :p

I think I've seen his work in some documentaries.

Jeff, I once watched a documentary where there talked about how global warming can stimulate a "global cooling" and dramatic tempreture drops around the world. In other words, Ice Age. Also, if you remember, there was a movie about the same thing.

From what I remember, it was something about global warming melting the ice in the north pole, as a result, changing the components of the sea and raising the water levels, and eventually this causing a ice age or somthing?

Yeah, that sounds interesting and it might be true.

But the only thing that bugs me is this:

First they say, Global Warming: Look it's getting warmer! We win!

Then it looks like cooling. So they say: Oh, cooling equals warming! And warming equals cooling! We win!

Whatever happens, it's a sign that they are right! :p

More Cyclones? They are right. Fewer cyclones? They are right.

What should we look for if they are wrong?

Jeff, basically, the whole over consumption of earth's resources and the issue of green gas will lead to a change in earth's atmosphere. And more likely, to something bad.

But then again, isn't that going to happen sooner or later?

i gotta say this whole global warming/cooling is quite confusing :os

but anyhow, can't we just try to be environmentally friendly? i mean, there is nothing to lose if we looked after our lovely earth ne?

Originally Posted by Fengy

Being environmentally friendly is not a bad idea at all. We should look after out planet, not just take and take from it.

Call me a tree hugger as much as you all will. I believe the earth is like a piggy bank. If you give something back to it, and not just take, you'll actually leave something for your kids.

i agree. :yes:

and I'm a Tree Hugger..literally! :p

there's something new I heard about global warming.... it has happened before...
in fact... it happens every 20 000 years... or so I heard.
and years ago it was a lot worse due to the presence of many volcanoes. the earth and earthlings survived as you see... cuz we;re gonna enter another ice age.
where ice is melting it is also building up somewhere else.
somehow, it would all make sense in this case.

to jeff...
i seriously agree, ages back i posted information on a book called "state of fear", by Michael Crichton. It states in it that the human race tends to cling to a fear, in the past such things as the cold war, nuclear holocaust etc. Now its the fear of global warming.
I do belive global warming exists, but that it is purely a natural effect brought on by our ever changing atmousphere. The seas have been "sinking" for hundreds of years, its about time they rose.
what annoys me the most is that people wont listen to other points of view, 99% just say "your wrong, shut up"

very interesting thread! thanks jeff..

I believe that cyclone Guno was a robust evidence for global warming and therefore climate change.. what many ppl don’t know is that guno actually is part of the Indian monsoon .. this year and due to significant changes in the atmosphere pressure and the high temperatures it reached our coasts.. and maybe after tens of years it’ll become more like an annual phenomenon ..what the world is experiencing at the present time (cyclones, floods, drought is some areas and high temperature) is just because of climate change..

and I think that it’s the politicians responsibility to spread awareness and to make serious and strict policies to reduce the emotions of CO2 and therefore to slow down climate change or to reduce its impacts. This issue is really bigger than what it seems to be like.. and the problem is that the US and the G8 hasn't done any effective action so far.. and whenever they arrange a summit or something we don't see china with them though china is one of the biggest GHGs producers is the world..

so.. the individuals shud act seriously..!

watch this video.. and tell me what u think..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zzjOcOcQ90U

http://nov55.com/crunch.html


Water vapor is a greenhouse gas which is far more significant than carbon dioxide. There is about forty times as much of it in the air, depending upon humidity, and it has a broader absorption spectrum, about three times as wide. So it swamps the significance of carbon dioxide. Water vapor is highly variable for natural reasons, such as an El Nino, which humans do not cause.

global warming scare mongers can shove it.

WASHINGTON, Sept. 12 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- A new analysis of peer-reviewed literature reveals that more than 500 scientists have published evidence refuting at least one element of current man-made global warming scares. More than 300 of the scientists found evidence that 1) a natural moderate 1,500-year climate cycle has produced more than a dozen global warmings similar to ours since the last Ice Age and/or that 2) our Modern Warming is linked strongly to variations in the sun's irradiance. "This data and the list of scientists make a mockery of recent claims that a scientific consensus blames humans as the primary cause of global temperature increases since 1850," said Hudson Institute Senior Fellow Dennis Avery.

Other researchers found evidence that 3) sea levels are failing to rise importantly; 4) that our storms and droughts are becoming fewer and milder with this warming as they did during previous global warmings; 5) that human deaths will be reduced with warming because cold kills twice as many people as heat; and 6) that corals, trees, birds, mammals, and butterflies are adapting well to the routine reality of changing climate.

Despite being published in such journals such as Science, Nature and Geophysical Review Letters, these scientists have gotten little media attention. "Not all of these researchers would describe themselves as global warming skeptics," said Ave

http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/news_press_release,176495.shtml

we always hear about the cons of global warming r they any pros?? I doubt it really.

Once i attended a debate it was between high skool students and working men(mostly in their 40s) the debate was about which generation is better the present or the past generation so this guy (froom older genration) was pointing out to one of those pretty glossy magazines that teens would read and was like "TODAYS YOUTH R SELFISH, LOOK AT THE TITLE OF THIS ARTICLE" he posed then read it "GLOBAL WARMING; GOOD FOR TANNING" :p

any other pros? :think: i cant think of any really!!

Interesting reading, I must come back to this article again. The biggest culprit in global warming is the emission from aircrafts. Now I dont see us getting anywhere in decreasing that.

I saw a 100 year old photo of Niagara falls, it was all ice.

I thought it was only because the movement of the continents.

Anyway, I believe it is true, I had a chat with a Geologist who said he can see the 'signs of global warming' in the rocks, and that Geologists have been seeing these signs long before the media even started talking about it.

i read this article last fri thought it was intreasting... chck it out!!

"Leading international fashion designers and industry experts say unpredictable and typically warmer weather worldwide is wreaking havoc on the industry."

read the rest....
http://www.stuff.co.nz/4235443a1864.html

:omg: even fashion is affected by global warming!!

I think that there is probably some warming of the earth; most people think there is. But the question is, is it natural or man-made?

But here is a climate specialist reacting to Gore's peace prize:

ONE of the world's foremost meteorologists has called the theory that helped Al Gore share the Nobel Peace Prize "ridiculous" and the product of "people who don't understand how the atmosphere works".

Dr William Gray, a pioneer in the science of seasonal hurricane forecasts, told a packed lecture hall at the University of North Carolina that humans were not responsible for the warming of the earth.

His comments came on the same day that the Nobel committee honoured Mr Gore for his work in support of the link between humans and global warming.

"We're brainwashing our children," said Dr Gray, 78, a long-time professor at Colorado State University. "They're going to the Gore movie [An Inconvenient Truth] and being fed all this. It's ridiculous."

http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/gore-gets-a-cold-shoulder/2007/10/13/1191696238792.html

Here is a prominent Australian scientist who has changed his mind about global warming:

I DEVOTED six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian Greenhouse Office. I am the rocket scientist who wrote the carbon accounting model (FullCAM) that measures Australia's compliance with the Kyoto Protocol, in the land use change and forestry sector.

FullCAM models carbon flows in plants, mulch, debris, soils and agricultural products, using inputs such as climate data, plant physiology and satellite data. I've been following the global warming debate closely for years.

When I started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty good: CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the old ice core data, no other suspects.

The evidence was not conclusive, but why wait until we were certain when it appeared we needed to act quickly? Soon government and the scientific community were working together and lots of science research jobs were created. We scientists had political support, the ear of government, big budgets, and we felt fairly important and useful (well, I did anyway). It was great. We were working to save the planet.

But since 1999 new evidence has seriously weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming, and by 2007 the evidence was pretty conclusive that carbon played only a minor role and was not the main cause of the recent global warming...

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24036736-7583,00.html

Read it all, as they say! :)

From what I understand the earth has a natural cycle it goes through with ice ages, global warming and the global warming which is PART of the earth's natural cycle isn't due for for some time and the pollutants in the air are only compounding this issue.

From what I understand the earth has a natural cycle it goes through with ice ages, global warming and the global warming which is PART of the earth's natural cycle isn't due for for some time and the pollutants in the air are only compounding this issue.

That's not an unreasonable idea.

But what this scientist is saying is that there is absolutely ZERO evidence so far that there is ANY effect at all from pollutants...contrary to his own theories of a few years ago.