Global warming hits all antarctica

Post by **BobHelm** » February 8, 2009, 1:34 pm

There is plenty of evidence that the climate is changing. Do you not read the papers. Sea levels are rising, look at the news about Australia or the UK at the moment. Look at the severity of the drought in parts of Australia. Look at the number of countries that year on year are reporting situations of extremity in their climate conditions that are at at their highest since records began.
That is exactly what I mean about "head & sand".. Co-incidence....maybe, but year after year evidence implies this is a continuing change.
If you do not want your tax dollar spent on prevention well & good, you are permitted to vote for people who hold the same viewpoint as you. However it is the denial that it is not happening (when it clearly is) that is foolish and would appear to be stopping you with coming up with an alternative action - other than inaction!!!

Post by **jackspratt** » February 8, 2009, 1:38 pm

I am reading some arguments here that come straight of the the tobacco lobby handbook, circa 1960s.

Except in this case, all of humankind (and other living things), are at potential risk.

Post by **stattointhailand** » February 8, 2009, 1:52 pm

I wonder if the cavemen had a similar discussion the last time the earth "suffered" from "Global warming" ....... they probably came to the conclusion that It must have been Ug and his family who caused it with their new "wheel" technology ........If only they had banned the wheel there and then, in the interests of mankind and their childrens children, what a different world we would be living in today

Post by **mortiboy** » February 8, 2009, 1:55 pm

Post by **jackspratt** » February 8, 2009, 1:56 pm

Seems there are a few cavemen still having the discussion today.

Post by **BobHelm** » February 8, 2009, 2:20 pm

I am only trying to make two points....
One The climate is changing. Now I do not know the reason, but I can see just by reading "news items" rather than scientific journals that is certainly appears to be the case.
Two There are now 6,706,993,000 human being on the planet (in cave man times this was less than 1,000,000) who have one common trait - they alter the environment that they live in. So it is probable that they are having some negative impact on the environment and, therefore, the climate.

Your choice if you agree with these radical ideas or not....

Your choice if you do not care....

Your choice if you think anything can (or should) be done about it.....

I think that an open and honest discussion is needed. Also I know that will not happen, because there are far to many vested interests who only care about them & today (& here I am talking about powerful institutions & companies not individuals) to allow that to happen.

Post by **aznyron** » February 8, 2009, 2:27 pm

there are some people who only believe what GWB & Republican party say I do not need to point fingers I am sure you all know who he is. Al Gore is RIGHT I do not need to elaborate any more

Post by **arjay** » February 8, 2009, 2:37 pm

For those whose common sense doesn't tell them, I've dug out these articles which seem very convincing that man is causing global warming:-

1. From Times Online:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/w ... 516033.ece
February 18, 2005
New proof that man has caused global warming

From Mark Henderson, Science Correspondent, in Washington

[/b]The strongest evidence yet that global warming has been triggered by human activity has emerged from a major study of rising temperatures in the worldâ€™s oceans.

The present trend of warmer sea temperatures, which have risen by an average of half a degree Celsius (0.9F) over the past 40 years, can be explained only if greenhouse gas emissions are responsible, new research has revealed.

The results are so compelling that they should end controversy about the causes of climate change, one of the scientists who led the study said yesterday.

"The debate about whether there is a global warming signal now is over, at least for rational people," said Tim Barnett, of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla, California. "The models got it right. If a politician stands up and says the uncertainty is too great to believe these models, that is no longer tenable."[/b]

In the study, Dr Barnettâ€™s team examined more than seven million observations of temperature, salinity and other variables in the worldâ€™s oceans, collected by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and compared the patterns with those that are predicted by computer models of various potential causes of climate change.

It found that natural variation in the Earthâ€™s climate, or changes in solar activity or volcanic eruptions, which have been suggested as alternative explanations for rising temperatures, could not explain the data collected in the real world. Models based on man-made emissions of greenhouse gases, however, matched the observations almost precisely.

"What absolutely nailed it was the greenhouse model," Dr Barnett told the American Association for the Advancement of Science conference in Washington. Two models, one designed in Britain and one here in the US, got it almost exactly. We were stunned. They did it so well it was almost unbelieveable."

Climate change has affected the seas in different ways in different parts of the world: in the Atlantic, for example, rising temperatures can be observed up to 700 metres below the surface, while in the Pacific the warming is seen only up to 100m down.

Only the greenhouse models replicated the changes that have been observed in practice. "The fact that this has gone on in different ways gives us the chance to figure out who did it," Dr Barnett said.

"All the potential culprits have been ruled out except one.

"This is perhaps the most compelling evidence yet that global warming is happening right now, and it shows that we can successfully simulate its past and its likely future evolution. The statistical significance of these results is far too strong to be merely dismissed and should wipe out much of the uncertainty about the reality of global warming."

Dr Barnett said the results, which are about to be submitted for publication in a major peer-reviewed journal, should put further pressure on the Bush Administration to sign up to the Kyoto Protocol, which came into force on Wednesday. "It is now time for nations that are not part of Kyoto to reevaluate and see if it would be to their advantage to join," he said.

"We have got a serious problem ahead of us. The debate is not have we got a clear global warming signal, the debate is what we are going to do about it."

In a separate study, also presented to the conference, a team led by Ruth Curry of Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Connecticut has established that 20,000 square kilometres of freshwater ice melted in the Arctic between 1965 and 1995.

Further melting on this scale could be sufficient to turn off the ocean currents that drive the Gulf Stream, which keeps Britain up to 6C warmer than it would otherwise be. "It is taking the first steps, the system is moving in that direction," Dr Curry said.

"The new ocean study, taken together with the numberous validations of the same models in the atmosphere, portends far broader changes. Other parts of the world will face similar problems to those expected, and being observed now, in the western US.

"The skill demonstrated by the climate models in handling the changing planetary heat budget suggests that these scenarios have a high enough probability of actually happening that they need to be taken seriously by decision-makers."

2. From The Independent:
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0219-01.htm

Published on Saturday, February 19, 2005 by the lndependent/UK

The Final Proof: Global Warming is a Man-Made Disaster
by Steve Connor

Scientists have found the first unequivocal link between man-made greenhouse gases and a dramatic heating of the Earth's oceans. The researchers - many funded by the US government - have seen what they describe as a "stunning" correlation between a rise in ocean temperature over the past 40 years and pollution of the atmosphere.

The study destroys a central argument of global warming skeptics within the Bush administration - that climate change could be a natural phenomenon. It should convince George Bush to drop his objections to the Kyoto treaty on climate change, the scientists say.

Tim Barnett, a marine physicist at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in San Diego and a leading member of the team, said: "We've got a serious problem. The debate is no longer: 'Is there a global warming signal?' The debate now is what are we going to do about it?"

The findings are crucial because much of the evidence of a warmer world has until now been from air temperatures, but it is the oceans that are the driving force behind the Earth's climate. Dr Barnett said: "Over the past 40 years there has been considerable warming of the planetary system and approximately 90 per cent of that warming has gone directly into the oceans."

He told the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Washington: "We defined a 'fingerprint' of ocean warming. Each of the oceans warmed differently at different depths and constitutes a fingerprint which you can look for. We had several computer simulations, for instance one for natural variability: could the climate system just do this on its own? The answer was no.

"We looked at the possibility that solar changes or volcanic effects could have caused the warming - not a chance. What just absolutely nailed it was greenhouse warming."

America produces a quarter of the world's greenhouse gases, yet under President Bush it is one of the few developed nations not to have signed the Kyoto treaty to limit emissions. The President's advisers have argued that the science of global warming is full of uncertainties and change might be a natural phenomenon.

Dr Barnett said that position was untenable because it was now clear from the latest study, which is yet to be published, that man-made greenhouse gases had caused vast amounts of heat to be soaked up by the oceans. "It's a good time for nations that are not part of Kyoto to re-evaluate their positions and see if it would be to their advantage to join," he said

.

Post by **stattointhailand** » February 8, 2009, 2:48 pm

There are now 6,706,993,000 human being on the planet (in cave man times this was less than 1,000,000) who have one common trait - they alter the environment that they live in. So it is probable that they are having some negative impact on the environment and, therefore, the climate.

If ..... as is being suggested by scientists etc; it is mankind and his "habits" that are causing global warming, why then did we have "global warming" millions of years ago when man wasn't around to drive round in cars, and when the "Rainforests" covered far MORE of the earth?

I try to keep an open mind about these type of subjects, but before I believe what ANY scientist has "proven beyond a shadow of doubt", I will want to see who has FUNDED their studies for the last 10 or 20 years, to enable them to come to their conclusions

Post by **arjay** » February 8, 2009, 2:56 pm

Whilst agreed it is difficult to produce irrefutable documentary proof; to me, when I see or hear of retreating ice caps and glaciers and advancing rates of their retreat, along with things like man burning huge areas of previously virgin rain forests (trees and plants produce oxygen, burning produces carbon dioxide), along with huge factory emissions (usually carbon dioxide) the logic suggests to me that we these are not good for our planet and ultimately not good for us or our descendants.

As said previously, there are those whose interests are sufficiently vested that they will continue to argue, maneovre, counter-claim etc, until the they and their factories disappear under the final glacial Tsunami and rising ocean!!

Post by **BobHelm** » February 8, 2009, 3:12 pm

Statto I believe that you are correct that there is a natural cycle of climate change - indeed I was taught that in science at school many,many years ago - that happens if man exists or not. What man would appear to be influencing is the rate of that change. i.e. speeding it up considerably.
I have, deliberately, not quoted scientists as I am also distrustful of their findings and methods of proof. However, I stand by what I said that nearly every country in the world has (and continues to have) climate conditions on the extreme of their recorded climate history.
Man releases huge amounts of "chemicals" into the atmosphere that would not be released if he was not on the planet. Is that having an impact, I do not know (but common sense tell me it is probable that it does) . I do know that it is worth investigating & that people/organisations who have a vested interest in the findings should be kept as far away from the investigations as possible.
Did the ceasing of CFC in fridges & freezers fix the ozone layer??? I don't know. But neither did it destroy the fridge & freezer manufacturers who were lobbying for so long against a ban saying that it would!!!
Personally I would rather be safe than sorry....

Post by **stattointhailand** » February 8, 2009, 3:28 pm

I am 100% in agreeance with anyone who states that there IS global warming.
What I want to know, is why, millions of years ago, without any intervention from mankind, they had global warming and global cooling. Might it not just be the case, that whatever caused it then, is causing it now?
Nobody knows EXACTLY what is happening in the Earth's core, nobody knows EXACTLY what is happening in the solar system and beyond. Scientists (with the help? of computer programmers) have "proved" a lot of things, which years later, and with a better understanding of the facts, have been subsequently ""Proved wrong". Is the earth really flat? Is wine really bad for you?
How can you do a study of sea temperatures over 40 years, and then say that the results prove something. 40 years in a period of several million years is nothing, it's like asking 3 people in the USA who they want as president and then declaring that the whole of America want this person. Did the computer programme take into account the amount and type of fish in the sea, the spawning seasons of the corals, movement of the sand on the seabed due to a multitude of reasons.
There is global warming, That is a proven fact. The reasons we are being given, are likely, even probable, but there is no way that ANYONE can say it is "Proven" that mankind is causing it.

Devils Advocate session over

Post by **saint** » February 8, 2009, 3:58 pm

jackspratt wrote:Seems there are a few cavemen still having the discussion today.

=D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> it seems that this subject on the forum and the various posts, show in such a small selection what the world is suffering from today , nobody can agree . mulyiply that by all the countries in the world , all the poloticians and scientist , and nothing or very little gets done. well people, time is running out , there is far too much evidence to discount it . but there is some hope , it seems more and more people that control our lives are beginning to realise the problem ,and some of those are prepared to take the right steps to make a differance . germany for instance , is trying to cut green house gases by some 40% over the next two decades . why do you think that is ???? yes i realise some of the measures needed will be unpopular and some will need money , which will come from the tax payer . look at global warming the same as the fish stocks thats rapidly decreasing in the worlds ocean , you cant keep taking without there being a payback !!!! as for the caveman argument, one little point , there are more people living on this planet today , than there has ever been ,added up since time and memorial . and as far as i know they all polute thier envoiroment in some way . is the worlds resources of which the atmosphere is one of the most fragile a bottomless pit ? i for one do not think so .

Post by **stattointhailand** » February 8, 2009, 4:22 pm

germany for instance , is trying to cut green house gases by some 40% over the next two decades . why do you think that is ????

eerrrrhmm ..... could it be that they have identified that as a way of winning more votes at the next election? Germany after all was one of the first countries to have "Green" MP's in power

there are more people living on this planet today , than there has ever been ,added up since time and memorial . and as far as i know they all polute thier envoiroment in some way . is the worlds resources of which the atmosphere is one of the most fragile a bottomless pit ? i for one do not think so .

That's a "Given" saint, the question I asked was ..... Why did they have climate change when there wern't all the human beings there to cause it?

Post by **WBU ALUM** » February 8, 2009, 6:45 pm

Climate is changing and there are more people.

Climate was changing in dramatic ways to both extremes before there were people.

Never said I didn't care. Only said there's no proof. That's it. Believe what you want to believe. So will I.

Cavemen. Head in the sand. Questioning common sense. When some folks can't get others to agree, the name-calling begins. Can't produce the evidence, so attack the one saying there's no evidence. I expect that method of operation from some on here. I guess that behavior is becoming more more common than I originally thought, but even with all of the name-calling and other insinuations, there's still no proof.

Post by **jackspratt** » February 8, 2009, 7:03 pm

Let's go on arguing whether or not there is any "proof".

In the meantime, there is plenty of evidence that the world is in trouble. Some believe it is entirely predictable and according to nature. Others take a different view that perhaps the activities of man are accelerating the problem (can we agree there is a problem?), and that by altering behavior, it may have some impact on the problem (assuming there is a problem).

In the meantime, while we argue on about the cause, the world is going tits up. But let's not do anything about it until we have proof - because, god forbid, there may be a socialist behind it.

Post by **BobHelm** » February 8, 2009, 7:06 pm

Agree 100% WBU. That it is impossible to change anyone's mind. I have no desire to do so.
There is evidence that the climate is changing - so much evidence that it there is something in nearly every newspaper every day. Proof ???? Enough to be found guilty in a criminal offence - No, enough to be found guilty in a civil case - Yes.

p.s. I would be interested to see your proof for this statement.

Climate was changing in dramatic ways to both extremes before there were people.

Post by **rick** » February 9, 2009, 6:29 am

Time to throw in my pennies worth. As a onetime geologist, i know a bit about paleoecology and climate way back in the past. From 'evidence' (which is only what is implied from various findings, and is obviously rather tenuous) the earths climate has varied considerably from ice ages far worse than the last few million years to temperatures probably 5-10 degrees higher than now. The problem is what caused this - this is even harder to tell. In the Permian era, mass extinctions may have been due to very high temperatures, possibly due to high CO2 levels - possibly caused by extensive volcanic activity. But this is not proof, just a theory with some supporting evidence.

Also, we must remember how variable climate now is in countries at the same latitude. These differences are due to proximity of large continents, oceans and ocean currents plus other more minor factors. Who knows how these factors combined in the past to affect climate, due to continental drift (now known as part of plate tectonics). Also, the sun may have been hotter or cooler.

We only have reasonably reliable temperature data for the last 100,000 years or so, from ice cores in the larger icesheets and oceanic seafloor sediments ( if you want to know how they work this out, i can explain). But we do not know what caused the temperature changes. But we do know that changes were slower than what we see today.

So, we can say that temperatures are on average going up, but we cannot tell for certain exactly what causes it to change. But we have the advantage of many scientific studies today which allow us to prove or disprove what could be causing these changes today - and currently only man-made global warming fits the models. Of course, there are many results which do not fit - but as time goes by, these are usually explained (simple one - rise in temperature can cause more clouds, which stops both high and low temperatures).

Finally, Bob, i am hurt you do not trust scientists!

Post by **BobHelm** » February 9, 2009, 11:46 am

rick wrote:Finally, Bob, i am hurt you do not trust scientists!

Don't take it personal Rick

To be honest I do not trust anyone, but me - and some times I am even suspicious about my motives!!

Seriously what I meant was that WBU requires undeniable proof before he will even accept the possibility that man could be responsible for the change in climate. This is something that I feel is impossible to provide. Just as I said earlier all theories are virtually impossible to prove 100%. Evidence can slowly support that a theory is "probable" or that it is "unlikely". However the testing mechanisms of experiments that claim the headlines are often deeply flawed and (as someone else pointed out) the 'scientist' is often supporting a view that is favourable to his employer.

All that being said I do believe that there is now an overwhelming amount of evidence that the climate is changing as a result of the temperature rising and that the rate of change is far quicker than would be explained through 'natural' changes that have occurred before in earth's history. I also think that there is sufficient evidence to support the view that human activity is probably having an impact.

Post by **BKKSTAN** » February 9, 2009, 12:20 pm

There is no doubt that we are experiencing global warming and a rapid ice melt!

Whether or not we are the cause of it,is very unclear!

many reports and debates ,I have heard claim that if the World as a whole spent 2% of their GNP annually ,it would not lower the temp anymore than 1 degree Farenheit,probably less,which is negligible!

Add to that, never in the history of man ,has there been World cooperation!To many are looking to take advantage,to many are unwilling to give any advantage!

So,IMO,we should invest in R & D for futuristic ways of living with the evolutionary Nature patterns and the possible added effects of human inability to cooperate for the good of all!

Development of alternate fuel and commodity resources should be developed for the main purpose of not being vulnerable economically and security wise to foreign gov'ts or peoples,not a feeble unattainable goal of stopping climate change!

Who knows the future?The human race has always had the great and strong predictions about the ''end of the World'' and its civilizations!

Who knows,maybe this will be the impetus for space colonization or whatever,but evolution parts of life will more than likely continue as it has forever!!

Global warming hits all antarctica

Re: Global warming hits all antarctica

Re: Global warming hits all antarctica

Re: Global warming hits all antarctica

Re: Global warming hits all antarctica

Re: Global warming hits all antarctica

Re: Global warming hits all antarctica

Re: Global warming hits all antarctica

Re: Global warming hits all antarctica

Re: Global warming hits all antarctica

Re: Global warming hits all antarctica

Re: Global warming hits all antarctica

Re: Global warming hits all antarctica

Re: Global warming hits all antarctica

Re: Global warming hits all antarctica

Re: Global warming hits all antarctica

Re: Global warming hits all antarctica

Re: Global warming hits all antarctica

Re: Global warming hits all antarctica

Re: Global warming hits all antarctica

Re: Global warming hits all antarctica