global climate change

The general concensus is anything, everything and nothing.

Quite opposite in my country, where summers 2007 and 2008 has set new record temperatures since start of organized measurement of meteorological data since 1878.

Where did You find this facts that it were lowest temperature period?

How it is proved that there was higher CO2 content of air AFTER global warming period and not during it? Perhaps scientists know that there was global warming period because less ice was formed or that bubbles with air were smaller? Or it is case that that ice from this period has melted because of global warming, and then after it when ice started forming again, there was still much more CO2 in air so it has been captured in ice formed by new snow compression?

Are there geological ages in question between two global warmings?

If tests show increase of CO2 content in polar ice which coincide with industrialization era, and show tendency of rising more and more till present time, is that not proof enough? Should not data about CO2 content in Polar ice be correlated with some other archaeological evidence? If there were other Global Warming periods, when were last one? Is it something periodical? Should we not try to extrapolate from known data like time span between now and end of last period, and then see have this happened same time distance before last GW period? If we establish beyond doubt that periods are regular, or were regular before, cant we look if there is some shortening of cycle that happened now?

Just how long period is covered by ice forming on Polar caps? Since there exists some old maps that show Arctic area without any ice, which set their making within historical period, perhaps that what is considered to be previous GW period were caused for instance by changing of positions of North and South Pole of Earth? Could it be that it was other cataclysms that were changing face of planet so drastically that it was possible that sea harbour found on 3000 m high mountains of Tiahuanaco in South America was rely once part of sea shore? How is it that on mountain behind my city that is 1100 meters over sea level we could find rocks that contain sea shells, on very top of it?

I do not pretend that I know the truth about what happened, and perhaps nobody knows, but by finding facts and correlating them we could perhaps understand what has happened. One set of fact is hard to explain by itself, so we could offer just opinion about it. Asking somebody to prove some theory just because one has different opinion is not fair...

So if You dont believe in theory of GW and even claim it is not correct, have You found explanation for things that are happening? What is happening is observed facts, and I am sure that people who lost their homes in hurricanes that are beginning to be more and more frequent and devastating do not share Your opinions. People that were forced to migrate after biggest African lake Chad has dwindled to less than 1/4 of its previous size, and Greenland inhabitants that look how fast ice is melting and rising sea that is eating their shores, surely think different than You? Australians that were recently having continent wide fire also would not agree that there is no GW...

Nothing existed before to produce so much CO2 like burning of fossil fuels in last few centuries, don't You agree? But all that burning surely also raise the temperature of atmosphere, so effect is not so simple as burning produce CO2 and CO2 dont allow IR radiation to go back to space, then also heat from burning fuels also cannot escape but cumulative gradually, in addition to that part of IR radiation caused by Sun that also cannot escape because of increased CO2 in atmosphere.

But, Yes, we have increased temperatures using atomic centrals, producing steel in steel factories, we use energy of water and wind converted to electricity for heating and cooking and so on......

There are people who say all this is nothing compared to energy we receive from Sun every day, but then also our CO2 may have that much more drastic effect even if portion of energy that cannot escape into space by irradiation is small, percentage wise, and it is also accumulating.........

It would be more useful to see what we can do to stop and even revert Global Warming, and any theory about what causes it is better than no theory, right?

Do You have some other or even better explanation for GW, so we can try to test it in hope we could save our-self?

Do You know what it would mean if conclusions of scientists are correct ans sea level rise 6 to 22 meters? All harbours and river deltas would be under the sea, and river deltas are most fertile ground where food is produced in many countries, and many islands also would disappear.... Great part of my country and Europe would again become Pannonian sea, and there is land that feed them all........ Just look at atlas and see how much land is at this oversea level right now, and it would all be gone under water!

So far it is noted that height of tides in Indian Ocean grow almost 4 centimeters per year instead predicted one and half? Risa fields would be soon under sea water, and greatest food resource of India would be destroyed if process don't stop.........

At least one third of humanity would be killed by hunger and other would perish in wars for remaining land, don't You think?

Kindly don't waste time with such discussions that are pointless and spend time of people that try to find way to save the World...........

Australians that were recently having continent wide fire also would not agree that there is no GW.

Where I live, in Australia we have had record floods, (some towns have been continuously cut off from all transport (except possibly barge) for 8 weeks now), simultaneous with major bush fires down South.

One cause of the bush fires is that "green" pressure has prevented winter burn offs to reduce fuel load in the bush. Add to that the reluctance of National Parks to allow fire roads to be bulldozed so fires in their parks can be fought before they become uncontrollable and you have a recipe for disaster.

The South of Australia is currently in about the 7th or 8th year of a predicted 45 year dry cycle, caused mainly by the Indian Ocean equivalent of El Nino.

When anything ignites a fire in tinder dry bush, loaded with large amounts of fuel on the bush floor in forests predominantly composed of eucalypts (which boil highly inflammable oil out of their leaves once a fire starts), plus 40C+ temps and a strong, dry wind the resultant fire rapidly becomes an uncontrollable monster. Hollow trees act as chimneys, firing sparks out 150' in the air. The wind carries these for miles starting new blazes. Radiant heat distills eucalyptus vapor out of the leaves ahead of the fire causing it to flash on the vapor, often for miles.

From experience as a kid in this type of country, it is scary.

Looking at industrial revolution liberation of CO2, the temperature rises have sometimes lagged the CO2 rise, sometimes anticipated it. This makes me suspicious of CO2 as a cause.

Looking at history, England and Scotland grew grapes during the Medieval warm period (roughly 1000AD). Greenland had trees and grew crops. The Vikings named Newfoundland "Vinland" because of native grapes growing there (if it wasn't Newfoundland, but further south, then they must have explored and settled far further south then any credible evidence suggests). This shows warmer climate than we have currently, with no anthropogenic effects available to account for them.

Current climate models give medieval warm period results incompatible with the written historical evidence, leading to some suspicion as to the reliability of these models.

Looking further back to past geological ages, CO2 was frequently 10x our present levels without any apparent problems for life on earth. Practically all interpreters of the current data predict imminent disaster, despite the geological precedents.

CO2 is, in fact, a pretty lousy greenhouse gas. If it was any good, Mars, with a much higher partial pressure of CO2 than earth, would be far warmer than it is. Admittedly, this alone is no real bar to CO2 levels being a potential greenhouse problem as it closes a loss window which nothing else seems to effect significantly.

Research on the effect of CO2 on the growth rate of plants indicates that C3 plants (many of our grains) are mainly limited today by the availability of CO2. Figures I have seen vary somewhat from plant to plant (and study to study) but the overall result seems to be that double CO2 gives 75% increase in crop/vegetable/fruit yields.

If we take precipitate action to reduce CO2 will we, in fact, precipitate the very problems we are seeking to avoid? Much of the evidence suggests yes.

Should we reduce our footprint by more efficient use of our resources? Of course. By doing this we keep the resources more readily available for future generations and we make it easier for the environment to cope with us.

By living in this world, we affect the environment around us. It copes by finding a workable balance. If we push it too hard, we might not like the balance that is achieved. This is evident in and around many of our cities. This does not mean that we have a huge effect overall. Look at the might of volcanic eruptions, floods, bush fires, tsunami's, earthquakes, cyclones etc. All these dwarf and humble us, putting us in our place as bit players - significant bit players, but not as big a force as we often think ourselves.

The environment is not fragile, it is actually very resilient. It is also always shifting and changing. The equilibrium is dynamic, not static. Any attempt to preserve or return to the status quo is doomed.

Apart from the efficiency improvements and better use of sustainable sources of energy, the proposals so far seem to be to try to hold the environment quasi static. Such attempts will fail.

We are not heading for disaster, just the change which is normal in it's apparent abnormality.

I like the way You think, as it is much like my own thinking. Nothing can really be returned to previous state, as so many things continue to change. It would be best if we would know for certain what causes GW, but if we have most likely culprit, and evidence warns about impending disaster, then we could not just sit and do nothing.

In regard to equilibrium You mentioned, if whole atmosphere temperature is rising, then there would be less Sun power needed to cause greater evaporation of water, but since this remains relatively constant, we can expect much more rains and snowfall where it is been normal, and greater dryness where precipitation was less than normal. I would say that is exactly what is happening....

In Adriatic sea temperature of water is 3 degrees of Celsius above 150 years average, and we nowadays have to fight some tropical algae that is poisonous and very fast growing (15 cm per day!) that would destroy our native marine organisms, which are in turn base food for native fishes. In institute where I was working for 8.5 years, they were making experiments with CO2 and plants, and their conclusion is that plants generally grow faster and have bigger leaves in CO2 enriched environment, but produce less seed.......

Now, I believe it would be good to replace internal combustion engines by electromotors, at least there would be no air pollution in big cities... At same time by removing much of fossil fuel burning and using instead Solar energy that comes to Earth surface anyway, we could also lessen temperature produced by combustion, and it would in some percentage make heating of atmosphere less pronounced, even if CO2 is not really responsible for GW. In regard to CO2 recycling, we do this by digesting food, so it would not be depleted..... Raised content of CO2 would mostly increase algae in the sea, as there are several times more alga in seas then plants on dry ground, just these are less directly exposed to it........

Equilibrium would be achieved, that much is true, but so far all evidence point out it would be disaster for us as civilization, so it is question of survival to do all we can to push equilibrium in direction less dangerous for us, if we can..........

If we don't succeed, at least we can say we have gone down fighting for life..........

Hi Henrik14

Amazing how alike our thinking yet we have come to almost opposite conclusions on causes.

I like the emphasis on efficiency which the GW controversy is generating.

I worry that politicians and bureaucrats will try to foist such inefficient things on us as carbon sequestration.

Even more worrying is the possibility that someone may say "GW is the problem. Put needles of aluminium in orbit. This will shade the planet and stop the problem." Perhaps not this exact solution but some equally costly and irreversible solution to what may turn out to be a non existent problem.

Increased CO2 may well increase algae growth, although this seems to come about more from excessive nutrients than CO2. There is research being done into growing algae to harvest and turn into oil. While not economic at present, the process shows some promise.

Do you remember, or know of the paper "Limits to growth", produced by the "Club of Rome" group of eminent scientists in about 1970? This claimed that mass starvation was imminent because population growth was outstripping the world's ability to produce food. This was almost universally agreed by the scientific community, in fact the unamity was similar to that claimed today for GW.

The item they failed to take into account was human ingenuity and inventiveness. The world's food supply in the next 20 years far outstripped population growth.

I think the anthropogenic warming , doom and gloom prophets are making the same mistake.

Life is very resilient and adapts to quite large changes with surprising speed.

Civilization can also adapt, but the status quo is very resistant to the idea and will try to make everyone fight to prevent it.

Bring it on. We can adapt and prosper, regardless of what happens. Historical changes in climate have often been rapid, but people have still adapted and prospered. They will do so this time.

Hi sceptic,

Sorry for late answering.... So, You dont believe in GW, and while it is true that there are enough idiots to do something like You describe because it was first thing that they can think of, us who still use our head should use it constructively, no?

If people show me that Lake Chad in Africa has lost 5/6 in size, that glaciers in Island are almost gone, if I read that measurement show at delta of Ganges 3.5 cm rise in sea level per year, if we have to fight poisonous tropic algae in Adriatic sea because its temperature has risen over 4 degrees of Celsius on average in last 10 years, then I think that GW theory is still better than NO theory why this is happening...

Until we make better theory, we should act as it is correct and try to do something to stop progress of before mentioned processes, but that should not stop us to keep searching for better explanation. If we do something that should help according to theory of GW and find it work, then perhaps danger can be avoided, but if we just discuss if it is right theory or wrong and do nothing to stop atmosphere warming, then I would like to ask You where would You go if most of Australia would come under the sea, 6 meters deep? Such thing, and much more if rise would be 22 or more meters, would devastate my country and drown its 1400+ islands to the last, and this could again form old Pannonian Sea which would drown millions of square km of fertile agricultural land, and same thing would happen to France, Spain, most of African continent, India, China.......... Same would happen to UK, Holland, Netherlands, Germany and so on.....

Therefore I first look for consequences, if what scientists have calculated happen to be true, and then it is time to find something that could make the difference.

Whatever cause may be, we should try to reverse process, and means by which we do it should also be reversible....... It would be as bad if we start new Ice Age by lowering temperature more than necessary :-((

Perhaps You are right and all this is a hoax made by government of US because they have found their oil reserves are all but gone, so they staged even world wide financial crisis so many people (starting with automobile industry!) lost jobs, as people without JOBs can be more readily persuaded to change their work habits, and GM already is starting production of electromobiles instead of ordinary cars..... It may be that Wall Street crisis is staged also so poor would lost their houses and rich could buy them from Banks cheaply, and then sell them back to poor trough new credits of their Banks, to become still more rich, who knows? Did anybody stopped to think how many houses were almost paid for, and have been taken by Banks, but when Banks went broke, government did not say: let's see how many people have paid more than half of their mortgage credits, and let us give them money so they can get their homes back, if they lost jobs? Government gave money to Banks instead :-(( That unfortunately would not help anybody...... GM should not have got money either, because instead of closing factories they should have given those factories to workers to run, as workers surely know where problems are, and would not vote themselves out on street, what You think? Also, creating so big pool of unemployed people can be excellent lever for capitalists to extort more money from workers, who would be happy to have JOBs even with much smaller salaries then no JOBs, right?

Anyhow, it just crossed my mind....

Now we would do better to find solution for whatever causes GW, unless You dont believe there IS GW..........

Regards from Zagreb, the capitol of Croatia, Europe!

Marijan Pollak

Hi Henrik14:

Just because I am dubious about the reality of anthropogenic global warming (not whether or not we are currently in a warming phase), doesn't mean that I think we shouldn't drastically improve our efficiency of utilization of resources and make more use of sensible renewable resources.

We definitely should.

History tells us that we have had similar temperature excursions in the reasonably recent past, when we couldn't blame man's activities. The medieval warm period is an example, so is the 1930's.

The fact that these occurred, and that CO2/temperature has virtually no correlation during geological time makes me doubt the models being used.

I doubt that there is any GW conspiracy as such. I think it is more a case of "group think". Unfortunately, the history of science is full of examples where the majority opinion turned out to be wrong.

This possibility is strengthened by the surprising number of scientists who are AGW deniers. (I don't think many of them deny that we currently have global warming, just that is anthropogenic)

As for US or big business conspiracies, from the caliber of top executives I have known, I don't think they are capable of successfully planning and managing it.

If they did, the details would leak out quite rapidly. Big business leaks readily and badly, which is why they don't succeed in carrying out the much simpler plot of price fixing for any length of time. It soon becomes public and they wind up being prosecuted.

As an interim measure, we need to develop coal to oil plants (a plant in Australia, using in situ gasification claims a break even of $25 a barrel) to reduce and finally remove our dependence on Middle East and similar unstable area's oil. This is established technology, and we need continuity of liquid fuel - at least in the short term.

At the same time the present effort to reduce solar cell costs to more practical levels, and the development of wind power should be continued and their use encouraged.

Hydro is very difficult to build these days because of the massive "green" opposition every time it is mentioned. I'm not sure why, because dams tend to stabilize river flows and create new, rich, lakeside environments which are usually beneficial as well as beautiful.

Geothermal should also be developed where conditions are suitable.

Nuclear can give cleaner power than coal. The waste could be used as "nuclear batteries" for further generation or buried several km underground. By the time that rose to the surface, the radioactivity would be very small.

Biofuel is basically using potential food cropping land for fuel, which is a waste.

Second stage biofuel using trash as feedstock looks attractive, but is robbing the land of the nutrients and soil structure enhancement provided when these things are plowed in and allowed to decompose naturally. Robbing our land of it's future health to provide liquid fuel doesn't strike me as a particularly smart move.

Increased CO2 in the atmosphere gives increased crop outputs as well as promoting all other growth. C3 plants are currently limited by available CO2.

We should be encouraging the planting of more trees to capitalize on the CO2 levels. This will reduce a potential future shortage of building and cabinet timbers.

Tests done on wheat farms in Australia have shown that up to 20% (in some cases 25%) of the land can be planted to trees without decreasing the crop. This comes from the windbreak effect reducing moisture loss from wind (despite some loss to the trees) and birds roosting in the trees reducing the insect burden and hence losses from that source. In addition, the trees reduce losses and growth reduction due to frost. (As far as I know proper controlled testing has not been done in this area, only experiments by individual farmers.)

We should also be wary of trying to unduly reduce the CO2 we have. When we know more, it may prove to be an asset.

I could go on, but this post is already far too long.

Most of what I have suggested will work to stabilize overall CO2 anyway, but even more importantly will improve the health of our farmlands while allowing industry and productivity to be maintained and even increased.

Basically a win for everyone.