Global Warming Threatens Thailand

[crobe]

I don't usually post on this forum, however the ignorance of some posters regarding this topic can be amazing.

Mostly this ignorance is fed by lazy journalism and sensationalised press that cannot be bothered to actually research or understand the topic they are writing about.

Why does everything have to be a conspiracy theory - there is no great communal effort on the part of science to extract funding for outlandish theories, just some academics trying to increase the overall knowledge by doing some research - just as they do for particle physics, medicine, biotech etc.

If we all ignored the science we would still believe the earth was flat, the moon landings faked and that AIDS was caused by divine damnation.

RickBradford - we do understand the climate cycles a lot better than we did - we derive that from the ice core samples going back millenia - we also now have a better understanding of the solar cyclical variations (11-year, 22 year Hale cycle - 27 harmonics thereof, and up to the 6000 year cycle) - we also know about the Maunder minimum of the 17th Century and the fact that we are in the present maximum from 1950 onwards.

Just because some tabloid reported that it was colder in 1600's, does not mean that this has not been taken into account and you are the first person to have noticed this.

If you have some startling new research that will explain it all then please share it with the community (with a peer-reviewed paper of course)

Just because some institute in East Anglia did not want to give out all their data, in fear that a tabloid journalist would take one reading out of context and then make a headline "proved - sea levels rising is a myth", does not make for a conspiracy theory.

I have been privileged in my career to have been involved in the technicalities of global climate study - as a satellite engineer I was part of the team building and launching the first European climate satellites in 1991 - which has now given us 20 years of continuous data - yes this is still not enough (though the US has slightly more), but it gives us enough to test the models and predictions that we are making against real measurements.

I have had access to this raw data, but I would not claim to be one of the brains that interpolate this, but what it does show is that there is a significant increase in the amounts of global warming gasses - consistent with the warming that began with the start of the industrial age - and if anything - the raw data is more extreme than the models and predictions have been estimating.

Having taken all of the known and theorised natural effects into account (please note - no conspiracy to ignore such possible effects), then there is still a significant and increasing effect present from 150 years ago to now that cannot be explained - the best fit for this is that man-made activities are causing this.

About 30% of the scientists involved in this field are actively looking for other natural causes that could account for such a change, but as yet they have not been able to identify any.

It is possible to test this empirically - we can not only model the environment using this data, but we can also do real tests in the laboratory as to the effects of an atmosphere with greater abundance of CO2 and other warming gasses, and verify this against the levels we can detect in the historic past.

We are not yet perfect - we never will be - and anyone who takes a single event - whether it be a hurricane or a cold-snap as proof one way or the other - is doing a disservice to the people who are trying to bring an understanding of the overall picture - which will take some decades to average out.

It could be that a violent volcanic eruption could spew enough ash into the atmosphere and cause global cooling enough to mitigate the current climate change patterns (this has been extensively researched from historic data), but we cannot just hope for this - we have to prepare for the worst case that our best estimates at the moment can give us.

We also know from history that there was a time when the sea-level was LOWER by some 50 metres - you could walk from Scotland to Denmark without getting you feet wet - so even if natural phenomena were only taken into account - there would still be some need to study the effects of rising sea levels.

For those living in the coastal regions of Thailand, that could be a sea level rise of some inches this century, and by some feet by the end of the next - this is not a great worry for our lifetimes as long as coastal defences for vulnerable parts could be built or improved - however - as the Dutch are now finding - it will be impossible to shore up the defences enough to protect the built up areas around the coasts if the worst case scenarii happen. For Thailand that would mean re-locating the vast population of Bangkok and other areas.

In my view it is not therefore a scam on the parts of government or institutions to advocate that we move to renewable sources - such as wind/wave (I am a bit sceptical over the long-term usage of nuclear), but rather this is just prudence.

Remember in the early part of the last century the London smogs, caused by a combination of burning coal and natural fog, caused many deaths and increases in respiratory problems - anyone spending a day walking around Bangkok will feel similar effects.

This was solved by government intervention and the clean air act - not so far from the current legislations under consideration in many countries to mandate renewable energy - it may just be an act of prudence.

Crobe

[Artabus]

To all those of you who deny climate change, who claim it is a conspiracy, an excuse to raise taxes, to make money from carbon taxes, to get your research funded - where is your proof? Not duff newspaper articles, links to dodgy "scientists" and nonsensical books, but (as one other poster said) properly evaluated research that shows it's all a con.

After all, you deny all the evidence that supports a belief in anthropogenic climate change - evidence accumulated from many scientists in many different fields, over many years. I guess they must all be wrong, you must be right, and you must have the proof for that.

Also :

1. What are your solutions to the fact that we are running out of fossil fuels?

2. If concern about climate change leads to the expansion and development of technologies that provide for the energy needs of mankind - is that not a good thing, irrespective of the motives that underly it?

3. Would you support alternatives to fossil fuel based power supplies on the grounds of forthcoming need?

To the poster who pointed out that Europe was cold this winter - it was caused by the Arctic Oscillation, which is when the mid and Northern latitude airflows swap. It's unrelated to climate change.

[SomTumTiger]

I don't usually post on this forum, however the ignorance of some posters regarding this topic can be amazing.

Mostly this ignorance is fed by lazy journalism and sensationalised press that cannot be bothered to actually research or understand the topic they are writing about.

Why does everything have to be a conspiracy theory - there is no great communal effort on the part of science to extract funding for outlandish theories, just some academics trying to increase the overall knowledge by doing some research - just as they do for particle physics, medicine, biotech etc.

If we all ignored the science we would still believe the earth was flat, the moon landings faked and that AIDS was caused by divine damnation.

RickBradford - we do understand the climate cycles a lot better than we did - we derive that from the ice core samples going back millenia - we also now have a better understanding of the solar cyclical variations (11-year, 22 year Hale cycle - 27 harmonics thereof, and up to the 6000 year cycle) - we also know about the Maunder minimum of the 17th Century and the fact that we are in the present maximum from 1950 onwards.

Just because some tabloid reported that it was colder in 1600's, does not mean that this has not been taken into account and you are the first person to have noticed this.

If you have some startling new research that will explain it all then please share it with the community (with a peer-reviewed paper of course)

Just because some institute in East Anglia did not want to give out all their data, in fear that a tabloid journalist would take one reading out of context and then make a headline "proved - sea levels rising is a myth", does not make for a conspiracy theory.

I have been privileged in my career to have been involved in the technicalities of global climate study - as a satellite engineer I was part of the team building and launching the first European climate satellites in 1991 - which has now given us 20 years of continuous data - yes this is still not enough (though the US has slightly more), but it gives us enough to test the models and predictions that we are making against real measurements.

I have had access to this raw data, but I would not claim to be one of the brains that interpolate this, but what it does show is that there is a significant increase in the amounts of global warming gasses - consistent with the warming that began with the start of the industrial age - and if anything - the raw data is more extreme than the models and predictions have been estimating.

Having taken all of the known and theorised natural effects into account (please note - no conspiracy to ignore such possible effects), then there is still a significant and increasing effect present from 150 years ago to now that cannot be explained - the best fit for this is that man-made activities are causing this.

About 30% of the scientists involved in this field are actively looking for other natural causes that could account for such a change, but as yet they have not been able to identify any.

It is possible to test this empirically - we can not only model the environment using this data, but we can also do real tests in the laboratory as to the effects of an atmosphere with greater abundance of CO2 and other warming gasses, and verify this against the levels we can detect in the historic past.

We are not yet perfect - we never will be - and anyone who takes a single event - whether it be a hurricane or a cold-snap as proof one way or the other - is doing a disservice to the people who are trying to bring an understanding of the overall picture - which will take some decades to average out.

It could be that a violent volcanic eruption could spew enough ash into the atmosphere and cause global cooling enough to mitigate the current climate change patterns (this has been extensively researched from historic data), but we cannot just hope for this - we have to prepare for the worst case that our best estimates at the moment can give us.

We also know from history that there was a time when the sea-level was LOWER by some 50 metres - you could walk from Scotland to Denmark without getting you feet wet - so even if natural phenomena were only taken into account - there would still be some need to study the effects of rising sea levels.

For those living in the coastal regions of Thailand, that could be a sea level rise of some inches this century, and by some feet by the end of the next - this is not a great worry for our lifetimes as long as coastal defences for vulnerable parts could be built or improved - however - as the Dutch are now finding - it will be impossible to shore up the defences enough to protect the built up areas around the coasts if the worst case scenarii happen. For Thailand that would mean re-locating the vast population of Bangkok and other areas.

In my view it is not therefore a scam on the parts of government or institutions to advocate that we move to renewable sources - such as wind/wave (I am a bit sceptical over the long-term usage of nuclear), but rather this is just prudence.

Remember in the early part of the last century the London smogs, caused by a combination of burning coal and natural fog, caused many deaths and increases in respiratory problems - anyone spending a day walking around Bangkok will feel similar effects.

This was solved by government intervention and the clean air act - not so far from the current legislations under consideration in many countries to mandate renewable energy - it may just be an act of prudence.

Crobe

This is called a "First Post Ass-whupping" on the the conspiracy theorists. Well Done Sir!

[yoon01]

Lighten up, relief is on the way!

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/05/19/...ntists-warming/

Make up your minds you scientists!

[surangw]

only threat I see to Thailand would be if Al Gore came to bkk and spewing his hot air

Edited May 27, 2010 by surangw

[kurtgruen]

If Global Warming, partially caused by humanity, is real, then it does go back to over population, just like many other problems, we face today.

Stop breeding, quit keeping people alive artificially and quit giving financial and food aid, to Nations that still encourage breeding. Make suicide legal. If somebody is stupid enough to kill themselves, let them.

Maybe somebody should charge the pope with crimes against humanity, since the policies of the churches, with regards to breeding, and birth control, have definitely worsened the quality of life on this planet. (Same goes of any other religion, organizations and their leaders, who advocate indiscriminate breeding.

If we die out...oh well, I'm sure, this planet and it's other inhabitants won't miss us.

[elliss]

Europe would love to see a bit of Global Warming this upcoming winter.

sooner the better ,

i dont give a rats arse ,,

about , the climate , in 200 years time .

[shadiadi]

The planet gets hot then gets cold would scientist tell us if the sun was getting nearer to us?

Probably not, as there would be panic.

[mazeltov]

A point to consider if you like beef, or milk products...............

http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2006/1000448/index.html

do you like natural human reproduction activities?

[mazeltov]

If Global Warming, partially caused by humanity, is real, then it does go back to over population, just like many other problems, we face today.

Stop breeding, quit keeping people alive artificially and quit giving financial and food aid, to Nations that still encourage breeding. Make suicide legal. If somebody is stupid enough to kill themselves, let them.

Maybe somebody should charge the pope with crimes against humanity, since the policies of the churches, with regards to breeding, and birth control, have definitely worsened the quality of life on this planet. (Same goes of any other religion, organizations and their leaders, who advocate indiscriminate breeding.

If we die out...oh well, I'm sure, this planet and it's other inhabitants won't miss us.

those who believe that 'global warming' is man made, having it in their own hands to do something about it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Euthanasia

[rubl]

If Global Warming, partially caused by humanity, is real, then it does go back to over population, just like many other problems, we face today.

Stop breeding, quit keeping people alive artificially and quit giving financial and food aid, to Nations that still encourage breeding. Make suicide legal. If somebody is stupid enough to kill themselves, let them.

Maybe somebody should charge the pope with crimes against humanity, since the policies of the churches, with regards to breeding, and birth control, have definitely worsened the quality of life on this planet. (Same goes of any other religion, organizations and their leaders, who advocate indiscriminate breeding.

If we die out...oh well, I'm sure, this planet and it's other inhabitants won't miss us.

those who believe that 'global warming' is man made, having it in their own hands to do something about it.

I'm too polite, you first

[Spee]

Since when does a seasonal regional heat wave rationally scale all the way up to global warming? And at the same time record snowfalls this past winter in North America do not rationally disprove it? It's so flawed that it doesn't even qualify as a so-called "religious argument." It is little more than the politics of subversion, an attempt to manipulate the thoughts of large groups of people for political gain. As a wise man once said, "A confused society is a controllable society."

Edited May 27, 2010 by Spee

[farmerjo]

Sorry havent read all the posts,but if you keep rainfall records its just part of the cycle,in australia before if you were smart you new how many bad years for a good one thats why the existing farmers are bigger and better. n

[teatree]

@Crobe

'If we all ignored the science we would still believe the earth was flat, the moon landings faked and that AIDS was caused by divine damnation.'

I doubt either Buzz Aldren or Jack Schmitt believe that the moon landings were faked seeing as they actually walked on the moon, but they both happen to be climate skeptics. Next time you attempt to discredit climate skeptics by using an association fallacy try sticking to the tried and tested ones such as shape-shifting reptilian aliens ruling the world, Bigfoot, The Loch Ness Monster...blah blah blah...

'we do understand the climate cycles a lot better than we did - we derive that from the ice core samples going back millenia -'

The very ice cores you refer to clearly show that temperature leads CO2, in other words temperature rises and then (several hundred years later) CO2 follows. This is very basic climate science and is not disputed by even the most fervent 'warmist'.

I know your argument will probably be that miraculously the laws of nature have now changed, there has been a de-coupling over that last 50n years or so and that CO2 is now driving the climate. If this is so and CO2 is rising exponentially, why is tempetature not rising exponentially alongside it? Sorry, just does not make any sense.

'Just because some institute in East Anglia did not want to give out all their data, in fear that a tabloid journalist would take one reading out of context and then make a headline "proved - sea levels rising is a myth", does not make for a conspiracy theory.'

It's not just climategate that has destroyed the IPCC's reputation - there are a whole host of 'gates' that show a small group of scientists involved in exaggerating warming data, destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, citing utterly inappropriate sources in reports and much more.

Look at glaciergate where mere speculation by a scientist in a telephone interview to 'New Scientist' that the Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035 ended up being included in the 2007 IPCC report. Here we have a central pillar of the IPCC report, something that made world wide headlines and if true would have meant the displacement of tens of millions of people based on little more than gossip. This is not science.

You mention the UEA. Here we have Michael Mann who took tree ring data in order to prove the current warming trend is real and dangerous. Unfortunatley, the data didn't quite cooperate and showed a decline for the past 30 years or so. What did Mr Mann do? He then discarded the tree ring data that showed a decline (keeping the data that didn't) and inserted data from thermometer readings 'using nature's trick to hide the decline' (that is actually a quote from an email of Mr Mann's). He meshed two different sources that showed two different results in order to prove his point. This is not science.

Science is open, that is the scientific way. Scientists do research and then leave it open for scrutiny. The truth has nothing to hide - unlike Mr Mann.

'Having taken all of the known and theorised natural effects into account (please note - no conspiracy to ignore such possible effects), then there is still a significant and increasing effect present from 150 years ago to now that cannot be explained - the best fit for this is that man-made activities are causing this.'

Easily explained if you look back over the last 1000 years or so. The ice core data shows warming and cooling periods and the point we are at now is nothing out of the ordinary.

Amazingly, the IPCC does not factor fluctuations of the Sun's output in any of its models. Science?

'About 30% of the scientists involved in this field are actively looking for other natural causes that could account for such a change, but as yet they have not been able to identify any.'

There have been a number of peer review studies skeptical of AGW that suggest climate is driven by natural variations. The Sun is usually seen as the main driver in these studies.

'In my view it is not therefore a scam on the parts of government or institutions to advocate that we move to renewable sources - such as wind/wave (I am a bit sceptical over the long-term usage of nuclear), but rather this is just prudence.'

A scam by the government to get us to use renewable energy??? Who is saying that?

The big thing being pushed on us by government is carbon tax and once that is up and running the focus will be on developing a carbon quota system where everyone is given an amount of carbon they can use and anything over that is penalised. The beauty of the system is that almost everything we do or buy involves the production of carbon, therefore everything we do will be tracked, logged and controlled.

You can call these conspiracy theories but as I said in a previous post they are not really conspiracy theories if they are actually playing out before our very eyes. If we are all going to get solar panels, atmospheric water generators, electric cars and a completely renewable energy system then great, where do I sign up? However, I think you'll be waiting a long time for these things to happen.

[Jockey]

When will the NWO give up on this one? Global Warming has already proven to be a sham to create carbon tax and keep African nations in a poverty stricken 3rd world state. HIDE THE DECLINE 2!

[brahmburgers]

HOT HOT HOT and NO RAIN in the north.

From Chiang Rai: It rained a few times in March. Several good rains in April. Now it's raining an average of 20 minutes each evening. Yes, it was hot and dry before mid-March, and it's been hot sometimes since, but saying 'no rain in the North' - you must be behind the times by about 2 months.

Whether or not Global warming exists. The policies that would prevent it, also prevents pollution which I think we can all agree Thailand could benefit from reducing. So if it takes a belief in Global warming to achieve this that's fine with me.

We are still going to be using oil for many years to come, the only difference is that the price will sky rocket and our use of it will be rationed.

If the solutions being put forward included cheap solar panels so that everyone can get off the grid, electric cars and other new technology then out of pragmatism I would close my eyes and embrace global warming. However, the ONLY real solutions being put forward are tax and carbon rationing.

The tax will kill off industry in the West, leading to relocation to countries such as China and India where there are NO regulations and will actually INCREASE global emissions - not such a smart move.

I go with Wasabi's reasoning. Admittedly, there is talk about carbon credits here and there - mostly by corporate heads. To me that's a non-issue, unless a person is entwined with a big corp that's polluting. Much more important, to me, is pollution and overpopulation of our one species. We're waaaaaaay beyond the carrying capacity of our planet.

I do my little bit by putting up solar panels, constructing pre-heat solar by putting black painted tubes on the roofs of several houses. It's amazing how several meters of black tubing on a sunny roof can save a family a bunch of LPG or electric. I also plant trees - roughly 100 per year, and over 1,000 in the 12 yrs I've been in Thailand

I predict the drought will continue for several years, at least. There will be a lot less water in the Mekong, and Thai farmers will continue to mindlessly plant water-guzzling rice, because they can't think out of the box. Already, there are nearly no wild mammals in all of Thailand - so what's next to eradicate? Thailand is not a pleasant place to be a wild animal.

[crobe]

@teatree

I doubt either Buzz Aldren or Jack Schmitt believe that the moon landings were faked seeing as they actually walked on the moon, but they both happen to be climate skeptics. Next time you attempt to discredit climate skeptics by using an association fallacy try sticking to the tried and tested ones such as shape-shifting reptilian aliens ruling the world, Bigfoot, The Loch Ness Monster...blah blah blah...

It is a pity you choose to invoke the name of someone and cannot even spell it correctly.

I think you mean Buzz Aldrin - someone who I am proud to say that I have met on occasions and have had many discussions with regarding the future of space programs.

You may be interested on his latest views on climate change - we have been discussing the use of greenhouse gasses as a means to terraform Mars - a process which would take some hundreds (up to thousands) of years to complete - this has now sparked an interesting debate between those who would terraform - and those on the planetary protection side against contaminating a pristine world.

If you talk to the man himself - and do not fall prey to the usual comments taken out of context for the reasons of tabloid journalism - you would know that he advocates colonisation of Mars as a "promising laboratory to study climate change on Earth" - however I will accept that he remains a sceptic - and I would defend his right to be one - but would - and have - argued against him.

Really - taking a headline as proof is the worst form of ignorance

the very ice cores you refer to clearly show that temperature leads CO2

Actually they show that there is a feedback loop of rising temperatures and rising CO2 levels mostly arising from the evaporation of the CO2 in the upper levels of the ocean covering - the instigator of the initial temperature rise has historically been through a natural global warming event - obviously because for the most part of history there was no human involvement - however - it has now been shown through testing at various institutes that the (assumed) man-made warming we are now seeing could instigate that very same feedback loop.

Science is open, that is the scientific way. Scientists do research and then leave it open for scrutiny. The truth has nothing to hide - unlike Mr Mann.

And here I agree with you - which is why in my posting I also included the fact that scientists are also actively looking for natural causes to account for the warming characteristic - however - being open also means looking at all the evidence - on balance, and not taking a single item out of context - a pitfall you have again fallen into by quoting just individual studies and not being able to look at the whole context - that is a very lazy option.

Amazingly, the IPCC does not factor fluctuations of the Sun's output in any of its models. Science?

If you look at my posting you will see that the sunspot fluctuations and the known cyclical variations have been taken into account for the latest data - you are obviously a scientist of some merit and publications so please point me to the sun cycle variations that have not been accounted for - there could be a Nobel in it for you if you have found a new one.

The big thing being pushed on us by government is carbon tax and once that is up and running the focus will be on developing a carbon quota system where everyone is given an amount of carbon they can use and anything over that is penalised.

Not something I have been advocating in my posting - so please stop trying to put words in my mouth for your benefit.

I quoted one form of regulation - a mandate called the clean air act in the UK - and there are other forms of regulation, subsidies and regimes that could also be of a benefit to ensuring a more carbon-friendly future.

California mandated fuel consumption - not always successfully - but it did focus the carmakers attention on fuel-efficient engines for a while - Germany has a solar-panel subsidy and grid resale system - again not always successful as Germany does not enjoy the highest levels of sunshine, but is an example of another form of government intervention - also France mandate 85% of their electricity from nuclear - but as you see from my post not something I am in favour of - not because of environmental luddite reasons but because I think the full decommissioning and safe storage costs are undervalued in the electricity production pricing.

Only having a focus on a tax issue neglects the range of other - complementary - actions that can be taken and again is an example of being lazy and taking a single item out of context.

Crobe

Edited May 28, 2010 by crobe

[brahmburgers]

The so-called 'carbon tax' is something some climate change deniers bring up, as if it proves there's a conspiracy by big gov't to use the Climate Warming thing to increase taxes on people, corporations and/or governments. It's a red herring. It's like, if you were to go look to buy a new car with your mother in law along (Bob help us) and she only spoke about the gas cap, as if that was all there was to consider.

The carbon credit thing is for a few corporation heads and their lawyers to haggle about. The vast majority of people in the world don't have any relation to 'carbon tax' stuff. The 900 lb gorilla sitting in the middle of the kitchen, which few people want to acknowledge, is human overpopulation. That will be one of the biggest issues of the 21st century, when intelligent people get brave enough to discuss tough ways to deal with it, without wilting from it being a taboo subject. Most talks about population revolve around economics (will there be enough youngsters to pay into Social Security for retirees, etc). But that's just a small part of the equation. There's one species on this planet which is grossly polluting, and rubbing other species out with habitat destruction. If animals and plants could talk, we'd hear a loud sustained "STOP IT! ....don't poison and kill us."

[sarahsbloke]

Amazing how some people can't even look around and notice, but think its some stupid conspiracy theory. Just look at Samut Sakhorn, Samut Prakarn as the sea levels have risen 4 inches per year the last several years, attributed to glaciers melting. thailand is slowly going underwater. Open your eyes!

Measuring sea level changes is something that is quite hard to do, only really been feasible in the last 15 years.

What can change sea levels are

1) Tectonic activity

2) Glacial isostatic adjustment (aka post-glacial rebound)

3) Ice caps

4) Ground water extraction

And several other factors

Being fairly near to the equator and because of its tropical climate Thailand will more likely be affected by 2) and 4) rather that 3)

GIA is quite a hard concept for most people to understand, but basically predicts if you live near the equator at sea level you are screwed.

Even if global warming, because of man made CO2 rises, is completely valid (and I'm not sure that it is) without China agreeing to play the game any measures taken by the western world will be completely pointless and just destroy what's left of the western worlds industry.

Should anyone really be thinking about destroying our way of life because of a totally unproven (and slightly suspect) theory?

Edited May 29, 2010 by sarahsbloke

[woralak]

DELETE Songkran INSERT common sense ??????.

[Everett]

Back in the 70s the politicians in the US were trying to convince everyone that we were going to experience a global FREEZING if we didn't give them all our money and let them control our lives so they could save us. If you're unfamiliar with it please google it.

Now they're trying to tell us the world is going to over heat, or whatever nonsense. The solution: give them all our money, let them tax us to death and control our lives -- SO THEY CAN SAVE US!

It's BS. Thai visa shouldn't be posting nonsense articles like this.

Global carbon tax / global control.. NO THANKS

[Tejas]

@teatree

I doubt either Buzz Aldren or Jack Schmitt believe that the moon landings were faked seeing as they actually walked on the moon, but they both happen to be climate skeptics. Next time you attempt to discredit climate skeptics by using an association fallacy try sticking to the tried and tested ones such as shape-shifting reptilian aliens ruling the world, Bigfoot, The Loch Ness Monster...blah blah blah...

It is a pity you choose to invoke the name of someone and cannot even spell it correctly.

I think you mean Buzz Aldrin - someone who I am proud to say that I have met on occasions and have had many discussions with regarding the future of space programs.

You may be interested on his latest views on climate change - we have been discussing the use of greenhouse gasses as a means to terraform Mars - a process which would take some hundreds (up to thousands) of years to complete - this has now sparked an interesting debate between those who would terraform - and those on the planetary protection side against contaminating a pristine world.

If you talk to the man himself - and do not fall prey to the usual comments taken out of context for the reasons of tabloid journalism - you would know that he advocates colonisation of Mars as a "promising laboratory to study climate change on Earth" - however I will accept that he remains a sceptic - and I would defend his right to be one - but would - and have - argued against him.

Really - taking a headline as proof is the worst form of ignorance

the very ice cores you refer to clearly show that temperature leads CO2

Actually they show that there is a feedback loop of rising temperatures and rising CO2 levels mostly arising from the evaporation of the CO2 in the upper levels of the ocean covering - the instigator of the initial temperature rise has historically been through a natural global warming event - obviously because for the most part of history there was no human involvement - however - it has now been shown through testing at various institutes that the (assumed) man-made warming we are now seeing could instigate that very same feedback loop.

Science is open, that is the scientific way. Scientists do research and then leave it open for scrutiny. The truth has nothing to hide - unlike Mr Mann.

And here I agree with you - which is why in my posting I also included the fact that scientists are also actively looking for natural causes to account for the warming characteristic - however - being open also means looking at all the evidence - on balance, and not taking a single item out of context - a pitfall you have again fallen into by quoting just individual studies and not being able to look at the whole context - that is a very lazy option.

Amazingly, the IPCC does not factor fluctuations of the Sun's output in any of its models. Science?

If you look at my posting you will see that the sunspot fluctuations and the known cyclical variations have been taken into account for the latest data - you are obviously a scientist of some merit and publications so please point me to the sun cycle variations that have not been accounted for - there could be a Nobel in it for you if you have found a new one.

The big thing being pushed on us by government is carbon tax and once that is up and running the focus will be on developing a carbon quota system where everyone is given an amount of carbon they can use and anything over that is penalised.

Not something I have been advocating in my posting - so please stop trying to put words in my mouth for your benefit.

I quoted one form of regulation - a mandate called the clean air act in the UK - and there are other forms of regulation, subsidies and regimes that could also be of a benefit to ensuring a more carbon-friendly future.

California mandated fuel consumption - not always successfully - but it did focus the carmakers attention on fuel-efficient engines for a while - Germany has a solar-panel subsidy and grid resale system - again not always successful as Germany does not enjoy the highest levels of sunshine, but is an example of another form of government intervention - also France mandate 85% of their electricity from nuclear - but as you see from my post not something I am in favour of - not because of environmental luddite reasons but because I think the full decommissioning and safe storage costs are undervalued in the electricity production pricing.

Only having a focus on a tax issue neglects the range of other - complementary - actions that can be taken and again is an example of being lazy and taking a single item out of context.

Crobe

It is nice to see an intelligent life form has surfaced here.

I have never read so much trash in my life..........posted by people that have no knowledge of science, global warming, and climate change.

Most of what has been posted here is propaganda funded by Exxon-Mobile.

They are promoting lunatic ideas in order to keep the masses hooked on their product: non-renewable fossil fuels.

Fortunately, responsible scientists and political leaders are not listening to those that apparently believe the Easter Bunny is real and the earth is flat.

Global warming is real (overwhelming scientific evidence for it).

Climate change is real (overwhelming scientific evidence for it).

Human beings are the primary cause of the recent pattern of global warming and climate change (overwhelming scientific evidence for it).

Our addiction to fossil fuels is extremely expensive. There is a direct cost at the pump.

There are also indirect costs.....some examples:

1) the recent oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico

2) Oil wars (wars that are actually fought, not to liberate people from dictatorship, but to secure oil reserves)

3) global warming and climate change

In truth, the cost of doing nothing about our addiction to fossil fuels far exceeds the cost of making the transition to a clean-energy future.

Wake up...........smell the coffee.............try reading the actual scientific literature on the subject instead of "online comic books" filled with pseudo-scientific crap.

[sarahsbloke]

@Tejas, you have clearly though long and hard on this subject so .........

What's your perspective on glacial isostatic adjustment then?

[gotglue]

Alot of people here seem to know an awful lot about global warming. Does anyone here actually know what global dimming is? Something that came to light after the droughts and famine in Ethiopia. I'm no expert, I'm just throwing in a different angle to what is becoming a rather boring debate.

[sarahsbloke]

Global warming is always a boring debate ...... mainly because there is never any debate.

The alarmists treat it as a religion, they don't need any facts, they just KNOW.

Try the same method on a bible thumper,

Q: "do you believe the bible is true?"

A: "Of course it is"

Q: "All of it or just a few parts?"

A: "All of it"

Q: "What, Old and New Testaments all true?"

Of course the Old and New directly contradict each other.........

Anyway, the alarmists are usually a pretty ignorant bunch, don't bother to read facts for themselves, just worship the great prophet 'Al Gore'

Edited May 29, 2010 by sarahsbloke

[brahmburgers]

Evidence of glaciers worldwide, diminishing and not recovering, is proof enough for me.

Are the massive polluting habits of people a contributing factor? I think so.

Even if people don't contribute, it would be worthwhile to find ways to lessen the yellow/gray haze that hovers over nearly every city worldwide.

Note to GW deniers: Not all walk in lockstep to the same drum roll. Some admit there's a general trend to GW while not agreeing that human-caused emissions contribute. The hard core don't want to admit to any warming trends at all. Regardless of how any of us perceive it, climate changes are going to continue. So if there's a snowstorm in Wash DC or Europe, and many GW deniers stand up and say "Aha, I told you. How can you say the planet is warming up, when we have record snow fall?" Never mind that snowstorms are not much of an indication of overall global weather trends.

Those that harp about 'carbon credits' sound like they're running out of ideas to bolster their beliefs. Like the Jesus statement to the money lenders: "Give unto Caeser that which is Caeser's" .....the carbon credit thing is a corporate/gov't concern. I, like 99% of the people on the planet am not connected to a corporation or a government, so I don't care about 'carbon credits' any more than I care about a 1% surtax on gasoline. To me, it's essentially a non-issue. It's like someone waving a warning flag at a football game with a depiction of someone getting a dislocated shoulder. Yes, dislocated shoulders happen in football games - maybe once out of 1,000 games, but it's not the essence of the game.

Edited May 29, 2010 by brahmburgers

[Tejas]

Alot of people here seem to know an awful lot about global warming. Does anyone here actually know what global dimming is? Something that came to light after the droughts and famine in Ethiopia. I'm no expert, I'm just throwing in a different angle to what is becoming a rather boring debate.

There is no debate.........global warming and climate change are facts. We are the primary cause of both.

What you see here are a bunch of Exxon-Mobile lovers who deny reality.

They actually do not want to debate because they can't.

All they can do is divert attention away from real issues.............and try as hard as they can to confuse readers with pseudo-scientific nonsense.

For example, the post about glacial isostatic adjustment...........that is a "straw man." It was also put forth in order to avoid responding to my post.

If I answer, the poster will just come back with a standard, Exxon-Mobile approved response found on one of many comic book science sites Exxon-Mobile is funding.

Virtually everything they have said here is misleading at best...........most of it is total nonsense.

You can't actually argue with them because they never use reason (like scientist do)..........only emotion (like religious fanatics do).

So, it is pointless to answer them...........or correct them when they omit something significant and only post half-truths.

Unfortunately, that means we can't really talk about the subject.

In fact, the same group of "idea assassins" have made it impossible to discuss the subject on ThaiVisa.

They think they are smart.........to me, they come across as elementary school kids (in fact, I doubt they are adults......lets hope not).

But we really don't need to discuss it anymore........global warming and climate change are scientific facts.

Yes, Thailand is being negatively impacted by global warming and climate change.

Yes, in the future Thailand, Southeast Asia and the entire planet will be negatively impacted by global warming and climate change.

Solution: We must move away from our addiction on fossil fuels before it is too late.

For those of you who like to talk to rocks, feel free to try to convince the skeptics that global warming and climate change are real.

I can assure you, that is not possible.

[sarahsbloke]

So I take it you don't even know what GIA is then

[RickBradford]

To all those of you who deny climate change, who claim it is a conspiracy, an excuse to raise taxes, to make money from carbon taxes, to get your research funded - where is your proof? Not duff newspaper articles, links to dodgy "scientists" and nonsensical books, but (as one other poster said) properly evaluated research that shows it's all a con.

Serious skeptics don't see any conspiracy in the AGW agenda. There is simply an excellent alignment of interests between power-hungry narcissistic politicians, anti-capitalist environmentalists, rent-seeking scientists and scare-chasing journalists.

Politicians get to say: "The situation is urgent, the world is going to hel_l in a handbasket – let us rescue the planet. Trust us." (ie, vote us back in).

The main conspiracy theory surrounding AGW is the infantile one which goes something like: "Most of what has been posted here is propaganda funded by Exxon-Mobile."

After all, you deny all the evidence that supports a belief in anthropogenic climate change - evidence accumulated from many scientists in many different fields, over many years. I guess they must all be wrong, you must be right, and you must have the proof for that.

No. The burden of proof lies with the AGW alarmists. They are the ones who have come up with this fairy-tale and hence they are the ones who must provide proof, which, after 20 years and billions of dollars of research, they have failed to do. If, for example, you were to claim that the earth is being ruled by purple lizards living on the moon, you would have to prove it, rather than asking skeptics to disprove it.

Even so, the blatant attempts by leading AGW scientists to suppress conflicting views (as evidenced by the Climategate scandal) is in itself a confession that the so-called 'settled science' is nothing of the sort, as many scientists in many different fields, over many years, have been pointing out.

1. What are your solutions to the fact that we are running out of fossil fuels?

2. If concern about climate change leads to the expansion and development of technologies that provide for the energy needs of mankind - is that not a good thing, irrespective of the motives that underly it?

3. Would you support alternatives to fossil fuel based power supplies on the grounds of forthcoming need?

1. This has nothing to do with global warming, but it appears that new technologies relating to shale gas may enable us to put off decisions on this for 50 years or so.

2. That's fine, so long as the new technologies are not prohibitively expensive or damaging in their own right. For example, the greatest deforestation threat in the world today is the clearing of the Amazon rainforest to grow crops to make biofuels. Wind and solar have proved to be economic disasters to this point.

3. I think we need plenty of nuclear power, but not more subsidised windmills put up for reasons of bad science backed up by bad politics.

Remember this when you think about fossil fuels. Even if the West commits economic suicide by shutting down their carbon economies, CO2 emissions will continue to rise, because China and India have absolutely no intention of crippling their economies because of vague fears from western countries.

To the poster who pointed out that Europe was cold this winter - it was caused by the Arctic Oscillation, which is when the mid and Northern latitude airflows swap. It's unrelated to climate change.

Agreed. As is the hot weather which prompted this thread.

[Globalhot]

You are right about many things, unlike the skeptics who simply have no idea what they are talking about.

In fact, they are just posting nonsense designed to confuse readers.

I doubt that it is useful to respond to them.

Global warming and climate change are real.

There is no debate about it.

Now, back to the subject.

I find your observation about the oceans interesting as most people neglect it (except scientists working on the problem).

A major problem is the acidification of the oceans that is taking place.

It took 100,000 years for pH to be reduced the same amount it has been reduced over the past 50 years (think about that).

Lowering of pH leads to mass extinction events. Why? Complicated........short answer, because it negatively impacts the biochemistry of marine organism.

In particular, it can negatively impact and eventually kill diatoms, at the base of the marine food chain.

If that happens..........well, it is like a stack of dominoes being tipped.........the system crashes.

And every living thing above the lower part of the food chain suffers.

This is happening now because the oceans are absorbing massive amounts of CO2.

If the "crash" comes, the impact on food supply will be catastrophic.

The skeptics seem to love playing with fire!