Seas Rising 60 Percent Faster Than Projected, Study Shows

[maidu]

Seas rising, Bangkok sinking, few years then Bangkok could be a new Dive site ?

Sure, if you like diving among wet garbage.

[maidu]

The graph below, from http://www.skeptical...-level-rise.htm looks pretty scientific to me....

The graph above mentions "Global Mean Sea Level" and it goes 10 years beyond the graph shown in the RickBradford post above (which looks rather scruffy, if you ask me, like it was hand drawn in 2 minutes, on some scrap paper). The prior posted graph doesn't even have a time line, except a vague reference in the subtitle - and it doesn't specify where the readings were made. Was it in a little estuary in a Philippine lagoon? ...in Kabula's fish pond in Kenya?

Edited December 10, 2012 by maidu

[RickBradford]

Yes, the graph is very pretty and professionally done.

It's the adjusted data on which the graph is based that is the concern.

Here is the actual (that is, unadjusted) tide-gauge data at Cuxhaven in Germany.

It shows a rise until about 1960, and a slight decline thereafter. Graphs from other places around the world show a similar flat trend.

Ah, the Skeptical Science blog, the activists' favourite bolt-hole, those caring, tolerant people who want to create a "crusher crew ... in order to pounce on overly vocal deniers" ... "raise our collective voices to drown them out". Science, Greenie-style.

[GentlemanJim]

The graph below, from http://www.skeptical...-level-rise.htm looks pretty scientific to me....

The graph above mentions "Global Mean Sea Level" and it goes 10 years beyond the graph shown in the RickBradford post above (which looks rather scruffy, if you ask me, like it was hand drawn in 2 minutes, on some scrap paper). The prior posted graph doesn't even have a time line, except a vague reference in the subtitle - and it doesn't specify where the readings were made. Was it in a little estuary in a Philippine lagoon? ...in Kabula's fish pond in Kenya?

Ah! Presentation is King! Make it look nice and glossy and it must be true I see you are applying the same scientific standards as the IPCC.

Do you believe they are doing Satellite Altimetry analysis in 'Kabula's Fish Pond in Kenya? Is that an educated guess taken from the term 'sea level changes'?

Perhaps you would do better to ignore the scruffy graphs and just focus on Professor Nils-Axel Mörner's comments, then perhaps do a little more digging under his name.

[RickBradford]

just focus on Professor Nils-Axel Mörner's comments, then perhaps do a little more digging under his name.

It's not just Mörner -- among hundreds of research papers there is a very thorough analysis: Houston & Dean (2011) : Sea-Level Acceleration Based on U.S. Tide Gauges and Extensions of Previous Global-Gauge Analyses, which looked at unadjusted data from dozens of tide-gauges and concludes:

Our analyses do not indicate acceleration in sea level in U.S.tide gauge records during the 20th century. Instead, for each time period we consider, the records show small decelerations that are consistent with a number of earlier studies of worldwide-gauge records

Howard Brady and Phil Watson in Australia found similar results.

The data points one way, the climate models the other.

Guess which one the media, activists, NGOs and politicians believe?

[maidu]

The graph in post #63 appears to show a 30+ cm rise in sea levels from mid-19th century to start of 21st century (roughly 150 years). Mid-19th century is when the industrial revolution got going, so that fits with man-made CO2 being a factor in GW/rising seas. There are probably statistics somewhere which gauge how many millions of tons of CO2 have been emitted since the dawn of the industrial revolution, and it wouldn't surprise me if it coincided with the approx. third of a meter rise in mean sea levels. The graphs shown by the BW deniers don't show data past 2003, yet some interesting things have happened since then, not least the 3 meter storm surge of the recent big storm which smashed NJ and flooded NY City (claimed to be biggest in a century). Watch out Mumbai, Bangkok, Shanghai, Miami, New Orleans, Dakha, and dozens of other giant cities which lie tens of cm above sea level. Things will be bad enough with regular seasonal cycles, but when a major storm surge gets going, head for the hills. Unfortunately, for at least half the cities in danger zones, there are no 'hills' nearby.

[Humbugged]

Thailand has some boats lined up offshore to keep the rising sea levels back.

[RickBradford]

The graph in post #63 appears to show a 30+ cm rise in sea levels from mid-19th century to start of 21st century (roughly 150 years). Mid-19th century is when the industrial revolution got going, so that fits with man-made CO2 being a factor in GW/rising seas.

I don't think so. During the time that CO2 emissions have increased most rapidly (the last 30 years), the sea level rise has slowed and in many cases stopped.

The climate modellers all expected sea levels to accelerate their rise with accelerating CO2; in fact,the exact opposite has happened.

(I apologise for the low quality of the graphic -- Professor Mörner is first and foremost an empirical scientist, not somebody creating fancy graphics on his Xbox or PlayStation).

As I noted before, the models point one way; the actual data in the opposite direction.

The problem with consensus climate 'science' is that the models carry more weight than real-life observations.

[maidu]

Aparently, there are a lot of sea level graphs online. It appears the GW deniers have found one or two which partially back what they prefer to believe. Most graphs, however, reflect similar data which supports sea levels rising dramatically, and fits with the OP of this thread.

Here are two:

note, the red line is from actual measurements of sea levels. The other colors are projections, which I know GW deniers don't like (unless they coincide with their views). So deniers, please don't look at the green, and just note the red line.

Note, I didn't cherry pick to try and find a couple graphs which happen to fit what I and a majority of weather experts agree upon. I just googled 'graph, sea levels' and lifted the first two graphs that I found.

[Potosi]

None of the great extinction events of the deep past compares to what is going on right now.

I think you're being rather melodramatic.

The Permian–Triassic extinction event, informally known as the Great Dying, was an extinction event that occurred 252 million years ago. It is the Earth's most severe known extinction event, with up to 96% of all marine species and 70% of terrestrial vertebrate species becoming extinct. It is the only known mass extinction of insects. Some 57% of all families and 83% of all genera became extinct.

(Wikipedia)

Yes, the most severe event so far. And now understand that we are going to beat this, and in less than 1 century. The Permian extinction unfolded over a million of years. At the current rate, 50 billion people will be on earth by the year 2100. Not a single natural species left except perhaps in the deep sea. Not a single forrest left. Every square foot will be populated by us and a few domesticated species of animals and plants. The insanity can't be reversed, economic growth and plundering the planet for non renewable resources that are turned to waste will remain the highest objectives.

[GentlemanJim]

None of the great extinction events of the deep past compares to what is going on right now.

I think you're being rather melodramatic.

The Permian–Triassic extinction event, informally known as the Great Dying, was an extinction event that occurred 252 million years ago. It is the Earth's most severe known extinction event, with up to 96% of all marine species and 70% of terrestrial vertebrate species becoming extinct. It is the only known mass extinction of insects. Some 57% of all families and 83% of all genera became extinct.

(Wikipedia)

Yes, the most severe event so far. And now understand that we are going to beat this, and in less than 1 century. The Permian extinction unfolded over a million of years. At the current rate, 50 billion people will be on earth by the year 2100. Not a single natural species left except perhaps in the deep sea. Not a single forrest left. Every square foot will be populated by us and a few domesticated species of animals and plants. The insanity can't be reversed, economic growth and plundering the planet for non renewable resources that are turned to waste will remain the highest objectives.

Don't worry, the New World Order will not let that happen. They will manufacture a mass genocide event, maybe viral and get the Earths population back to a nice spacious 1 Billion!!

[GentlemanJim]

The graph in post #63 appears to show a 30+ cm rise in sea levels from mid-19th century to start of 21st century (roughly 150 years). Mid-19th century is when the industrial revolution got going, so that fits with man-made CO2 being a factor in GW/rising seas. There are probably statistics somewhere which gauge how many millions of tons of CO2 have been emitted since the dawn of the industrial revolution, and it wouldn't surprise me if it coincided with the approx. third of a meter rise in mean sea levels. The graphs shown by the BW deniers don't show data past 2003, yet some interesting things have happened since then, not least the 3 meter storm surge of the recent big storm which smashed NJ and flooded NY City (claimed to be biggest in a century). Watch out Mumbai, Bangkok, Shanghai, Miami, New Orleans, Dakha, and dozens of other giant cities which lie tens of cm above sea level. Things will be bad enough with regular seasonal cycles, but when a major storm surge gets going, head for the hills. Unfortunately, for at least half the cities in danger zones, there are no 'hills' nearby.

Aparently, there are a lot of sea level graphs online. It appears the GW deniers have found one or two which partially back what they prefer to believe. Most graphs, however, reflect similar data which supports sea levels rising dramatically, and fits with the OP of this thread.

Here are two:

note, the red line is from actual measurements of sea levels. The other colors are projections, which I know GW deniers don't like (unless they coincide with their views). So deniers, please don't look at the green, and just note the red line.

Note, I didn't cherry pick to try and find a couple graphs which happen to fit what I and a majority of weather experts agree upon. I just googled 'graph, sea levels' and lifted the first two graphs that I found.

I love your frequent use of the term GW deniers!! How funny! I think you will find that most thinking people do not deny the possibility of GW, but deny that it is man made. Man made global warming is an assumption that is absurd. No matter what we have done since the day man first learned to light a fire, Carbon Dioxide is STILL a trace gas in our atmosphere. Do you know what that means? Tidal surges are as much a measure of rising sea levels as a met station located on the side of a volcanic mountain is an indicator of increasing Global CO2 content (yep, check that little beauty out!).

Solar influences, combined with Lunar influences and interplanetary alignments have been responsible for massive tidal surges. The graph with the little red line raises some serious questions doesn't it? Have you actually looked closely at that little red line? Can you explain its characteristics and how the measurements were taken that the amazing green line projections are based on?

When will people wake up and see what is happening? Global warming may well happen but there is nothing that we can do to prevent it. Maybe we will now start to see how very small we actually are. We should be adapting, moving population centers away from the coast, designing coping mechanisms, no amount of cessation of flying, shipping or preventing cows from flatulating will have any effect. Al Gore knows that there is only one thing that can be done....scare people like you with garbage data and then terrorise people into paying trillions of dollars in carbon taxes. It is the biggest con since St Paul sat and wrote a book about JC. There are scientists, selling their souls and spouting off the mass lie, because you know, scientists like Ferrari's and 10 bedroom houses as well as the rest of us. Wake up! It is a planetary cycle, we are just here at an interesting blink in its geological life and we have as much chance of stopping it, as we would have of stopping the sun become a red giant.

I would also suggest you stop 'grabbing' graphs from google, when you dont take the time to really analyze what they mean, it is embarrassing.

[Thaddeus]

Simple request..... an addition to the like this button, any chance of a love this button?

[RickBradford]

At the current rate, 50 billion people will be on earth by the year 2100.

I'm sorry, but that is complete nonsense.

The UN predicts between 6 and 16 billion, with the best estimate at 10 billion.

If you start out with data that's wrong by a factor of 5. your conclusions simply aren't worth looking at.

You're not a climate scientist, by any chance, are you?

[maidu]

CO2 could possibly be described as a 'trace gas' but regardless of what you choose to call it, it is a contributing factor to 'the greenhouse effect.' and yes, there are other gases that contribute more to that effect, per volume, than CO2. Main contender: methane, large volumes of which are tied up in permafrost and under the sea, among other places. Already, methane is being emitted in ever larger amounts from those sources. The more the seas and permafrost warm, the more methane release gets accellerated, and the more it will affect the atmosphere, and therefore increasing warming of the planet's surface. Even deniers admit the planet is warming, (maybe even that it's warming much faster than it would due to natural causes, as most climate scientists believe, from observations and data). To what degree the accelerated warming is due to human activity is debatable.

Do deniers agree on these two points? .....that when ice cover depletes at the poles, that exposed water absorbs more of the sun's heat (ice reflects sun's rays), therefore accelerating warming. And that warming sea water expands. Both those dynamics are accelerating as we speak.

[Scott]

Posts which spend more time criticizing the poster than they do making a point about the topic are being deleted.

Please stay on the topic and the topic doesn't include your opinion about other posters.

[GentlemanJim]

CO2 could possibly be described as a 'trace gas' but regardless of what you choose to call it, it is a contributing factor to 'the greenhouse effect.' and yes, there are other gases that contribute more to that effect, per volume, than CO2. Main contender: methane, large volumes of which are tied up in permafrost and under the sea, among other places. Already, methane is being emitted in ever larger amounts from those sources. The more the seas and permafrost warm, the more methane release gets accellerated, and the more it will affect the atmosphere, and therefore increasing warming of the planet's surface. Even deniers admit the planet is warming, (maybe even that it's warming much faster than it would due to natural causes, as most climate scientists believe, from observations and data). To what degree the accelerated warming is due to human activity is debatable.

Do deniers agree on these two points? .....that when ice cover depletes at the poles, that exposed water absorbs more of the sun's heat (ice reflects sun's rays), therefore accelerating warming. And that warming sea water expands. Both those dynamics are accelerating as we speak.

So what is your best guess of what is happening at the poles in terms of ice content? What do you believe to be the accurate percentage drop or rise of Ice at the Northern Cap and at the Southern Cap? Are you sure about that warming sea water expanding? The melting of ice caps in particular the Northern one is the preliminary trigger action for the onset of a new ice age, so GW won't become much of an issue.......It's a cycle.

[maidu]

CO2 could possibly be described as a 'trace gas' but regardless of what you choose to call it, it is a contributing factor to 'the greenhouse effect.' and yes, there are other gases that contribute more to that effect, per volume, than CO2. Main contender: methane, large volumes of which are tied up in permafrost and under the sea, among other places. Already, methane is being emitted in ever larger amounts from those sources. The more the seas and permafrost warm, the more methane release gets accellerated, and the more it will affect the atmosphere, and therefore increasing warming of the planet's surface. Even deniers admit the planet is warming, (maybe even that it's warming much faster than it would due to natural causes, as most climate scientists believe, from observations and data). To what degree the accelerated warming is due to human activity is debatable.

Do deniers agree on these two points? .....that when ice cover depletes at the poles, that exposed water absorbs more of the sun's heat (ice reflects sun's rays), therefore accelerating warming. And that warming sea water expands. Both those dynamics are accelerating as we speak.

So what is your best guess of what is happening at the poles in terms of ice content? What do you believe to be the accurate percentage drop or rise of Ice at the Northern Cap and at the Southern Cap? Are you sure about that warming sea water expanding? The melting of ice caps in particular the Northern one is the preliminary trigger action for the onset of a new ice age, so GW won't become much of an issue.......It's a cycle.

I'm not a research scientists, but I do read and observe many commentaries on that topic. At the North Pole, ice cover is receding at a fast clip. I don't think there's much contention about that. Greenland has lakes appearing where there weren't lakes historically. Nearly all glaciers worldwide are receding dramatically, and not recovering to their earlier sizes (Nat's Geographic showed studies of 19 out of 20 major glaciers studied, receding dramatically). Antarctica is calving giant icebergs at accelerating rates, at least one as big as Manhatten. Sure it's cyclical. We're in a fast warming trend right now. Look in your crystal ball and you might see a dramatic cooling trend in 9,000 to 24,000 years (?). But the big news item is what's going on now and the next 50 years.

[maidu]

for a local tilt on this debate: I've resided in northernmost Thailand for 14 years. I'm outdoors nearly all day every day, and plant trees, clear weeds, etc. In the past two years, there's been a profusion, almost an attack of primrose weed. Earlier it was rare, now it's everywhere. I think it's a warmer region plant, but can't be sure. Also, it may be just this this one year, but many plants (and insects and frogs) are acting like it's spring, even though it's December. Ordinarily, this region gets 1 to 15 degree nights for Dec. and Jan. 12 years ago, two men died of cold one night, at the local prison. Now you could sleep outdoors with just a blanket. Just observations. I'm not saying these things prove anything about climate.

[RickBradford]

I don't want to labour the point, but I'll state it one final time for clarity.

If you look at sea-level graphs from bureaucracies (CSIRO, for example), NGOs (Greenpeace), or activists (Skeptical Science), you will always find the same relentless rise.

This is not surprising, since they all use the same data, which is packaged up for them like a microwave dinner from 7-Eleven. (Additionally, the data is not displeasing to them, or they wouldn't publish it, under the Iron Law of Bureaucracy: "The only function of a bureaucracy is to increase the power and influence of the bureaucracy.")

These organisations don't measure anything; CSIRO doesn't hang round Fremantle or Sydney harbour looking at tide gauges.

If you examine the work of people who have actually taken the trouble to measure sea levels, Professor Mörner (who has been doing this for 40 years), Phil Watson and Howard Brady in Australia, Wilco Hazeleger from the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute, Houston and Dean in the US, and many others, you will find some differences of opinion among them, but a general agreement that sea-level rise is not as bad as the bureaucrats say, is decelerating, and does not pose a threat in the foreseeable future.

[Potosi]

At the current rate, 50 billion people will be on earth by the year 2100.

I'm sorry, but that is complete nonsense.

The UN predicts between 6 and 16 billion, with the best estimate at 10 billion.

If you start out with data that's wrong by a factor of 5. your conclusions simply aren't worth looking at.

You're not a climate scientist, by any chance, are you?

During the 20th century, the population grew from 1.6 to 6 billion, despite wars and epidemics wiping out hundreds of millions of people. We added another billion in the last decade. Doesn't look like a world war is around the corner, and epidemics are unlikely to happen again, unlike 100 years ago, we know what to do about it. The life expectancy in the first world is increasing by 3 months every year, faster in the developing countries. All people want more of the blessings of modern civilization, understandable, legitimate. A few countries have low birthrates, yet there are those weird folks who call this sensible developement 'demographic suicide', and 'Muslim takeover'. All the wrong ideologies which encourage population growth are winning in strength. Right-wing economics that prohibit income-driven growth, and produce more poverty. Religious fundamentalism amongst Muslims, Christians, and Hindus. Ok, if we continue to add 1 billion every ten years, there would be 16 billion by 2100, not 50.

[Humbugged]

At the current rate, 50 billion people will be on earth by the year 2100.

I'm sorry, but that is complete nonsense.

The UN predicts between 6 and 16 billion, with the best estimate at 10 billion.

If you start out with data that's wrong by a factor of 5. your conclusions simply aren't worth looking at.

You're not a climate scientist, by any chance, are you?

During the 20th century, the population grew from 1.6 to 6 billion, despite wars and epidemics wiping out hundreds of millions of people. We added another billion in the last decade. Doesn't look like a world war is around the corner, and epidemics are unlikely to happen again, unlike 100 years ago, we know what to do about it. The life expectancy in the first world is increasing by 3 months every year, faster in the developing countries. All people want more of the blessings of modern civilization, understandable, legitimate. A few countries have low birthrates, yet there are those weird folks who call this sensible developement 'demographic suicide', and 'Muslim takeover'. All the wrong ideologies which encourage population growth are winning in strength. Right-wing economics that prohibit income-driven growth, and produce more poverty. Religious fundamentalism amongst Muslims, Christians, and Hindus. Ok, if we continue to add 1 billion every ten years, there would be 16 billion by 2100, not 50.

You forgot to add those extra billion people breeding like rabbits also...

[maidu]

I wonder if there could ever be any data which would change the opinions of some of the deniers on this thread. In other words, are they so fixated on denying the effects of human-influenced GW and rising sea levels - that no data whatsoever, no matter what source, would sway them to come around and see it as a happening occurance?

Let me venture a guess, that some of the dyed-in-the-wool deniers work directly or indirectly with Big Oil or the petrochemical biz or have some vested interest in them.

a plethora of images and graphs

[maidu]

Since 1992 satellite precision measurements have been in effect worldwide. The instruments are so sensitive, they can detect whether the on-the-ground monitoring equipment is subsiding by a fraction of a mm. The projections by climate scientists, judging from pre-satellite measurements, was 1.8 mm per year for the 20th century - and that was thought by many to continue. However, much more accurate satellite measurements have shown a jump to 3.4 mm per year, and that was from a report put out in Jan. 2008. Now, we're nearly 5 years later and ocean level measurements are increasing at an even higher rate - which reflects the OP which started this thread 2 weeks ago (".....60% faster than projected.....").

tidbits above paraphrased from BBC article, Jan. '08

Still, there is no data which will sway the fixated deniers, but I bet they won't be investing in any seaside cottages any time soon.

[RickBradford]

I wonder if there could ever be any data which would change the opinions of some of the alarmists on this thread. In other words, are they so fixated on exaggerating the effects of human-influenced GW and rising sea levels - that no data whatsoever, no matter what source, would sway them to come around and see it as a non-happening occurrence?

Let me venture a guess, that some of the dyed-in-the-wool alarmists work directly or indirectly with Big Green or the renewables biz or have some vested interest in them.

(No dull plethora of images and graphs.)

[RickBradford]

I bet they won't be investing in any seaside cottages any time soon.

You'll win your bet..

Ocean-front property is expensive -- only the likes of Al Gore can afford it. (Or Tim Flannery - he's at sea level, beautiful location, tidal, yes, but not strictly ocean.

Big Green pays well.

[maidu]

I'm not affiliated with 'Big Green' (I don't even know what that is) or the 'renewables biz' unless putting up passive solar hw heaters qualifies. I could be swayed to believe the Earth is not warming, or sea levels not rising dramatically, or that human-made pollution does not cause a greenhouse effect and therefore doesn't contribute to GW - if the data showed that. However, all the credible data I've seen, and an ovewhelming majority of scientists point to those aforementioned items as being real. It's not only researchers which I agree with, but regular folks who make comments/videos of their travels or where they reside. Particularly in polar regions or near glaciers, where they report glaciers receding dramatically, permafrost unfreezing much earlier than in past years, normally iced-over water now ice-free, or thawing much earlier than prior years, ....the list could go on. I tend to side with the people who are observing such things first-hand, and who have no reason to lie about the warming trends they're observing.

[RickBradford]

I tend to side with the people who are observing such things first-hand, and who have no reason to lie about the warming trends they're observing.

So do I -- that's exactly why I suggested siding with the people who are observing sea levels first-hand, such as Professor Mörner (who has been doing that almost non-stop for 40 years), and who have no reason to lie about the trends they're observing, unlike the rent-seeking members of activist organisations such as Greenpeace or self-serving bureaucracies like the CSIRO.

If you really believe in first-hand observation and genuine data, then you will listen to Mörner, not Skeptical Science.

[Potosi]

I'm not affiliated with 'Big Green' (I don't even know what that is) or the 'renewables biz'...

'Big Green' and 'renewables biz' could be inventions of their propaganda department to counter 'Big Oil', 'big business' and the like. RickBradford is certainly no big fish in this business, if at all he owns a couple of shares of an oil multi, the really wealthy are not interested in Thailand and its forums. He simply preaches the gospel of educational sources such as Foxnews, and really believes it to be right. Their view of the economy and what it does to the environment is dishonest troughout. They are against any subsidies, in particular for renewable energies, but conveniently forget that subsidies for fossil fuel are six times higher than for renewables. They are against big government, but pro oil. Quote Dick Cheney: "Oil remains fundamentally a government business". They loathe Arabs, but finance the most repressive regimes in the Middle East and their terrorists by purchasing their oil, and want to continue to do so for many more decades.

They claim to be pro-free market, free enterprise, and favourable of seizing opportunities and new technologies to turn into wealth, and to create new jobs along the way, but do the exact opposite here.

I don't think the sea level will rise substantially soon, because it doesn't matter on Antartica if the temperatures rise by a few degrees, it remains solidly frozen. Not sure if GW is a bad thing alltogether, huge areas in the Northern Hemisphere that are too cold now to sustain much vegetation, wildlife, and humans, will become more fertile. After we run out of fossil fues, and oil is gone in less than 50 years, CO2 in the atmosphere will drop again if we manage to preserve vegetation. So deforestation is a bigger problem, I think. And pollution horrifies me, how ruthlessly we turn everything in a dump. In Thailand, I have a view from the front row.

[GentlemanJim]

How come shipping, which produces a minimum of 5 and a maximum of 20 times more 'greenhouse gases' than all the worlds aviation was not subject to protests and GW/CO2 taxation. Big industry and big oil uses shipping! Passengers who are mostly gullible use aircraft, who you gonna tax? Well you cant scare big industry as they know the real situation, so scare the passenger and then tax them. Michael Ryan of Ryan Air fame flat out refused to levy carbon taxes against his passengers calling the entire thing a hoax. CO2 is a TRACE gas. We are having NO effect.

If you want to do something useful then by all means save the planet and clean up our mess. Plastics, oil spills (the spills in the Amazon make the Mexican gulf look like a puddle - read up on those and ask why Chevron/Exon didn't give two hoots about cleaning up.), clean up our disposal of needles and the 10 supertankers you could fill with diapers every year. Plastic bags, and how about chemical leaks caused by our illogical fascination with Gold. Contamination of water supplies and water tables. There is LOTS to do, but you know what....there is NO money in it! No money for research, no money from taxation......they effectively try and tax every single dollar that is earned, and then tax you on the dollars you have already paid tax on. Have you actually thought about the whole concept.........they are scaring you about a gas, a tiny tiny percentage of the Earths atmosphere that is a by-product of how we breath! It's ludicrous, and anyone with an inner desire to hold hands and sing 'kumbai ya', suddenly has a meaning to aim for in life.......stop the CO2.

If these people who instigated this were not so serious it would be funny. Imagine that the Earths atmosphere can be represented by a full pint of beer (makes it very easy for pub talk, and for the pedants, thats a full pint, no head!), then the entire CO2 in the atmosphere would be but a single drop in that pint. Now as it is hard to look at a drop of beer, lets scale that drop up to a another pint. The entire contribution of all the worlds aviation related CO2 each year would be a teaspoon of beer out of that pint, that's the pint that represents the drop that came from the original pint. So why the tax on the safest, most convenient form of travel that the world has? because it is a golden egg, 20 million flights a year! The carbon tax system is doing nothing to prevent GW!! A first world country simply pays a tax and says it is offsetting its carbon emissions against say some country in Africa, that doesn't have much. Then the first world country carries on as normal, what is saved...nothing, apart from now, the first world countries deny the third world countries access to cheap fossil fuel power technology/stations because if the third world countries produce more CO2 then the first world countries will actually have to make REAL cuts or be in breach of the Kyoto agreement. A congressman actually suggested that Africans on the outskirts of cities should get solar panels for their needs!!!! A solar panel costing 5 times more than their house did! We are doing nothing at all to reduce CO2 emissions, all that is happening is that the high net worth individuals have created a MASSIVE market to generate trillions of dollars in taxes from citizens in every corner of the globe. If air travel is causing the downfall of our planet then why not ban it completely? Because there is no money in that! So air travel carries on as normal completely unabated, growing every year upon year, but now we squeeze extra money from passengers for absolutely NO VALID reason. What do we find compelling about that? that they promise to plant forests with an area the size of Texas every year, whilst illegal logging gets rid of areas of forest 5 times the size of texas every year? Just where are those 50 billion of taxes on flights going every year? who collects all that lolly, wouldn't you like to know?

So how do we get to the issue of a warming globe. Hang on to your hat and if you don't get it, then find out more. A close member of family is a research scientist in the whole area and I do trust him with my life. Almost all of the worlds global heating system is run by two things...the Sun and a conveyor belt of an oceanic nature that acts as the 'fan' to disperse warm air around the globe and trigger various weather mechanisms. It is all cyclic and the beginning was chicken and egg in terms of what came first. AT the North pole, when water freezes, the salt, of course does not freeze with the water and drifts down...millions/billions of tonnes of the stuff in a constant downward force. It hits the ocean bed, goes east along Greenland hits the East coast of USA, turns South and goes down and around the Atlantic, deep into the Indian Ocean and then back up the middle of the Atlantic. A similar phenomena takes place in the South and the Pacific. That conveyer belt of highly dense salt water has often been encountered by submariners, who now know about it. The conveyer belt is deep in the Atlantic near the US, but is forced up in the Indian ocean and the return part of the Atlantic, and it pushes warm/near surface water heated by the sun. This causes warm air currents. These currents eventually heat up the planet, so that the ice melts. When the ice melts, the downward force of the conveyer belt (the salt) also stops. This stops the warm air currents being pushed around the globe, this causes cooling, the cooling causes ice to form, the ice caps build up and the conveyor belt starts again. If you were to track a single molecule of salt from the start of the conveyer to the end it would take two thousand years for its journey. From the cessation of the conveyor belt it takes thousands of years to get going again and then another couple of thousand to start kicking out warm water currents again, then many thousands of years later there is enough warm air to start melting the ice caps............and so it goes on, and on and on. All of this combined with say an active Sun, volcanic activity etc etc will create a perpetual cycle that our planet will use to cleanse itself every20/30/40 thousand years. It is a beautiful, self cleaning environment, and incredibly poetic in its nature.

We do not have the technology to stop it, but for the first time, man probably has the technology to properly survive it, in a planned fashion, whilst retaining all current technology. If you want to stop the injustices to the planet and our children then lets get involved with truly cleaning up our act, so we can sustain the food cycle...nothing else, because we are destroying it. That is what industry is guilty of since we first harnessed steam power. We are poisoning the world, not heating it! I do not believe world sea levels are rising yet, there is no empirical evidence. I do not believe we are warming yet at the rates claimed. We are warming for sure, but none of it is man made, and when they start (The IPCC) producing data that was not rigged and taken from met stations on the inside of cities or where concrete jungles have grown around them in the last 50 years, or where CO2 monitoring stations are on the side of active volcanoes, and where papers were really peer reviewed and not forged, then I will consider what they have to say. Until then, I am content to rely on those scientists with integrity, who put their professional discipline and reputation before their bank balance and research grants.

I have not quoted any article or provided any links. This is all in my head, first hand so to speak. If you want to know more just google choice words and go for it. the information is all out there. Just stay away from Big Government and Big Corporation. The people telling the truth have solid solid data, and they are the ones with nothing to lose. Big world Governance and Corporation have a lot to lose if we all say, 'shove your carbon credits where the sun doesn't shine!' To all the Scientists who have sold their souls and dishonoured their profession for financial reward, a pox on you all, and for those that have stood their ground for Science and a greater human understanding, I take my hat of to you all!

Edited December 11, 2012 by GentlemanJim