Global warming? No, actually we're cooling, claim scientists

[wilcopops]

A volcanic eruption also puts a huge amount of ash in the upper atmosphere, blocking the sun and may negate the effect of the gases released.

Are you seriously suggesting that those who calculate the probability of CC being manmade have overlooked that????

[wilcopops]

One of the most tedious aspects to the UN's climate reports is their Ladybird book insistence on tying climate change almost exclusively to CO2, and in particular, man-made emissions of CO2.

They try to convey the notion that CO2 is like a thermostat; more CO2 means warmer, less CO2 means colder. Simples.

This leads politicians (John Kerry, in this instance) to say facile things like: "Climate change is real, it’s happening now, human beings are the cause of this transformation, and only action by human beings can save the world from its worst impacts."

See? Stop using those evil fossil fuels, and let's return dear old Gaia to whatever it was before we started.

You'd think that after 20 years and tens of billions of dollars of research, they might have found time to consider other factors.

Luckily, there are other scientists who have taken the trouble to point out that the Earth's climate system is enormously complex and chaotic.

Of course, this doesn't play well with the UN, politicians, NGOs, or the 'progressive' media.

The simple story, demonising industrial CO2, is all they want to hear.

I think you better read up on the science behind the conclusions - it has little or no connection to your summations.

[F430murci]

1 volcanic eruption will put 100x the greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than all the human produced gasses ever combined.

Our effect is trivial compared to natures.

*Inflammatory post edited out*

I know . . . Right!!!

Perhaps a volcanic eruption would be considered a temporary or acute issues compared to a chronic issue that continually gets worse over time.

News had a pretty nasty forecast about 2047 in last day or two here in US. They should a map with various dates and forecasts for different areas. I saw it on local TV, but I am sure one could find it searching the net.

This article discusses it, but does not show those maps . . .

An ounce of prevention . . . may not necessarily be bad thing . . . just to be safe.

-----

Study: Temperatures Go off the Charts Around 2047

Starting in about a decade, Kingston, Jamaica, will probably be off-the-charts hot — permanently. Other places will soon follow. Singapore in 2028. Mexico City in 2031. Cairo in 2036. Phoenix and Honolulu in 2043.

. . .

To arrive at their projections, the researchers used weather observations, computer models and other data to calculate the point at which every year from then on will be warmer than the hottest year ever recorded over the last 150 years.

For example, the world as a whole had its hottest year on record in 2005. The new study, published Wednesday in the journal Nature, says that by the year 2047, every year that follows will probably be hotter than that record-setting scorcher.

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/study-temperatures-off-charts-2047-20519889

[RickBradford]

An ounce of prevention . . . may not necessarily be bad thing . . . just to be safe

Well, that's the whole point, isn't it?

If it really were just "an ounce of prevention", like taking a mouthful of cough syrup, then nobody, not even those 'evil Big Oil-funded deniers' would be creating such a fuss.

It is precisely because the proposed solutions are so fantastically expensive and fundamentally useless -- even if the underlying climate science is correct -- that there is such wide-ranging opposition to them.

Take the Danish environmentalist Bjørn Lomborg. He is a firm believer in the potential dangers of climate change and an expert in economics. He notes that the world's most comprehensive climate action plan, the European Union's 20-20-20 plan, costs about $250 billion annually, mostly in reduced growth. Over the 21st century it will cost about $20 trillion in total. Yet, on a standard climate model, by the end of the century, it reduces the temperature rise by an unnoticeable 0.06°C.

Other scientists and economists have broadly agreed that it is 30-50 times more expensive to try and stop CO2 emissions now than to wait and adapt to whatever climate changes do occur in future.

So it is not "an ounce of prevention" the UN is asking for -- it's several gigatonnes, with a commensurate burden on the people who have to pay for it.

[tartempion]

We are not as important to the planet as some of us would like to think we are, eventually the last species we will wipe out is ourselves, and that is not too far away, in geological terms just a blink away.

I see your point, but there is no denying that we as a species have destroyed plant species, animal species and human civilizations.

Seems we don't want to feel responsible though....

The sooner we wipe out ourselves, the better for the planet

[francescoassisi]

R Bradford - you appear to disagree with Lindzen......

"He agrees that the level of it is rising because of human activity and that this should warm the climate." However, he believes that decreasing tropical cirrus clouds in a warmer world will allow more longwave radiation to escape the atmosphere, counteracting the warming."

[francescoassisi]

R Bradford - you appear to disagree with Lindzen......

"He agrees that the level of it is rising because of human activity and that this should warm the climate." However, he believes that decreasing tropical cirrus clouds in a warmer world will allow more longwave radiation to escape the atmosphere, counteracting the warming."

Again clutching at isolated examples is......trivial?

[Thaddeus]

A volcanic eruption also puts a huge amount of ash in the upper atmosphere, blocking the sun and may negate the effect of the gases released.

Are you seriously suggesting that those who calculate the probability of CC being manmade have overlooked that????

Of course they haven't overlooked it, it just doesn't fit it with their agenda.

[RickBradford]

R Bradford - you appear to disagree with Lindzen......

Can you be more specific?

Lindzen believes that all else being equal, the extra CO2 which man puts into the atmosphere will have a gentle warming effect. So do I.

He believes there are many other factors at play. So do I.

He does not think that this is anything to tear our hair out about. Nor do I.

[FiftyTwo]

The whole problem with global warming is .....

The nutters want to destroy the world's industrial base, the only thing that could possibly save humanity from a really big natural disaster.

[boomerangutang]

The whole problem with global warming is .....

The nutters want to destroy the world's industrial base, the only thing that could possibly save humanity from a really big natural disaster.

Is that a joke statement? The world's industrial base (WID) may do some good, but even that's debatable. WID is driven by bosses' manic desire to make as much money as possible. All else, including environmental concerns, are secondary. If a mountain needs to leveled to extract some metal, then so be it. If a rainforest needs to be razed or an ocean depleted of life forms larger than a bean, then let's do it. Indeed, one of the biggest contributions of WID is the Great Pacific Trash Vortex - comprising a Texas-sized glob of suspended plastic goo.

[bunnydrops]

the reality is that there is no serious evidence poiting in the other direction.

And there is no serious evidence pointing in the direction you favour,

I prefer to take my samples from millions of years, not a few centuries or less.

That's all well and good, but the Industrial revolution and the pouring of green house gasses hasn't been going on for centuries, so that comparison is a little harder.

Well, that's the point, the 'pouring of greenhouse gasses' as you describe it has been going on for millions of years, with no help from this insignificant little ape called 'man;

We are not as important to the planet as some of us would like to think we are, eventually the last species we will wipe out is ourselves, and that is not too far away, in geological terms just a blink away.

Taking the US as an example. About 317 million people. Put them all together with a 1x3 foot area to stand in, you get about 34 sq miles. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Geophysical Data Center reports that 43480 sq miles in the US is covered with roads buildings and other impervious surface areas. That works out to 1280 sq miles for each person. This insignificant ape has really big feet.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/06/040615080052.htm

[bunnydrops]

The whole problem with global warming is .....

The nutters want to destroy the world's industrial base, the only thing that could possibly save humanity from a really big natural disaster.

Kind of like McDonald coming up with a cure for indigestion.

[Gulfsailor]

the reality is that there is no serious evidence poiting in the other direction.

And there is no serious evidence pointing in the direction you favour,

I prefer to take my samples from millions of years, not a few centuries or less.

That's all well and good, but the Industrial revolution and the pouring of green house gasses hasn't been going on for centuries, so that comparison is a little harder.

Well, that's the point, the 'pouring of greenhouse gasses' as you describe it has been going on for millions of years, with no help from this insignificant little ape called 'man;

We are not as important to the planet as some of us would like to think we are, eventually the last species we will wipe out is ourselves, and that is not too far away, in geological terms just a blink away.

Taking the US as an example. About 317 million people. Put them all together with a 1x3 foot area to stand in, you get about 34 sq miles. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Geophysical Data Center reports that 43480 sq miles in the US is covered with roads buildings and other impervious surface areas. That works out to 1280 sq miles for each person. This insignificant ape has really big feet.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/06/040615080052.htm

What are you trying to calculate?? Using your numbers, man's footprint in the US is 43,480 miles2 / 317,000,000 = 424 square yards per person.

[isawasnake]

A more interesting question to me is if you assume climate change and some of its effects, do relatively largely contributing nations like US and China pay any sort of reparations to other countries? I suppose the answer would have to be yes, if the world was a fair place, which it clearly is not of course.

[bunnydrops]

the reality is that there is no serious evidence poiting in the other direction.

And there is no serious evidence pointing in the direction you favour,

I prefer to take my samples from millions of years, not a few centuries or less.

That's all well and good, but the Industrial revolution and the pouring of green house gasses hasn't been going on for centuries, so that comparison is a little harder.

Well, that's the point, the 'pouring of greenhouse gasses' as you describe it has been going on for millions of years, with no help from this insignificant little ape called 'man;

We are not as important to the planet as some of us would like to think we are, eventually the last species we will wipe out is ourselves, and that is not too far away, in geological terms just a blink away.

Taking the US as an example. About 317 million people. Put them all together with a 1x3 foot area to stand in, you get about 34 sq miles. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Geophysical Data Center reports that 43480 sq miles in the US is covered with roads buildings and other impervious surface areas. That works out to 1280 sq miles for each person. This insignificant ape has really big feet.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/06/040615080052.htm

What are you trying to calculate?? Using your numbers, man's footprint in the US is 43,480 miles2 / 317,000,000 = 424 square yards per person.

I stand corrected.

[F430murci]

An ounce of prevention . . . may not necessarily be bad thing . . . just to be safe

Well, that's the whole point, isn't it?

If it really were just "an ounce of prevention", like taking a mouthful of cough syrup, then nobody, not even those 'evil Big Oil-funded deniers' would be creating such a fuss.

It is precisely because the proposed solutions are so fantastically expensive and fundamentally useless -- even if the underlying climate science is correct -- that there is such wide-ranging opposition to them.

Take the Danish environmentalist Bjørn Lomborg. He is a firm believer in the potential dangers of climate change and an expert in economics. He notes that the world's most comprehensive climate action plan, the European Union's 20-20-20 plan, costs about $250 billion annually, mostly in reduced growth. Over the 21st century it will cost about $20 trillion in total. Yet, on a standard climate model, by the end of the century, it reduces the temperature rise by an unnoticeable 0.06°C.

Other scientists and economists have broadly agreed that it is 30-50 times more expensive to try and stop CO2 emissions now than to wait and adapt to whatever climate changes do occur in future.

So it is not "an ounce of prevention" the UN is asking for -- it's several gigatonnes, with a commensurate burden on the people who have to pay for it.

Haha, dude you are obsessed. Chill pill may be in order.

[wolf5370]

Some people seem to think that proponents of climate change theory are unaware of previous cycles of change on the planet. This is obviously a ridiculous assumption. What these posters seem unaware of and the researchers bare very aware of is that the current changes are significantly different enough from any previous events to warrant a different interpretation.....I.e. That they are man made.

Which I mentioned in post #141 - the cycles are well known - the Earth has survived being cooler and warmer - the issue is that it is not in synch with where the cycles should be at this point in time. I heard this at the National Science Museum in Kensington, London by a climate research scientist (it was a talk broadcast on BBC Radio live) - He was asked questions about sheep farts and so on, but I asked about the cycles of heating and cooling and he explained very well how the cycles are out of synch. It changed my mind (I had originally been a sceptic because I had read up on it and decided it was probably part of the normal cooling/heating cycle until he showed me this was just a trick - and further reading confirmed this to me).

[wolf5370]

The whole problem with global warming is .....

The nutters want to destroy the world's industrial base, the only thing that could possibly save humanity from a really big natural disaster.

Is that a joke statement? The world's industrial base (WID) may do some good, but even that's debatable. WID is driven by bosses' manic desire to make as much money as possible. All else, including environmental concerns, are secondary. If a mountain needs to leveled to extract some metal, then so be it. If a rainforest needs to be razed or an ocean depleted of life forms larger than a bean, then let's do it. Indeed, one of the biggest contributions of WID is the Great Pacific Trash Vortex - comprising a Texas-sized glob of suspended plastic goo.

Erm if you are talking about the so-called carrier bag island in mid-Atlantic (sometimes Pacific) - it's an urban legend - a myth - sea water breaks plastics up very quickly as does sun light; plastic bags at sea dissolve to macro-metre size within a week or so usually, so no way they could get to congregate - and the action of the oceans disseminates the small particles thoroughly - it is not like an oil slick.

The Earth will survive pretty much anything we, or nature, does to it (even E.L.E.s have happened in the past - one created the moon, another likely wiped out the dinosaurs and a third wiped out 98% of the world's species) - what may not survive is us a species (unlikely however) and civilizations (much more likely - at least generally). An ecosystem as large and involved as Earth's can be unbalanced quite severely; this causes something to benefit and something to not - and an explosion/extinction causes a swing and eventually back to equilibrium- this happened with Cyano-Bacteria (producing the Oxygen we all now need to breathe), which caused "Snowball Earth" (and the extinction of Cyano-Bacteria and other obligate anaerobic entities) - and so on (we would not be here if the dinosaurs had not been made extinct BTW). Poles melt as it gets too warm, this cools the trans-oceanic currents, and causes another freezing - and around the wheel goes again.

The question really is, do we really want to live in such a world where the water levels reduce land mass by half, the saline/fresh water ratio is increased such that most still fresh water is spoiled, drought is common place, desserts expand in some areas just as ice fields and swamps expand in others (further reducing arable land) and weather patterns cause mass migration of fauna and humans (and thus wars), flora dies off due to loss of insect activity/change of soil PH/environment change/incorrect water/nitrogen levels/etc, sickness and disease increase exponentially especially in the more affected areas (such as Africa and South Asia) due to much of the above and pollution/increase in UV, and so on...it is not desirable, it is not so very close either - not in our lifetimes - but perhaps in our great grandchildren's.

[francescoassisi]

The whole problem with global warming is .....

The nutters want to destroy the world's industrial base, the only thing that could possibly save humanity from a really big natural disaster.

Is that a joke statement? The world's industrial base (WID) may do some good, but even that's debatable. WID is driven by bosses' manic desire to make as much money as possible. All else, including environmental concerns, are secondary. If a mountain needs to leveled to extract some metal, then so be it. If a rainforest needs to be razed or an ocean depleted of life forms larger than a bean, then let's do it. Indeed, one of the biggest contributions of WID is the Great Pacific Trash Vortex - comprising a Texas-sized glob of suspended plastic goo.

Erm if you are talking about the so-called carrier bag island in mid-Atlantic (sometimes Pacific) - it's an urban legend - a myth - sea water breaks plastics up very quickly as does sun light; plastic bags at sea dissolve to macro-metre size within a week or so usually, so no way they could get to congregate - and the action of the oceans disseminates the small particles thoroughly - it is not like an oil slick.

The Earth will survive pretty much anything we, or nature, does to it (even E.L.E.s have happened in the past - one created the moon, another likely wiped out the dinosaurs and a third wiped out 98% of the world's species) - what may not survive is us a species (unlikely however) and civilizations (much more likely - at least generally). An ecosystem as large and involved as Earth's can be unbalanced quite severely; this causes something to benefit and something to not - and an explosion/extinction causes a swing and eventually back to equilibrium- this happened with Cyano-Bacteria (producing the Oxygen we all now need to breathe), which caused "Snowball Earth" (and the extinction of Cyano-Bacteria and other obligate anaerobic entities) - and so on (we would not be here if the dinosaurs had not been made extinct BTW). Poles melt as it gets too warm, this cools the trans-oceanic currents, and causes another freezing - and around the wheel goes again.

The question really is, do we really want to live in such a world where the water levels reduce land mass by half, the saline/fresh water ratio is increased such that most still fresh water is spoiled, drought is common place, desserts expand in some areas just as ice fields and swamps expand in others (further reducing arable land) and weather patterns cause mass migration of fauna and humans (and thus wars), flora dies off due to loss of insect activity/change of soil PH/environment change/incorrect water/nitrogen levels/etc, sickness and disease increase exponentially especially in the more affected areas (such as Africa and South Asia) due to much of the above and pollution/increase in UV, and so on...it is not desirable, it is not so very close either - not in our lifetimes - but perhaps in our great grandchildren's.

I hope that you will do a little more research on plastics in the sea and then you'll realise that your statements above are completely incorrect.

[francescoassisi]

As for the "myth" of carrier bag islands whilst not entirely correct there are concentrations on plastic debris in all the oceans..... The woorying thing is that it has just been shown that they are probably interconnected.
They are all so large floating islands of flip flops!
Plastics are virtually inert and even those that disintegrate remain in a small granular form but slowly release chemicals; from there they enter the food chain and through this become increasingly concentrated as they work their way up.

Quite apart from this the damage caused by polythene bags and other plastics that don't disintegrate is well documented. Also if you care to check out the Canadian deep sea observation web site you will see that plastic detritus can also be found on the deepest ocean seabeds.

[francescoassisi]

Some of those arguing against Cc seem to have huge gaps in their basic understanding of the issues, they also don't seem to realise that this is not a new idea and all aspects of this theory have been scrutinised again and again for half a century. This is not done by a small singular group of scientists in any one country or political system, it is a worldwide consensus throughout all scientific fields. The concept of global warming is now considered to have 95% surety.

Those arguing against often liken themselves to scientists in the past whose new theories shook the world science communities. Firstly they've missed the boat - it was the first proponents if CC who did this 50 years ago. They are in fact arguing the old position from over 50 years ago that has been disproved time and again by the accumulation of worldwide evidence.

To suggest a political motive behind this is also to ignore the facts - whilst their may be synical government acquiescence to the concept this is a recent development. The intitial concept of climate change was considered too radical by most, but like Galileo and co in the post they continue to put forward the science and one by one the counter arguments prove to be fallacious.

PS - Sorry for any spelling mistakes etc., due to word completion function on my device.

[boomerangutang]

A more interesting question to me is if you assume climate change and some of its effects, do relatively largely contributing nations like US and China pay any sort of reparations to other countries? I suppose the answer would have to be yes, if the world was a fair place, which it clearly is not of course.

Nations are run by people, and people are selfish, irresponsible and fallible. taking responsibility for actions is a very rare characteristic of our species. If you've ever been a landlord, or had a daughter knocked up by date-rape, you know what I mean. Did Iraq pay for the environmental damage, when their leader torched all the oil wells in Kuwait? Cleaning up the planet won't rely as much upon big-economy countries (or corporations) paying big money to poor countries, as it will rely upon individuals (world citizens, if you will) doing their little parts - which could add up to a significant amount of improvement.

Cynics (particularly elderly, beer guzzling types) will say 'How ridiculous to think that anything anyone does can help clean up the planet.' 2 of many examples of how individuals can effect environmental changes:

>>>> The first American to summit Everest saw a lake near his home in Washington state was polluted. He put posters out for a series 'clean-up days.' Many local residents showed up to do what they could. Some even donned scuba gear to go underwater to pick out old beer cans and plastic bags. Boomerangutang adds: Wouldn't it be cool if Thais (and farang) would employ the same spirit to clean up Thailand's coasts?!?

>>>> In my former town in northern California, a French company was about to be hired to drill two long tunnels in a beautiful river canyon - to divert water for electric generation. Locals formed a group (CYRCL) to stop the desecration, and were successful.

>>>> Arcada California: Rather than dealing with effluent in the standard manner, with sending all sewage underground, the city council chose to take the radical step of creating a lagoon with it (after it went thru some non-chemical filtering process). It proved so successful, that it's now a city park, and flocks migrating birds come and go. Boomerangutang adds: speaking of migrating flocks of birds, has anyone seen any in Asia in the past 30 years? As soon as any flock of birds showed up, hunters would be joyfully killing them. It's even worse in the eastern Mediterranean region, but maybe that's because they still have some migrating birds. In contrast, there are places in western US suburbia where large flocks of geese can be seen grazing peacefully. Couldn't happen in populated parts elsewhere, except maybe northern Europe.

[FDog]

800 scientists under the UN considered 9000 studies on climate change and determined there is a 95% certainty that man has been the dominant cause of unprecedent global warming since 1950.

Now let me think, shall I believe those scientists or some of the flat earth society on this forum.

That is a rhetorical question of course so no need for the flat earthers to start crying about it, again.

[boomerangutang]

I don't know about 'carrier bag islands.' Is that a canard?

However, I do know something about the Great Pacific Trash Vortex. It's billions of tons of plastic particulates and goo suspended in the northern Pacific. The lion's share of that crap comes from Asia - China in particular. And its size increases every day. Imagine if you had a large aquarium with all sorts of fishes, birds, marine mammals. A fifth of it was commandeered by a partially dissipating blob of plastic goo seasoned with tiny plastic particulates. Plastic doesn't bio-degrade to its base elements. Most of it is forever - and there's no way to clean it up. Your aquarium fauna wouldn't fare well, would it. Note: the tiny red plastic particulates are particularly attractive to marine fauna, much of which are at the base of the food chain. So, if you eat any fish from the Pacific, chances are you're ingesting some plastic and its accompanying chemical soup. Umm yum.

[bunnydrops]

I'm going to get a little off topic here since the topic is "man made CC".

Many if not all the anti man made CC (MMCC for now on) seem to always come around to cost. All the wasted money that everyone will lose. My question is where is it disappearing to? And is that a bad thing? In my college days I remember reading "The Report from Iron Mountain". It talked about how the economy to function needed an open end. On the small scale, consumer items, iphones, cars. But to get the ball really rolling, get a few thousand troups to launch a few cruise missiles at a million dollars apiece and do your enemy or Halliburton a favor by blowing up something big(I always thought that the reason the neutron bomb never took off was because it only killed people and left the infrastructure. What good is that?) The space race, exploration, billions of dollars shot into space, never to return, also good and less people get hurt. Fixing the damage we have caused, or may cause (MMCC)--Might be a good thing for the economy.

Talking about MMCC without bring in the increasing number of people on the planet and air pollution and what effect they may have is nearly impossible but they are topics in themselves. But the point I was trying to make before I embarrassed myself with the typo (1280 sqft!!!!) is that we are not just any animal and we do have a big foot print. That figure only included "concrete" coverage, not strip mining, strip logging and other terra forming. If the doubters get a chance, climb a mountain of 14000 feet plus and as you are catching your breath, know that over 99% of life on the planet is below you in that less than 3 mile high blanket. A very thin blanket.

[RickBradford]

800 scientists under the UN considered 9000 studies on climate change and determined there is a 95% certainty that man has been the dominant cause of unprecedent global warming since 1950.

What the IPCC actually said in the AR5 report was:

"It is extremely likely that human influence on climate caused more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951-2010."

(The IPCC characterises 'extremely likely' as 95%.)

They then added:

"The rate of warming since 1951 [has been] 0.12C per decade."

In their last big report in 2007, the IPCC claimed the world was warming at 0.2C per decade. The true figure, it now turns out, is just over half what they thought.

"Models do not generally reproduce the observed reduction in surface warming trend over the last 10–15 years."

Climate models are the bedrock of the IPCC, the source of all their authority, and they're shown to be a crock. Of the 73 models the IPCC relies on, every single one failed to predict that the Earth’s temperature would remain flat since Oct. 1, 1996.

The IPCC has now been forced to admit the failure.

"There is medium confidence that this difference between models and observations is to a substantial degree caused by unpredictable climate variability. Climate models now include more cloud and aerosol processes, but there remains low confidence in the representation and quantification of these processes in models."

They conclude:

"ECS [Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity] is likely in the range 1.5C to 4.5C… The lower limit of the assessed likely range is thus less than the 2C in the [2007 report], reflecting the evidence from new studies. This assessment reflects improved understanding."

Even the IPCC has been forced to admit: it's not as bad as we thought.

[wolf5370]

The whole problem with global warming is .....

The nutters want to destroy the world's industrial base, the only thing that could possibly save humanity from a really big natural disaster.

Is that a joke statement? The world's industrial base (WID) may do some good, but even that's debatable. WID is driven by bosses' manic desire to make as much money as possible. All else, including environmental concerns, are secondary. If a mountain needs to leveled to extract some metal, then so be it. If a rainforest needs to be razed or an ocean depleted of life forms larger than a bean, then let's do it. Indeed, one of the biggest contributions of WID is the Great Pacific Trash Vortex - comprising a Texas-sized glob of suspended plastic goo.

Erm if you are talking about the so-called carrier bag island in mid-Atlantic (sometimes Pacific) - it's an urban legend - a myth - sea water breaks plastics up very quickly as does sun light; plastic bags at sea dissolve to macro-metre size within a week or so usually, so no way they could get to congregate - and the action of the oceans disseminates the small particles thoroughly - it is not like an oil slick.

The Earth will survive pretty much anything we, or nature, does to it (even E.L.E.s have happened in the past - one created the moon, another likely wiped out the dinosaurs and a third wiped out 98% of the world's species) - what may not survive is us a species (unlikely however) and civilizations (much more likely - at least generally). An ecosystem as large and involved as Earth's can be unbalanced quite severely; this causes something to benefit and something to not - and an explosion/extinction causes a swing and eventually back to equilibrium- this happened with Cyano-Bacteria (producing the Oxygen we all now need to breathe), which caused "Snowball Earth" (and the extinction of Cyano-Bacteria and other obligate anaerobic entities) - and so on (we would not be here if the dinosaurs had not been made extinct BTW). Poles melt as it gets too warm, this cools the trans-oceanic currents, and causes another freezing - and around the wheel goes again.

The question really is, do we really want to live in such a world where the water levels reduce land mass by half, the saline/fresh water ratio is increased such that most still fresh water is spoiled, drought is common place, desserts expand in some areas just as ice fields and swamps expand in others (further reducing arable land) and weather patterns cause mass migration of fauna and humans (and thus wars), flora dies off due to loss of insect activity/change of soil PH/environment change/incorrect water/nitrogen levels/etc, sickness and disease increase exponentially especially in the more affected areas (such as Africa and South Asia) due to much of the above and pollution/increase in UV, and so on...it is not desirable, it is not so very close either - not in our lifetimes - but perhaps in our great grandchildren's.

I hope that you will do a little more research on plastics in the sea and then you'll realise that your statements above are completely incorrect.

Or how about you do the same? http://response.restoration.noaa.gov/about/media/how-big-great-pacific-garbage-patch-science-vs-myth.html

I did not say that plastics in the oceans does not exist - I said the plastic island is a myth, and all evidence suggest this too - show me satellite images of a Texas sized plastic garbage patch in the sea. You can't - because there is none. There is flotsam and jetsam and items of hard plastics floating around (like bottles, vending cops and buoyancy aids). However, I was clearly talking about the myth of the carrier bag island - and even stated that in the first line. And as you'll see by the posted link - which is actually on the side of ecology and against plastics pollutions, they dismiss the "Texas size islands of carrier bags" as a myth - as does every one else that has ever done any real research - sorry but you should be sure of your argument before you accuse me of not being!

[FiftyTwo]

800 scientists under the UN considered 9000 studies on climate change and determined there is a 95% certainty that man has been the dominant cause of unprecedent global warming since 1950.

Now let me think, shall I believe those scientists or some of the flat earth society on this forum.

That is a rhetorical question of course so no need for the flat earthers to start crying about it, again.

You forgot, all 800 scientists were paid to find only one result.

If you want to give me a substantial research grant, I will also change sides to the 'climate change is real and man made' side. As for my science, just give me the money, I can't eat principles.

[wilcopops]

"You forgot, all 800 scientists were paid to find only one result." - the trouble with this thread is it is littered with totally fallacious comments like this one based on a total disregard for who these people are and where they are and how the information they presented was gathered. It also fails to look at the plain simple truth that almost any scientist on the planet would agree with the principle of made made climate change - regardless of who's funding them.

However if you really examine the "anti" brigade you WILL find examples of "reports" that are sponsored by Oil companies and others who have a =vested interst in gainsaying what is now in reality a fait-accomplis.