bbc article on Kyoto

bbc article on melting ski resorts

I just read these articles and I must admit that they've got me a bit nervous. Is global warming moving faster than expected?

I don't know why the US didn't sign onto Kyoto, it dosen't make a bit of sense to me. I wish we had and hope that we will eventually because, as these articles demonstrate, it is important.

What do you think?

http://washtimes.com/national/20030729-112752-9717r.htm

There have been cycles of warming and cooling since the begging of time. There is compelling evidence that there is no global warming over the long term. That we have been railroaded into a stampede by a narrow thinking crowd who screams the sky is falling.
I am not sure Inhofe is not correct in his belief that it is a deliberate attempt to make it harder for us to compete world wide.
Anyway,, there are a broad range of considerations with far reaching consequences economically which we should look at before we dismantle all of our factories and loose millions of jobs.
Jax

I have to agree with Jax, I have a file of data from various sources, including NASA, that all refute any temperature variations beyond the norm, and whatever warming is happening (which is a lot older than we are encouraged to believe) is more likely to be caused by natural geographical effects than anything we are doing.

The difference man can make from industry etc. is actually barely noticeable in comparison to some huge fluctuations that happened in the past which were found from fossil and ice records, unlike what the anti-car, anti-globalisation forces would like you to believe. I believe it is a sad attempt at political control and manipulation, as NOT ONE source you read will say 'our temparatures have gone up X degrees (unless they use a silly figure like .8) but could go up 10 degrees, and then usually add 'by the end of the century'. They are all unprovable projections based on partial and conflicting models of computerised equations, each using a different set of data such as sea temperature, air temperature, picking some places or others, and basically having the potential for a 5-10 degree difference in end result depending on which areas they use. A few of the original labaratories are now beginning to doubt their original findings, realising too many variations are involved so many of their own past studies were probably flawed.

I only have paper sources here, but by doing a search, try and find something including 'global warming' and something like 'hoax/scam' etc. , and eventually you should find a site with scientific data as I have from the papers.

Perfect example on BBC Radio 4 programme 'You and yours' today. A Mr Geoff Gazzard, some sort of political campaigner, and obviously taken seriously enough to be chosen to air his views by the media, argued against any expansion of British airports, and raise prices to discourage air travel. Why? Main reason 'climate change'.
Note the Orwellian shift from the unprovable effect he was thinking of, 'Global warming' and the more nebulous 'Climate change' which could also include cooling if he thought before using a PC buzzword/phrase.

Unfortunately, myths are propogated by pressure groups for reasons of control rather than necessarily 'helping people', and one of the main things the Eastern Bloc did for its citizens was to restrict travel. I can't imagine the propoganda they used to try and convince the citizens this was actually for their benefit, and they'd be a lot better off avoiding nasty decadent non-communist countries and stay in wonderful Mother Russia, but familiarities are being noticed here.

In response to Jax’s post I have a few comments I would like to make on Global warming (or the lack of it).

1) There is now very little debate in the Scientific Community over the existence of Global warming, the consensus view is it is here and it is happening rapidly.

2) There is still some debate as to whether or not the current warming is due to human intervention in the atmospheric heat balance. A large majority of Scientists researching the climate are now convinced that human activity is responsible for the change, many are still undecided and a small but by no means insignificant minority remain convinced that this heating is a natural process.

3) It is beyond question that human activity is able to profoundly effect profound global change in the function of the atmosphere and oceans. This is clearly demonstrated by the complete holes in the ozone layer over the Antarctic and Arctic Ocean caused by Halo-Carbons and other radical generators. These holes were originally detected over Antarctica by the British Antarctic Survey several years ago and have been monitored ever since. The ozone layer functions by stopping a large amount of the incipient ultraviolet radiation that would otherwise reach the biomass on the surface. The holes in the layer are now so large in their respective hemispheric summers that the incidence of human skin cancer in a number of countries in the high latitudes is increasing. The effect on the atmospheric heat balance of the increasing amount of solar energy in the UV wavelength entering the polar atmosphere is not, to the best of the author’s knowledge understood.

4) As Jax says "There have been cycles of warming and cooling since the begging of time." This is absolutely true. However, it is not exactly clear what climatic cycles we are being referred to. In the link to the Washington Times Website provided in Jax’s post comment is made on the very short climatic cycles that were recorded in recent human history. Namely the cycle that reached its minimum in "The Little Ice Age" of the 17th century and the cycle which reached its maximum with the "climatic optimum" of the late Viking Age. It is currently generally assumed that these cycles affecting a change in the atmospheric heat balance were not caused by either human activity or activity by the rest of the biomass. To the best of this Author’s knowledge there is currently little evidence about this assumption either way.

These cycles are however the simply the shortest period cycles that occur, there are many other much longer cycles. It would appear that of the longest period cycles most have been triggered by incidents of Vulcanism but at least one was triggered by an asteroid impact, the Alvarez event, the dinosaur slayer. All of these events were associated with mass extinctions within the biomass.

Yet more cycles exist between the longest and the shortest cycles, it is not currently clear how these mid-range cycles may be triggered but at least one of these resulted in a prolonged ice age. If such an ice age occurred today the human race would probably survive but the vast majority of humans would not.

It is also worth mentioning that neither the atmosphere of the Earth nor the insolation it receives from our Sun has remained constant over the entire lifetime of the planet. In the Precambrian Era the atmosphere contained huge quantities of Carbon Dioxide and would have been poisonous to us. There was also probably a far smaller quantity of Oxygen in the atmosphere then than is found today.

The point I wish to make here is that even if the changes currently being observed are completely natural it does not mean that climate change will not kill every last one of us.

5) The heat balance of the Earth is controlled by two principal factors; the amount of insolation that the Earth receives from the sun and the way that the received heat is distributed by the atmosphere and oceans. It is relatively easy to study changes in insolation and it seems clear from measurements and calculations of insolation that the change in atmospheric temperature is coming about due to processes in the atmospheric and ocean system.

The transport of heat around the globe in both the atmosphere and oceans is controlled by fluid turbulence. Turbulence is what is known as a non-linear phenomena. This gives it some interesting properties. Turbulence exists on the boundary of mathematical chaos, this means that in some situations flow properties are completely predictable and in others completely unpredictable. For example fine scale motions in a pipe above a certain flowrate are completely unpredictable whilst below this flowrate they can be fully calculated by mathematical analysis. This divide between the predictable and the unpredictable may also be a function of time (or indeed space), another example is weather prediction, up to ten days hence predictions are normally quite good beyond that it is pretty useless but long range weather prediction is once again quite good.

The second property of non-linear systems which in the context of the Earth’s heat balance ought to scare the willies out of you, I know it does me, is that small changes in input can cause huge changes in the output of a system. In other words small changes can cause a complete change in state. Most scary of all there is no reason to expect that if you make a small change in input and induce a change in state that the change is reversible. Changing the input back to the original value produces no expectation that the system will return to the original state.

The final oceanic/atmospheric property which gives cause for concern is not a non-linear property but due to its size. Any change to the system has an inertial and there may be a very long waiting time or lag before a change in input results in a change in output. In other words we do not know if the changes that are going on in the atmosphere, if they are indeed due to human intervention are caused by what was happening in 1950, 1990 or indeed yesterday not only do we not know if we have triggered a change in state we do not know if we triggered a change in state ten years ago.

To put this in the context of global warming nobody is actually sure what will happen, the world may get hotter or it may get colder. Surprised? The most commonly accepted scenario was that as the ice caps melted some parts of the world would get drier, some would get wetter all would get warmer and the mean sea level would rise 18 - 60 ft. However, it has been discovered that as the ice melts it is reducing the salinity of the oceans and hence also reducing the density difference in the water that drives the oceans’ warm currents. There is now observational evidence that this is happening. Less heat is being moved around the Earth and this may, unlikely as it sounds trigger a new ice age.

The Arctic ice cap is floating, if it melts mean sea level will fall slightly. The effect of the Greenland cap will be insignificant vast as it may be. The major effects will be due to the two Antarctic ice sheets. The smaller West Antarctic sheet is partially suspended over the Ocean, giant cracks have been detected growing in it. It is melting, if it all melts mean sea level will rise 18 ft which is a problem especially if you live in the Maldives or FSM but human race can probably live with it. However … there is a very real possibility that it may calve into the Ocean as a single enormous chunk or several very large chunks. In this case there will be giant tsunami far higher than 18 ft. It will propagate out into the Atlantic and Indian Oceans. The effect will be felt along the South American and West African coasts, in Western India and Perhaps Australia. Florida and the West Indies will cease to be, but the brunt of the wave is likely to be felt by Western Europe and Morocco, bye-bye me and mine. If the Eastern Ice sheet goes then sea level is up to 60 ft and what happens next is anyone’s guess.

The point of all this is that major extinction producing change may come with no warning. It is possible, indeed likely that change once started will not be stoppable.

6) I suggest that our response to the possibility of global warming should be based on Risk Management rather than the quest for scientific truth. Consider this, Rock Climbing is one of the most dangerous sports one can take part in, however even a serious accident will only kill a few people and so it is relatively lightly regulated. Commercial Aviation has the potential to kill far more people and so all engineering and operations are undertaken in a risk averse environment under strong regulation where every possible effort is made to reduce the frequency of fatalities to as low a level as possible. Nuclear power stations and toxic chemical plants are even more strongly regulated and the predicted frequency of fatality is driven down even lower. What then of climate change? In the most optimistic scenario tens of millions will die, in the worst cases we, the human race will die out. Should we not then at least be attempting to drive the predicted frequency of failure as low as possible by all means at our disposal? The US Government is currently spending vast sums on a limited ballistic missile defence, defence against terrorism and asteroid defence. The first two of these projects address threats which are not that unlikely but the maximum conceivable number of fatalities would be about 50E6 people and the USA would survive it. The threat from an asteroid would in all probability be an extinction event for humanity however although the threat is real it is orders of magnitude less likely than global warming. The US Government is currently not even attempting to protect the people of the USA from this threat. Indeed it is opposing the Kyoto Agreement which is one of the few concrete responses to the threat In all probability taking this position is increasing the threat to the American people. If we spend oceans of resources and mountains of money addressing the threat of Global Warming and we find it to be a chimera so what? We are foolish. Hang a few politicians and shoot some scientists, it will make us feel better. If on the other hand Global Warming happens and we respond too late or not at all then … perhaps it is goodbye everybody.

7) First point the economy of the USA or even the whole world is a complete irrelevance to the risk of extinction.

Moving on, the idea that the economy of the USA is going to be hurt in some way by implementing Kyoto is at best short sighted at worst a porky. The Europeans are going to go down the reduced energy and emissions route irrespective of Kyoto, they will take most of the developing world with them. This means that in the fields of power generation, automobiles, domestic appliances and materials processing US companies are going to be at an acute disadvantage, they will have no domestic market in which to fund the development of cleaner more energy efficient devices. The second problem they will have is that fewer and fewer customers will want to purchase the lower technology, higher energy US products. Hence US companies will be competing with two disadvantages to the Europeans in the export market. If the US signed up to Kyoto then this would not be the case and the traditional US advantage of a huge monolithic domestic economy would come to the fore.

It is also worth remembering that in not buying into Kyoto the USA is buying economic advantage at the expense of pollution and the health of its own citizens. I am quite happy for Americans to drive around in SUVs, to have inadequately insulated fridges and homes and to pay for that choice in reduced air quality, it is nothing to do with me good luck to them. What I am not happy about is my paying for their choices though increasing my risk of fatality from global warming.

Tielhard, you explain the concept of a non-linear system quite well on the scientific level, but then go on to suggest action based on a linear model. If a small input can create an unpredictable result, then it follows that any choice we make regarding greenhouse gasses will likewise produce an unpredictable result. Reduction, maintenence, and increase of greenhouse gasses are all inputs. Which one is best with an unpredictable result? Also, the very concepts of input and result imply some linearity to the system. We can have an input for a pipe's flow, but we are talking about a system of which we are a part.

Also consider that the entire dynamic system of Earth is extremely resilient. You have alluded to this with the suggestion that greenhouse gasses may actually cool the planet. What if they both heat and cool the planet at the same time from different vectors?

A good example of the Earth's "immune system" is the forest fire. When the percentage of oxygen in the Earth's atmosphere rises, combustibility does too. It just so happens that oxygen producing trees are flammable, and also happens that fire jams oxygen into carbon dioxide molecules. This returns the balance. The reverse works as well, too much carbon dioxide leads to a proliferation of vegetation, less fires, and more oxygen (as long as we're not cutting down all of the trees!)

I suspect that nature is rife with such feedback systems, as nature's true shape is a circle, not a line.

Tielhard, I think you covered most of the theory of global warming. And I do not disagree with the facts. I agree we should be concerned with the quality of our air, and we are. We have made great strides in that direction.
I am not a scientist but I do understand physics and heat transfer as obviously you do too. True the heat is distributed around the earth with wind and water and the earth's rotation creating cycles of temperature changes in various regions,, making it impossible to actually measure the earth's total temperature.
How does the earth receive its heat? The earth receives 99.99 percent of its heat from the sun. Sun has not changed. So what effects global warming on earth? We hear a lot of talk about the ozone layer, as if it that is the only factor. It is actually only a part of the overall picture.

One US Government study (I think it was called "Green Roof") has proven it is possible to affect the ambient temperature within major cities with changes in roof coating and paving colors. And a few other things.

The earth's heat is received by radiation. It is not heat until it strikes and is transformed into heat. A great deal of the radiation that strikes the earth is not transformed into heat, but rather bounced back into outer space. And the earth radiates a lot of the transformed and residual heat into outer space. If it did not we get rid of some of the heat that is produced, we would quickly fry.
The atmospheric layers do play a part in this process, both in the radiant waves that get through to the earth and the radiant waves that are radiated up from the earth. So more ozone does not translate into a cooler planet.

I understand it the way Uroborus explains it. We may foul our air but I have serious doubt we are affecting the over all picture in the long term.
By the way,, I am glad to see there are still a few around to post.
Jax

Well Uroborus,, I will have to admit I thought the ozone and global warming was connected. Thanks for the information.
Jax

More updates from the UK news. We have just been told we will not have more than one new UK airport runway allowed in the next 20 or so years, though many European airports have 4 each or more, most of ours except Heathrow (which has two) have just the one. And the major reason (illustrating how the view we are responsible for global warming is practically used to make policies) was global warming.
The Daily Mail newspaper accepted, as we have been shown here in part, temperatures worldwide have risen (but only by .8 of a degree) which I think was over the whole 20th century, from memory. The big policy issue is how it's happened, which the evidence is truly conflicting, confusing, and heavily laden with political interests.
The point made there was if the fluctuation was (as it always has been before the industrial revolution) totally (or even mainly now) natural, it would only be being used as an excuse for us to curb our excesses. If the greens were told our emissions have no effect on global warming they would still try and stop us using road and air transport because they disapprove of it.
How else could they persuade us, against our better interests and personal freedom, to take a bus which stops every 3 minutes and then takes us a mile from where we actually want to go, rather than god forbid drive somewhere? By telling us it's US who are screwing up the weather and therefore we must sadly cut down on personal vehicle use to 'save the planet'.

Next, a science programme on BBC Radio 4 last week (probably the material world) had experts who both admitted the British climate would actually improve with the predicted (for 2100 though) rise in temparature, and all claims the Gulf stream would stop warming the British Isles was impossible as the ice melting in the Arctic would not be able to affect it.
These points show how easy speculation treated as news can become apparent reality, and it's far harder to hear the rebuttals hidden away on relatively obscure programmes, than the constant repetition of the speculations by the press and politicians.
Unfortunately, David Icke does have an element of a point when he talks about deliberate manipulation of the news. The liars out there rely on most people having a very short memory and forgetting the 'naughty elements' they slip into their propaganda weren't ever actually true, and us branding them true liars as a result and losing trust in them. They just keep the same policies, and switch the emphasis of the 'evidence' they try and push to justify what is in the main an ideology about how everyone should live.

If facts do exist, like the real problem of pollution with filthy chemicals sometimes permitted by governments worldwide in exchange for receiving bigger tax revenues and adding to local jobs etc., then it is right to form a pressure group, but when speculation, or even using future projections such as losing the Gulf Stream, which is scientifically impossible under current conditions, is used to promote a philosophy of life which should be a personal choice, then it's not political, it's manipulative.

Sorry I went off the specific point here, but as global warming is currently the biggest issue of its kind (ie one where it is pretty well unknown by all what will happen, but promoted by many sides as a political football) it got me on the general point it illustrates on manipulation of society by ideological groups for their own ends. I'd be happy to see (or start) a new CI thread on this if prompted.

Since it is the penultimate day of my Xmas holiday and I have some free time at last I have an opportunity to write something substantial. I thought I would take the opportunity to address some of the issues raised in this Global Warming thread since I last posted to it. It is clear from some of the responses to my last post that I did not explain some of the complex issues I was addressing clearly enough. I have left some readers misinformed my apologies. Some posters have also added in some misconceptions of their own and I would also like to address these.

Before getting to these admittedly very technical issues however, I would like to ask a question. Nobody has addressed my central theses one way or another. That is, that the correct way to address Global Warming is not primarily as a search for scientific ‘truth’ but a risk reduction exercise. To paraphrase, Global Warming is happening, no one knows if we are causing it but the majority of smart people studying the problem think we are, if it comes about it has the potential to cause the extinction of the human race and as a minimum is likely to kill millions. We invest huge sums of money protecting small numbers of people from unlikely events, we should be prepared to spend at least that much on protecting every body from a risk which even if we accept the uncertainty in the science is significant. Is this an approach you would agree with? I would appreciate your comments on this.

To the technical issues.

1) Uroborus wrote "…,you explain the concept of a non-linear system quite well on the scientific level, but then go on to suggest action based on a linear model. If a small input can create an unpredictable result, then it follows that any choice we make regarding greenhouse gasses will likewise produce an unpredictable result."

This is not in fact the case. Indeed it is a popular misconception of how non-linearity is addressed. This is difficult to explain without recourse to maths but there are at least two ways in which confidence in predictions can be developed. Firstly, systems on the edge of deterministic chaos such as the weather (a better example than climate) are not always in the chaotic region. By running many slightly different mathematical simulations it is possible to determine if a situation is stable and amenable to prediction or not. Second, it is often possible to determine when there is about to be an abrupt change of state without knowing how the state will change.

2) Uroborus wrote " …Reduction, maintenence, and increase of greenhouse gasses are all inputs. Which one is best with an unpredictable result?"

I think here you are perhaps confusing uncertainty and unpredictability due to deterministic chaos with things which are unknown because nobody has measured them yet? The question above should be answerable.

3) Uroborus also wrote "Also, the very concepts of input and result imply some linearity to the system. We can have an input for a pipe's flow, but we are talking about a system of which we are a part."

I think the problem here is the example of the pipe. You appear to have confused the concepts of ‘non-linear systems’ and ‘through flow systems’. The existence of an input and an output is entirely unrelated to the concept of either linearity or non-linearity. My apology for any confusion the pipe example may have caused.

4) Uroborus also wrote "Also consider that the entire dynamic system of Earth is extremely resilient."

I really hope that this was either rhetoric run riot or an ill thought out choice of words! I am unclear if you are talking about the atmospheric-oceanic system alone here or are including the biomass in the system as well but in either case all of the evidence suggests that the system is far from resilient. The whole worry about Global Warming is not that it is going to get a bit hotter and wetter by and by but that we may initiate a runaway event were we end up dead on a planet not dissimilar to Venus! Your discussion of forest fires is valid for the ‘small’ fires we get in most situations, however in past extinction events generated by vulcanism burning vegetation appears to have contributed significantly to climate change.

5) Jax wrote "True the heat is distributed around the earth with wind and water and the earth's rotation creating cycles of temperature changes in various regions,, making it impossible to actually measure the earth's total temperature.

It depends what you mean by ‘measure’ and ‘total temperature’ of course but there are several satellite based methods, largely optical which can be used to find the temperature in regions of the lower atmosphere and the ocean surface. From these data a convincing average can be calculated.

6) Jax wrote "heat is received by radiation. It is not heat until it strikes and is transformed into heat. A great deal of the radiation that strikes the earth is not transformed into heat, but rather bounced back into outer space. And the earth radiates a lot of the transformed and residual heat into outer space."

I would like to make one small (possible) correction here and a couple of comments. Much of the heat from insolation is absorbed in the atmosphere before it reaches the Earth otherwise the above is correct. It is also illustrative of why it is so difficult to calculate the atmospheric-oceanic heat balance. We can measure the spectrum of the solar radiance falling on the Earth’s upper atmosphere and we can measure the heat and light being irradiated from it. However, where is the top of the atmosphere? Like any gas the atmosphere expands as it gets hot and expands not only that but the rate at which gases are lost from the atmosphere also increases as it gets hotter. It is a constant battle between these processes as to where the upper boundary of the atmosphere lies at any one time. Of course to make things more complicated when we are looking at climate we want to use an average position for the top of the atmosphere over a long time period.

7) Uroborus wrote " ..the ozone depletion problem and global warming are somewhat unrelated, and in fact cause temperature change in opposite directions. (Although ozone plays a role in global warming, depletion of ozone actually has the opposite effect)."

This is disingenuous, for two reasons, first the point I was seeking to make in my initial post when brining up ozone depletion is that human beings have already changed the nature of the atmosphere without difficulty. Secondly, I must emphasise that the atmosphere is a very complicated and interrelated system. It is not always clear how mutually conflicting processes interact. Consider this silly example, it is still possible although very unlikely that the loss of the ozone layers over the polar regions could result in the evacuation of NZ, Patagonia, Northern Canada and Russia. How would this impact global warming? What if all the elk, moose, reindeer and sheep popped their clogs from skin cancer? Think of the methane deficit.

8) Uroborus wrote "Global warming occurs when this process is strengthened by increased amounts of these greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere."

This is not the whole story. The gases need to be in the right part of the atmosphere to act as a greenhouse. Increased Carbon Dioxide in the lower atmosphere would not produce a greenhouse effect, it would make us pant a lot. Similarly high altitude water eats away at the ozone layer (see above) which is a problem for space flight and commercial airlines to consider in the future as orbital flights become more frequent and aircraft fly higher for economic and environmental noise reasons.

9) Satguru wote "I believe it is a sad attempt at political control and manipulation, as NOT ONE source you read will say 'our temparatures have gone up X degrees (unless they use a silly figure like .8)"

and

"The Daily Mail newspaper accepted, as we have been shown here in part, temperatures worldwide have risen (but only by .8 of a degree) which I think was over the whole 20th century, from memory."

I shall leave aside the issue of "a sad attempt at political control" I like a conspiracy theory as much as the next person. Instead I should like to ask you why you think a 0.8 K rise in average global temperature over the 20th Century is "silly"? Consider a planet the top half of which is -50 deg. C and the lower half 50 deg. C the average (based on surface) is 0.5 * -50 + 0.5 * 50 = -25 + 25 = 0 deg. C. suppose the temperatures change to -20 deg. C and 21.6 deg. C. The average becomes 0.5 * -20 + 0.5 * 21.6 = -10 + 10.8 = 0.8 deg. C. The average temperature has risen only 0.8 K but the difference in conditions is extreme. On its own the average global temperature explains very little but there is no need for anything like a 10 K rise to have profound effects in many places.

10 ) Satguru wrote "Next, a science programme on BBC Radio 4 last week (probably the material world) had experts who both admitted the British climate would actually improve with the predicted (for 2100 though) rise in temparature, and all claims the Gulf stream would stop warming the British Isles was impossible as the ice melting in the Arctic would not be able to affect it. "

Yes a small rise will be very nice for us, we can grow good wine for a change, unless you happen to live in Lincolnshire, which I used to. The whole of the fens will end up underwater unless the Government wants to build some very big sea defences. I don’t think I would want to live in Male or the Hague either!

It was nice to see your experts claiming "that the Gulf stream would stop warming the British Isles was impossible as the ice melting in the Arctic would not be able to affect it. " especially as changes in the current have already been detected and even simple calculation I can do say it will. However the statement is probably true because as I have said before the Arctic Ice is not the real problem, it floats, the Antarctic Ice is the problem!

Just one final point. I am growing increasingly concerned about the strong language being used about some people that support the idea that Global Warming is being caused by human activity. I read several articles about Inhofe after Jax pointed him out to me. He seems at best to have a bee in his bonnet about supporters of the idea calling them "liars". I find this worrying in a politician when most scientists in both camps eschew certainty on the issue.

To quote Yeats:

"The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity."

Whilst we may still have to deal with the rough beast of Global Warming, its hour come round at last?

The following is taken from The Sydney Morning Herald ,January the 8th 2004

Quote:

---

Hundreds of species of land plants and animals around the globe could vanish or be on the road to extinction over the next 50 years if global warming continues, scientists warn.

The researchers concede that there are many uncertainties in both climate forecasts and the computer models they used. But they said their prediction could come to pass if industrial nations do not curtail emissions of greenhouse gases that trap heat in the atmosphere.

"We're already seeing biological communities respond very rapidly to climate warming," said Chris Thomas, a conservation biologist at the University of Leeds in England, and the study's lead author.

The findings by Thomas and 18 other researchers appear in tomorrow's issue of the journal Nature.

They found that more than one-third of the 1,103 native species they studied could disappear or approach extinction by 2050 as climate change turns plains into deserts or alters forests.

Among the already threatened species that could go extinct are Australia's Boyd's forest dragon, a tree-dwelling lizard, and Europe's azure-winged magpie.

Alastair Fitter, a University of York ecologist who was not involved in the research, said climate change could hasten the effects of deforestation and the impact of invasive, non-native species.

"I think this is going to be third horseman in that particular apocalypse," said Fitter, who has documented how global warming already is allowing some spring flowers to bloom increasingly early in Britain.

The researchers assessed the habitat and distribution of plant and animal species spread across six regions that included Mexico, Australia, Brazil, South Africa and Europe.

They applied climate change models developed by a UN panel that predicted Earth's warming trend will increase average global temperatures by 2.5 degrees to 10.4 degrees Fahrenheit (1.4 to 5.8 degrees Celsius) by 2100.

Depending on the temperature increase, the researchers found that 15 per cent to 37 per cent of the studied species will go extinct or be on the road to extinction by 2050. A mid-range forecast of three possible global warming scenarios would claim about a quarter of the species, they found.

Earth has an estimated 14 million plant and animal species. Conservationists estimate 12,000 are threatened with extinction, although thousands of others are probably also on the brink.

---

A question - does it say how many NEW species/variations will be formed from the changes? We've had Ice Ages and Life survived.

I don't want to repeat myself, but this is a good example of the (pick your own authority here) led campaign to promote the idea by sponsoring a study (whether we realise it or not) to put the willies up everybody re global warming.
I don't like anything that involves prediction, psychic or otherwise, as many times, but years later when we've forgotten, they are shown to be slightly to extremely inaccurate. There are so many factors involved we can barely predict UK weather a day ahead, so trying to predict a global system with many more factors involved to me seems a waste of time.

Just in reply to the question raised by Fosse in regard to as to whether the part of the report I posted shows any actual positive changes. I don`t know. I havn`t read the full report yet and wont till I actually get around to buying "Nature". As soon as I get around to it I shall post items of interest, unless someone buys a copy before me. The following is from the newspaper report[what I posted was from the internet site].

Quote:

---

The scientists,who conducted the largest ever international study on the effects of climate change ,studies 1103 species in the six most ecologically rich areas of the world and the effects on their habitats of temperature increases predicted by a group of 2500 experts advising the United Nations

---

I will add some statistics and opinions from the Daily Mail among others, plus some from Melanie Phillips' latest article in it.

Seas rising: The North Atlantic is rising, but the seas around Australia aren't, and the sea level round New Zealand is falling. When temperatures rose from 1900-1940, mean sea levels dropped, showing there is not an automatic correlation.

The Ice caps are moving, not breaking up. For example, while the Larsen shelf in the Antarctic is breaking up, much of the rest of it is increasing.

Between 1992 and 1997 numerous meterologists, geologists and other experts said global warming was based on theoretical models that weren't supported by existing records, and based on unproven theories and imperfect computer models.

Carbon dioxide levels also aren't automatically related to temperature. From 1940-75 when levels increased, temperatures went down, and historically it increases after, not during periods of warming.

Rising overall temperatures since 1880 have mainly been due to the ending of a mini ice age, which would have to end with a warming. Prior to this, Europe was at least 2 degrees warmer in 1100, with no dire consequences.
The official figure I was looking for now turns out to be 0.6 degrees. When history proves 2 whole degrees was not a problem. Britain's coastline has only varied a little in 1000 years, in places such as Rye harbour in Sussex which now is a mile from the coast, though the Thames in London was mainly narrowed by human means along the Strand, not the weather.

Government policies here, however, have included all the material discredited here for what I (and Ms Phillips) believe to be political reasons, by a report from The chief scientific advisor, Sir David King. He says 'Global warming is more of a threat than terrorism'. Well, I'd personally prefer to be rescued by a boat from a flooded Thames basin than blown up any time, Mr King. In fact, developing economies will be hit incredibly hard by the Kyoto agreement rules, as it will strangle many country's growth drastically by following them.

Sudden changes are normal in world climate. 11,000 years ago (no industry present) temperatures dropped by 10'C, and then rose between 7 and 15' in around 50 years.

NASA is beginning to doubt original predictions. James Hansen says temperatures in the 21st century are now likely to rise by 0.7'C maximum, the same as the last century. Ian Joughin, from their jet propulsion laboratory found, using satellite radar, West Antarctica has added about 27 billion tons of ice, and could indicate an actual reversal of the 10,000 year trend of glacier shrinkage (which is clearly then not a recent problem).

By measuring air temperature rather than sea, it has cooled over the past 20 years. The European Science and Environmental Forum has found the troposphere, which rises from the surface to 30,000 feet, has not warmed at all since 1979 according to satellite readings.

To conclude, I am not a scientist, and I can see the data here has put more than enough holes in their pet theories, so if the scientists like Mr King choose to plough on regardless and ignore them, do they have other reasons to do so? I put that to the FT jury.

Thanks Tielhard. Good points you address.
Inhofe has certainly stirred things up. He happens to be my Senator, and friend.
I will admit I think the subject could stand closer scrutiny. I am not convinced all the R12 that I and my fellow AC techs have released over the years has been responsible for holes in the ozone. I do know the change just in the refrigeration industry has cost consumers millions, and the worst is yet to come, when R22 is phased out. And I do know that each gas has different ODP and GWP. And the replacments have Global warming Potential.
So is there a price too high and too extreme to protect the universe?
Politics are always an issue and global warming is no exceptions.
It would be naive to ignore that aspect of the debate.
Jax

One of my mailing lists just posted me this article.

Not being a scientist, I can't say it disproves man's causation of global warming 100 per cent, but it sure looks that way, it seems to answer more or less every point I raised earlier. I just wish the TV and radio news could include this sort of view along with the usual 'beware of cows passing wind' or 'don't use air spray' gubbins we still hear regularly on the BBC. So at the moment, the Daily Mail, underground magazines and the internet are the best ways to see alternative views on global warming which, with proper science like this really deserve to become mainstream.

This 'Global Warming' always gives me a laugh. Our Summer so far has been a virtual wash-out, until around ten days ago, then lo and behold, that yellow round thing up there in the sky that gives heat finally arrives. As soon as it does the Cranks start to jump up and down and scream "Global warming, we're all going to fry!" Get a grip you doom and gloom merchants. I remember the Summer of 1976 (any British person in their late thirties or over will know what I'm talking about here) and there was no Global warming panic then and so there shouldn't be now. Climatic changes have occured throughout history and will always continue to do so.

If there is no global warming, why are the icecaps/icebergs/etc melting (at faster rates than ever before)?

Also, global warming usually goes on the premise of 'if things continue the way they are'. However, we've reduced PFCs which create holes in the ozone layer and are producing more fuel-efficient vehicles, as well as (US excluded tightening standards for industrial air pollution that contribute to the global warming theory.

So yeah, you may not see it, but that's because conditions are actually *improving*.

One explanation I heard is the ice formations have always changed throughout history, and what the scaremongers omit to tell us is that while many areas are indeed disappearing, others are growing, and overall the whole amount remains more or less the same.

The ozone layer is another story altogether, and for some reason has become merged in many people's eyes with global warming when in fact the two are separate issues. The hole in the ozone layer is a chemical problem that means we are no longer protected from UV rays and the like, but it's not really anything to do with temperature or weather, it's just some of the things blamed for one are also meant to cause the other. But the two are not the same by any means.

I also read that around 99% of the Earth's causes of climate are natural, anything humans could do would only be less than 1% of the total atmosphere and contribute so little to the climate that whatever we did could never have a major effect, good or bad. The cost to world industries in preventing so-called man-made warming may well end up ruining the economies of many countries for an unknown benefit in reality. I keep a file on this, so apart from what I've posted already, unless I heard it on the radio I should be able to name sources and studies to corroborate anything I say, as I'm no way an expert, I just read a lot about it and try and see what's really going on from all the evidence.

I don't know about where you guys live...but here in Alaska, it is definitely warmer than usual. My theory is that the rotation of the earth is shifting the "Equator". Soon Alaska will be one of the warmer states, and dome of the others will get colder...

This is a little far-fetched, but I think it may be happening!

Oh I think I agree, we really shouldn't be worried about global warming. I mean what do those scientist know anyway right? And besides who cares what will happen to the children of our children, we won't be alive anyway.