Nature warns climate talkers

GMT +07:00

Send suggestions

Opinion » Opinion

Nature warns climate talkers

  • Published: 2/10/2009 at 12:00 AM
  • Newspaper section: News

Typhoon Ketsana carries a sinister message as it lands in Thailand, where policy-makers from around the world are drafting the climate-change agreements for the UN Climate Summit in Copenhagen.

The message is: Shape up, or face the fatal consequences.

Despite its slowing down to a depression when reaching the Northeast, the typhoon has left a trail of devastation, killing at least 246 people in the Philippines and more than 50 in Vietnam and Cambodia. The landslides and severe flooding have displaced millions of people and destroyed large tracts of farmland in these countries.

An extra warning came from the concurrent tsunami in the South Pacific which wiped out all the low-lying areas in the Samoan Islands, killing more than 100 people as aftershocks continued to fuel the ocean's fury. On Wednesday Thailand's Andaman coast was also alerted for a tsunami threat, after a powerful earthquake in Indonesian waters. As it turned out, a series of subsequent quakes hit western Indonesia later and killed more than 500 people. These back-to-back natural disasters are part of a string of Nature's outpourings of wrath that are growing more frequent and severe due to the rapid rise in global temperatures and the world's unwillingness to shift to sustainable development, the use of green technologies and an earnest commitment to curb runaway consumerism.

Mother Nature's dire warnings should make the climate-change negotiators from rich and poor countries alike realise that they can no longer allow themselves to be trapped in the blame game. Time is running out. It is suicidal to keep shifting responsibilities or arguing about the wording, while constantly looking over one's shoulder for fear of losing an inch to their economic rivals. The latest string of natural disasters in this part of the world should also drive home another important message: while policy-makers are at loggerheads, it is the ordinary people who lose lives and livelihood, paying the price for their leaders' short-sightedness.

There's no gain in pointing fingers. Policy-makers and big business may remain fiercely attached to the economic model which relies on the need to trigger endless consumption, but the general public is also unaware of how their consumption patterns are part and parcel of the environmental breakdown.

As the world economy urgently needs a major structural change, saving the planet and humanity also requires significant lifestyle changes. Research has repeatedly shown that substituting meat, dairy and confectionery with local plant-based foods can go a long way to addressing global warming. So does the shift to renewable electricity. The consumption of goods and services must be reduced through re-use, repair and recycle. Food should be locally produced and consumed to cut down the use of fossil fuels from long-haul transportation, and any purchase of new goods should take into account whether they have low or high "greenhouse prices".

To simply say that old habits die hard while irresponsibly carrying on in the old ways will only speed up the end of days. Taking charge through direct and individual responsibility does not end there as individual acts, however. When combined, they create a powerful, collective momentum that will effectively force both businesses and governments to change. The people can no longer allow the big guys to continue driving us recklessly into a brick wall. Direct actions can stop this suicidal plunge. And it may well be the only path left for this planet's survival.

Share your thoughts

For more candid, lengthy, conversational and open discussion between one another, use our Forum

Report objectionable comments click here. Include: discussion #, commenter name, comment date / time as it looks on the page. Example: discussion 15: 09/01/2009 at 10:00 AM.

  • Bill

    Discussion 16 : 17/10/2009 at 10:48 AM16

    Rick,
    You and I are at an impasse. You refuse to acknowledge that the trend line under the oscillations in the link you have used in two of your posted comments is a warming trendline, or that the decade since 1998 has been warmer than the decades prior to 1998.
    http://joannenova.com.au//globalwarming/graphs/akasofu/akasofu_graph_little_ice-age.gif This graph does show bias by overlaying the then worst case IPCC scenarios. I have looked at the data comparing solar activity to global temperatures, and do not see that the fluctuation patterns match. (For those interested, please see
    http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/images/temp_vs_spots.gif
    http://www.realclimate.org/epica.jpg Or read more at http://www.realclimate.org/ )

    During the industrial age we have consumed millions of years of stored fuels, releasing that CO2 into the atmosphere at rates that are not being matched by current photosynthesis to absorb. While evidence suggests fluctuations in solar activity can affect climate on Earth, and that it has done so in the past, the majority of climate scientists and astrophysicists agree that the sun is not to blame for the current and historically sudden uptick in global temperatures on Earth, which seems to be mostly a mess created by our own species.

    Yes, the Earth has been far hotter in times past – like while dinosaurs roamed, and yes humans will not likely be made extinct solely by a warmer planet. That doesn’t mean those coastal cities like Bangkok, or the hundreds of millions of people along coastlines globally are not at risk of loosing their property, life savings, and family stability. Or that crops and species in temperate zones will survive as these land areas become tropical. What will the future rain patterns become? An awful high number of significant variables are being tossed up for grabs. Our planet and species should not be treated like a culture in a Petri dish, available for an open ended scientific experiment. This time, CO2 looks to be one of the leading, not lagging indicators of global warming, a source of the imbalance.

    I too am interested in scientific truth, and not one of those doing the research. If the answer to your challenges were absolutely known, there would be no debate. So I gave you my postulation – one that still fits your data of recent polar caps and a current downturn in temperatures would cause such – but look at your own linked graph again. We have a brief window of a generation before we are at still higher temperatures. If the current upward slope is NOT induced by solar activity, what is causing it? If mankind’s activity is driving it – and many rational people with greater expertise believe so, isn’t it morally imperative to do everything possible from generating what will be a global catastrophe?

  • Rick

    Discussion 15 : 17/10/2009 at 05:37 AM15

    >In your response it seemed big of you to agree >that warming had occurred until 1998, but then >you again refused to accept the obvious – that >eleven of the last twelve years have been the >hottest since records started in 1850. The >oscillations you refer to are still upward >trending.

    Bill

    I understand why you want to look only at data prior to 1998, because the data since does not support the alarmist hypothesis. It shows no warming since 1998, which contradicts IPCC predictions and the computer models upon which they were based. In the geological history of the planet, the period from 1850 to the present is an infinitesimally tiny sample upon which to make profound conclusions. The earth has been far hotter than it is today many times in its past history (with far lower CO2 levels) during the time life has existed on it, and all before any industrialization. The fact that recent decades may have been the warmest since 1850 does not scientifically prove anthropocentric global warming I hope you understand.

    >so I’m guessing you have an agenda to promote >these misleading views that precludes you >researching other facts. Are you perhaps writing >from one of the industrial think tanks that want >to / need to protect their economic status quo?

    No agenda other than the truth. I am not associated with any industry or think tank.

    >And since Rick keeps insisting on an answer to >why I believe the rising CO has not appeared to >cause a constant degree of warming, here’s my >current best guess/ postulation. I believe that >just as a number of ice cubes will temporarily >keep a pitcher of water at a constant >temperature, so too the glaciers and polar ice >caps are moderating the effects of the CO2 – for >the short term acting as one of the planetary >buffers. Each year though these ice supplies are >dwindling, and when they shrink enough, the rate >of global warming will have the type of >compounded, accelerated growth that is being >warned about.

    Firstly, major public policy shifts require more than "best guesses", "beliefs" and "postulations". They also require more than tenuous computer models based on dubious inputs. Rather they require empirically verifiable facts, which in my opinion are lacking.

    Secondly, contrary to your assertion, Polar ice caps have recently expanded, not contracted, concurrent with recent atmospheric cooling. Incidentally, I've assisted in research for two season in Antarctica. The Antarctic ice cap is stable, with recent losses around the peninsula more than made up by increases elsewhere (especially Ross Sea). The Arctic cap is now increasing since the low in 2007.

  • Bill

    Discussion 14 : 16/10/2009 at 11:27 AM14

    In my comment #9 I referred to your source of ideas, having tracked the exact quotes you were lifting. In my most recent prior comment #11, I answered your claims point by point. In your response it seemed big of you to agree that warming had occurred until 1998, but then you again refused to accept the obvious – that eleven of the last twelve years have been the hottest since records started in 1850. The oscillations you refer to are still upward trending.

    I see little evidence from your comments that you’ve specifically followed any of the links I’ve provided, so I’m guessing you have an agenda to promote these misleading views that precludes you researching other facts. Are you perhaps writing from one of the industrial think tanks that want to / need to protect their economic status quo?

    >> In the ever lessening chance that people with an open mind are still reading this opinion page, here are a few additional links to well written explanations to your barbs by the Royal Society, which is the national academy of science of the UK and the Commonwealth. It is an independent, charitable body which derives its authoritative status from over 1400 Fellows and Foreign Members.

    Climate change controversies: a simple guide: http://royalsociety.org/page.asp?id=6229

    I want to also highlight one related post by Dr. Simon L. Lewis,a Royal Society Research Fellow, Earth & Biosphere Institute, School of Geography, University of Leeds. He writes eloquently to the same topics of complexity in modeling, and risks of surpassing the limits of some of the interactions buffering (temporarily reducing the impact of) the effects of CO and other human pollution. http://royalsociety.org/page.asp?id=4689&tip=1

    And since Rick keeps insisting on an answer to why I believe the rising CO has not appeared to cause a constant degree of warming, here’s my current best guess/ postulation. I believe that just as a number of ice cubes will temporarily keep a pitcher of water at a constant temperature, so too the glaciers and polar ice caps are moderating the effects of the CO2 – for the short term acting as one of the planetary buffers. Each year though these ice supplies are dwindling, and when they shrink enough, the rate of global warming will have the type of compounded, accelerated growth that is being warned about. That’s what all this original article is about – seeing and heeding the warning signs available to be heeded before it is too late to avoid bigger catastrophes.

  • Bill

    Discussion 13 : 16/10/2009 at 11:23 AM13

    In my comment #9 I referred to your source of ideas, having tracked the exact quotes you were lifting. In my most recent prior comment #11, I answered your claims point by point. In your response it seemed big of you to agree that warming had occurred until 1998, but then you again refused to accept the obvious – that The Earth's climate is complex and influenced by many things - particularly changes in the Earth's orbit in relation to the Sun, which has driven the cycles of ice ages in the past, as well as volcanic eruptions and variations in the energy being emitted from the Sun. But even when we take all these factors into account, we cannot explain the temperature rises that we have seen over the last 100 years both on land and in the oceans - for example, eleven of the last twelve years have been the hottest since records started in 1850. The oscillations you refer to are still upward trending.

    I see little evidence from your comments that you’ve specifically followed any of the links I’ve provided, so I’m guessing you have an agenda to promote these misleading views that precludes you researching other facts. Are you perhaps writing from one of the industrial think tanks that want to / need to protect their economic status quo?

    >> In the ever lessening chance that people with an open mind are still reading this opinion page, here are a few additional links to well written explanations to your barbs by the Royal Society, which is the national academy of science of the UK and the Commonwealth. It is an independent, charitable body which derives its authoritative status from over 1400 Fellows and Foreign Members.

    Climate change controversies: a simple guide: http://royalsociety.org/page.asp?id=6229

    I want to also highlight one related post by Dr. Simon L. Lewis,a Royal Society Research Fellow, Earth & Biosphere Institute, School of Geography, University of Leeds. He writes eloquently to the same topics of complexity in modeling, and risks of surpassing the limits of some of the interactions buffering (temporarily reducing the impact of) the effects of CO and other human pollution. http://royalsociety.org/page.asp?id=4689&tip=1

    And since Rick keeps insisting on an answer to why I believe the rising CO has not appeared to cause a constant degree of warming, here’s my current best guess/ postulation. I believe that just as a number of ice cubes will temporarily keep a pitcher of water at a constant temperature, so too the glaciers and polar ice caps are moderating the effects of the CO2 – for the short term acting as one of the planetary buffers. Each year though these ice supplies are dwindling, and when they shrink enough, the rate of global warming will have the type of compounded, accelerated growth that is being warned about. That’s what all this original article is about – seeing and heeding the warning signs available to be heeded before it is too late to avoid bigger catastrophes.

  • Rick

    Discussion 12 : 15/10/2009 at 12:37 AM12

    Bill,

    There is no dispute from me that we have been in a warming period (until 1998). The issue is what has been the source of the warming.

    If CO2 is the culprit, and not solar activity, explain why global temperatures have not risen since 1998 despite CO2 levels continueing to increase. That fact remains: there has been no warming since 1998, and those advancing anthropogenic global warming need to explain why that is happening despite increasing CO2 levels.

    Indeed explain why the earth has had numerous far warmer periods throughout its geologic history during periods of far lower atmospheric CO2 levels. What caused historical warm periods? Huh. Maybe ... solar activity? The history of the planet is of cyclical warming and cooling and this will continue.

    Anthropogenic global warming theory advocates put undue importance on the reliablitity of notoriously unrealiable computer modelling.

    Just because the Heartland Institute presented the paper at a conference does not in any way sully the contents of the paper. It stands or falls on its own merit, not on who uses or subscribes to it.

    The BBC quote stands: "But it is true. For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures. And our climate models did not forecast it, even though man-made carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise."

    The statement is accurate. The facts contained within it are accurate. The climate models have been wrong since 1998. Alarmists need to explain why temperatures have not increased since 1998 despite rising CO2 levels.

  • Bill

    Discussion 11 : 14/10/2009 at 02:45 PM11

    Rick, Here are specific responses to your last four points:
    1) “Why do climate alarmists always attack the source but never deal with the actually facts presented?”

    When I presented facts in comments #2 & #6, you ignored them in your responses. I not only tracked down your source, but downloaded and read the paper presented – and indeed, the paper was presented at the Heartland Institute sponsored conference.

    2) “So far as I am aware neither Joanne Nova nor Dr. Evans who authored the piece receive any industry money. The really big money is on the side of the Climate Alarmist Industry.”

    This is a cop-out answer, the amounts the oil and gas industry invest in lobbying and protecting their profit base still exceed the amounts available for alternatives. They are the ones who profit by advancing these and other arguments contrary to the prevailing science. The millions who live along the coasts will most suffer during the next century and beyond – due to the excess political power of these same industries who are confusing the debate with disproven but action delaying debate.

    3) “Address the chart and data presented at: http://joannenova.com.au/2009/04/global-warming-a-classic-case-of-alarmism/.” Fact: Contrary to IPCC predictions, there has been no warming since 1998.

    The links I supplied in comment #6 already showed how you are bending the truth here. Though 1998 was the record year, the decade since then has been the hottest decade. Even the graph central to your link shows an overall upward slope. The Earth is and has been getting warmer. The only real challenges are whether the equilibrium will be reached within a range of conditions similar to OR vastly different from what civilization has counted upon. I am speaking of coastlines, crop growing regions and at enough of an extreme, the convection currents in wind and oceans that life depends upon. Like a freight train or an ocean liner, there are no quick brakes that can be applied so many rational people are striving to project and change course while change is less catastrophic.

    4) Even the BBC is starting to come around when Paul Hudson, the BBC News Climate Correspondent recently wrote in "What happened to Global Warming?": "But it is true. For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures. And our climate models did not forecast it, even though man-made carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise."

    You show here how you like to selectively pick from news articles. This same journalist chose to quote and not refute the following about the solar activity theory you’re links rely upon: “Sceptics argue that the warming we observed was down to the energy from the Sun increasing. After all 98% of the Earth's warmth comes from the Sun. But research conducted two years ago, and published by the Royal Society, seemed to rule out solar influences. The scientists' main approach was simple: to look at solar output and cosmic ray intensity over the last 30-40 years, and compare those trends with the graph for global average surface temperature. And the results were clear. "Warming in the last 20 to 40 years can't have been caused by solar activity," said Dr Piers Forster from Leeds University, a leading contributor to this year's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).”

  • Rick

    Discussion 10 : 11/10/2009 at 08:01 PM10

    Bill,
    Why do climate alarmists always attack the source but never deal with the actually facts presented? So far as I am aware neither Joanne Nova nor Dr. Evans who authored the piece receive any industry money. The really big money is on the side of the Climate Alarmist Industry.

    Address the chart and data presented at: http://joannenova.com.au/2009/04/global-warming-a-classic-case-of-alarmism/ .

    Fact: Contrary to IPCC predictions, there has been no warming since 1998.

    Even the BBC is starting to come around when Paul Hudson, the BBC News Climate Correspondent recently wrote in "What happened to Global Warming?": "But it is true. For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures. And our climate models did not forecast it, even though man-made carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise."

  • Bill

    Discussion 9 : 04/10/2009 at 03:37 AM9

    Rick, Thanks for the link, it helped me track the flow of cool-aid you've been drinking. Specifically the source is the Heartland Institute, with its funding from major corporations like Exxon (surprised?? -not)

    Wikipedia shows how Heartland has close ties with the tobacco and oil companies. Remember how the tobacco companies could produce "scientists" who said there was really no proof that cigarettes caused smoking ?? Heartland is employing the same tactics.

    As for proponents of man-made global warming:

    EVERY major scientific organization has issued an official statement that Global Warming is real and mostly man-made:

    * The National Academy of Sciences (NAS),
    * the American Association for the Advancement of Science,
    * the American Institute of Physics,
    * the American Chemical Society,
    * the American Geophysical Union,
    * the American Meteorological Association, etc.

    The NAS is particularly credible. That's 1800 of the USA's best scientists, elected by their peers. Being elected to the NAS is like winning the Oscar in science.

    Virtually all the federal agencies with scientific missions warn of global warming.

    Oh, and the "500 scientists" they cited with major doubts on global warming...?? That article generated some major backpedaling as scientists learned their names were incorrectly added to the list.

  • Rick

    Discussion 8 : 03/10/2009 at 10:47 PM8

    Bill (Comment 6): We are just past the top of a multi-decadal oscillation, and temperatures are now beginning to cool. All of this is due to solar activity not CO2 levels in the atmosphere (which have been much higher in prior earth history before man). The global temperature has been rising at a steady trend rate of 0.5°C per century since the end of the little ice age in the 1700s (when the Thames River would freeze over every winter; the last time it froze over was 1804). On top of the trend are oscillations that last about thirty years in each direction:

    1882 – 1910 Cooling
    1910 – 1944 Warming
    1944 – 1975 Cooling
    1975 – 2001 Warming

    See: http://joannenova.com.au/2009/04/global-warming-a-classic-case-of-alarmism/

    In 2009 we are where the green arrow points, with temperature leveling off. The pattern suggests that the world has entered a period of slight cooling until about 2030.

    Please no more unsubstantiated global warming alarmism.

  • jimmy

    Discussion 7 : 03/10/2009 at 07:58 AM7

    It appears to me that we are late on the issue of global warming and the wheel has already been set in motion for a major earth event, being a polar shift, storms, flooding and loss of life.

Reply

    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
  • As a courtesy to our readers, please use proper punctuation and correct spelling.

back to top