Meanwhile, leading voices are raising new alarms.

In March, United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan said: 'We may already be seeing - in the increased incidence of drought, floods and extreme weather events that many regions are experiencing - some of the devastation that lies ahead.'

He urged all governments to ratify the protocol.

On the scientific front, signs of global warming mount, says the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a UN-organised network of hundreds of climatologists and other scientists worldwide.

This could shift climate zones, possibly making farmlands drier and deserts wetter. It could melt ice caps, intensify storms and spread diseases.

It could also raise ocean levels - by anywhere from 9cm to 88cm by 2100, the IPCC said.

The seas would rise because water expands as it warms, and because of the run-off from melting ice on the continents. -- AP

Greenhouse effect

A look at apparent 'greenhouse gas' effects reported by observers.

OCEANS

Seas rose throughout 20th century, and over past decade at accelerated rate of 0.25cm per year.

ISLANDS

Islanders in Pacific and elsewhere report steady erosion of shorelines from rising seas.

ARCTIC

In late summer, ice over Arctic Ocean believed to be only 60 per cent as thick as a few decades ago.

ANIMALS

Arctic animals could be severely affected by shrinking of their habitat. Polar bears losing weight because of reduced hunting time on ice.

TUNDRA

Spring temperatures in Alaskan Arctic were as much as 3.9 deg C warmer in 2000 than in 1971. Permafrost melting, buckling roads and damaging other infrastructure.

GLACIERS

Widespread retreat of mountain glaciers in non-polar regions. Some European glaciers have shrunk by 50 per cent. Only 27 remain of 150 in Montana's Glacier National Park.

SNOW

Global snow cover believed to have decreased by 10 per cent since 1960s.

DROUGHT

British climatologists conclude increase in drought periods in southern Africa in past 20 years probably linked to climate change.

HURRICANES

First hurricane ever recorded in South Atlantic struck Brazil on March 28. Computer models suggested such storms would make first appearance over warming seas. -- AP

http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/world/story/0,4386,252084,00.html

Is Global Warming worse then we think, and is there anything we can really do about it? I mean Kyoto is a start, but some detractors will say otherwise. I am wondering your position on this most important of matters.

It's something that hasn't been out the news for years.

Everyone knows about it and yes some things have changed to try and stop it.

But can it be stopped? - Is it not too late, and all we're doing is delaying the inevitable (sp?).

Personally i do not think enough is being done (same old excuse that it costs too much to change).

It is definately a major issue (without question) and needs to be addressed more seriously.

So why are we so sure that the increase in CO2 is causing global warming?

Climates warm. Climates cool. I am not convinced that anything we have done wrong in the past or might do right in the future will have any impact on the climate cycle. We humans don't control Melancovich cycles, the Earth's precession or the position of continents - all of which have a significant impact on climate. Do I need a more efficient car? Certainly. Do I think I'm going to save the world by driving it? Hell no.

Whilst the global warming - carbon dioxide connection is wearing down fast, doesn't mean that man may have to do something with climate changes.

We are able to produce smog soot and haze that reduces visibility from unlimited to less than a mile. What happenes with the light? Is it reflected, then it's getting colder. Is it getting absorbed? Then it's getting warmer.

There is a noted decrease in sunlight illuminating the earth of some 10% in a couple of decades. The cause? How about the airliner contrails that generate a lot of cirrus clouds, blocking the sun. Does that cool or warm the Earth? Lindzen assumes that it gives a warming effect. There are a few more changes.

Milankovitch cycle forcing and climate response is still not very clear.

I think global warming is an issue that's being misused by the media. I'll admit that the planet is warming up but I'm not saying it's entirely because of us. A lot can explain this global warming ... such as the weakening of the magnetic field, the rise in greenhouse gases, variations in the Earth's orbit and position relative to the ecliptic plane, deforestation, globalization, and so on.

Global warming is a serious issue, no doubt, but it may be out of our control. Reducing greenhouse gases such as CO2 may help alleviate the situation somewhat but it won't turn the climate back to a cooler condition. And as long as society is hooked on oil consumption, reducing CO2 emissions will be quite difficult if not impossible.

Also at this rate, if global warming does continue at the rate it's going, then it wouldn't matter if we can eliminate CO2 emissions because by then, the permafrost in the North will melt and release it's stored CH4 contents ... which is a much stronger greenhouse gas then CO2.

Yes this is a serious issue but the media makes it sound like we're all going to hell within the next 50 years. I don't think it will get that bad. Granted we will loose a few hundred animal and plant species in the process but this is how nature works ... even if we're helping it along it's merry way.

global warming, in its stated description is not entirely True. it is falsified by who-knows in order to conceal the real dangers and real reasons for the dramatic climate changes we are know barely noticing.

we should know now that major changes are coming.

alas, the governments think suppression of information is the best route to take with its loyal citizens who pay taxes and obey (most the time) their petty Laws.

true, people would shit their pants if given the documents and reports made on the globe (and outside) within the past half century, but that doesnt mean we cant know the bare facts or know what we should expect.

if u look at global warming and the data, it doesnt compute.
other factors are at play, which we arent told.

-singularity-
Granted we will loose a few hundred animal and plant species in the process but this is how nature works ... even if we're helping it along it's merry way.

This is a mistake that I think a lot of people are making, its not us who will lose a few species it is the earth, and we could very well be some of the species that will be lost to the earth. (food for thought)

About the extrinctions of those species, no doubt there is the vague notion of that alarminst article in Science in January:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3375447.stm

I've stated in a few forums that this was the worst token of science I've ever seen. The authors just used an extinction model, based on a couople of decades and extrapolated the data. The three major error are
a. extrapolating beyond the extreme values is not valid
b. extinctions of the last decades are not based on climate change
c. the past million years there may have been over thirty vigourous climate changes known as glacial periods and interstadials or "Dansgaard Oeschger" events. Only one of them was related to substantial extinction of mega fauna species, the Mammoths etc around about 11,670 years ago.

Well, here is the retreat:

Charities 'spread scare stories on climate change to boost public donations'

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2004%2F05%2F02%2Fngreen02 .xml

and it's indeed a "massive extinction of logic":
http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20040114-083322-9283r.htm

I reckon that not a single species will get extinct due to climate change. There will be massive extinction only due to destroying habitats.

Originally posted by greywolf
-singularity-
Granted we will loose a few hundred animal and plant species in the process but this is how nature works ... even if we're helping it along it's merry way.

This is a mistake that I think a lot of people are making, its not us who will lose a few species it is the earth, and we could very well be some of the species that will be lost to the earth. (food for thought)

I meant to say the planet would loose several hundred species ... not us as the humans of this planet. I'm aware that we too are a species and to say that we would loose some plant and animal species would imply we were the creators of them ... which is not true, to a certain degree.

Originally posted by Andre
I reckon that not a single species will get extinct due to climate change. There will be massive extinction only due to destroying habitats.

In a way that's true but most habitats are directly linked to the climate of a specified area. I found this article which gives an example of that. Note that it's part of the complete article.

Just as we are beginning to understand what really makes polar bears tick, however, our society's dependence on fossil fuels may wind up exiling the magnificent creatures from much of the Arctic.

The bears face the loss of their natural habitat from climate change triggered by rising levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the main culprit carbon dioxide from burning coal and petroleum.

"I think the prognosis is very grim," Derocher told an audience of Arctic researchers based aboard Canada's new science icebreaker here in Franklin Bay off the coast of the Northwest Territories this week.

His forecast of how polar bears will be driven hundreds of kilometres north by thinning sea ice dovetailed naturally with the Amundsen's current mission, which is to fit together all the pieces of the complex web of Arctic life that eventually culminates in the polar bear. As well, one researcher on this leg of the year-long mission, doctoral student John Iacozza from the University of Manitoba, is collaborating with Derocher and Stirling on forecasting how climate change will affect the snow and ice conditions that polar bears need for successful hunting and reproduction.

In a country that is home to more polar bears than anywhere else in the world, Derocher and Stirling represent about half of Canada's scientific research expertise into these majestic mammals. Stirling, based at the Edmonton office of the Canadian Wildlife Service, is the dean. He helped train both Iacozza and Derocher and has been studying polar bears in the Beaufort Sea and on the west side of Hudson Bay near Churchill since the 1970s.

These long-term studies let the researchers spot the first impact of climate change on the bears in Hudson Bay in the late 1980s. Rising winter temperatures and earlier ice breakup along the west side of the bay meant poorer seal hunting, less well-nourished polar bears, a decline in general health and a noticeable drop in reproductive success.

In 1992, that research produced the first scientific paper to warn that polar bears were especially vulnerable to climate change. Since the bears were already suffering health problems because of PCB contamination that concentrated as it rose in the food chain, they quickly became the Arctic equivalent of the caged canary used by miners to detect danger.

The key to polar bears — and the reason for their severe vulnerability to climate change — is realizing that they have spent more than 200,000 years evolving from land bears to living on sea ice and adapting to the killing of seals. The bears can readily kill the seals only when both are on the ice. When there is open water for seals, the bears are largely on a starvation diet that can, in some places, last from late June until March the following year.

"Right now is when the bears make their bread and butter, from now until the ice breaks up," Derocher says.

This is prime killing time because female ring seals are giving birth in hollows dug in the snow underneath pressure ridges that criss-cross the ice. The pressure ridges are effectively frozen rubble, the product of sheets of ice rubbing against one another, almost like the grinding of tectonic plates that produces earthquakes.
- http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1083276611495&call_pageid=968332188774&col=968350116467

Climate change directly affects a species habitat and if the climate changes dramatically, then some species will loose their habitats and be lead into extinction. So we can and will probably loose species due to climate change.

Just came across this article just now. If you still don't think it's getting worst, then read this:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/science/05/25/global.heat.reut/index.html

Believe it on your own will. I, for one, believe it's getting worst up in the arctic as they say.

Why do we fail to realize that most of civilizations use automobils to get around, causing so much pollution. Again we also fail to realize corporate america has plants everywhere and anywhere there's production needed, polluting 24/7 except during shutdown.
Or is it we're afraid to realize our own shortcomings because we can't come up with anything better than to continue polluting what's left of our air.
Mother nature is giving signs that she is about to devour us if we don't come up with something quick she'll show no mercy to flush us all away.

What makes you think mother nature wouldn't have flush us away even if we weren't polluting this planet? Pollution is just one factor ... not the main factor in climate change.

And also ... I don't think most of the industrialized world fails to realize that they're polluting the planet at an alarming rate. They just don't want to admit it or even accept responsibility. The world is run by oil and as long as there is a recevoir of oil/fossil feul somewhere on this planet ... they will continue to consume it until there isn't a drop left.

The world is run by economics ... and oil/fossil feul represents the backbone of the global economy. They won't give that up just because a small fraction of us are concerned over the well-being of this planet.

On the Arctic: Rapid arctic thaw portends warming...
Believe it on your own will. I, for one, believe it's getting worst up in the arctic as they say

Well first of all, these specialists decided that the Artic ice recovered nicely this winter:

http://www.ukweatherworld.co.uk/forum/thread-view.asp?threadid=7074&start=1

Secondly, I repeat that there may be warming going on but whether it is natural or which human actions may cause it is not nearly understood yet. But CO2 is unlogical.

Solar cycles, not CO2, determine climate.

http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/

Not read it yet, so just for reference.

Just to put in some counter balance after all the hype forming propaganda:


NEWS RELEASE 24th May 2004 03.00 hrsfficeffice" />>>

>>

Global Warmers challenged>>

Piers Corbyn of Weather Action throws down gauntlet at Royal College Of Science Association Annual Dinner>>

>>

Piers Corbyn of Weather Action long range forecasters and former President* of Imperial College students Union spelt out three challenges to Global Warmers in his speech as guest of honour at this year's Annual dinner of the Royal College of Science Association (the old students association of science graduates of Imperial College).>>

He criticised the widely trailed freak science film, 'The day after tomorrow', as "pseudo-scientific utter nonsense" and in a fast moving witty speech illustrated with graphs and a globe he issued three challenges to Global Warmers:->>

>>

1. To justify how Carbon Dioxide levels have any significant observed effect on world temperatures while observations show World Temperatures are closely related to particles hitting Earth from the Sun**. >>

"If Carbon Dioxide actually controls World temperatures the Global Warmers must also explain how it controls what happens on the Sun, and such a proposition is utter nonsense" said Piers. [**shown by 22yr time-moving averages, graphs attached produced by M Golipour Weather Action Associate, as presented by Mr Corbyn to the CERA Global Oil Summit in Feb 2004. "Solar particles (geomagnetic effects - red graph) control temperatures (blue graph) while CO2 (purple graph) just follows a pretty smooth curve", explained Mr Corbyn.]>>

>>

2. To explain how Carbon Dioxide, which follows a smooth curve, could be controlling something (eg temperature), which shows a lot of periodic and other variation. >>

"The reason for CO2 smooth variation is because it is largely controlled by temperatures NOT the other way around, and this control is partly time-delayed", said Mr Corbyn. "It appears, for example, that sea temperatures (and ice cap extent) both present and past influence the present rate at which the sea absorbs or emits CO2 and the CO2 content of upwelling seawaters which absorbed CO2 probably centuries ago in amounts determined by temperatures then", said Mr Corbyn. (see also Stephens & Keeling http://www.co2science.org/journal/2000/v3n7c1.htm ). He also presented a frequency analysis chart (PSD = Power Spectral Density), attached, of particle effect and world temperature variations which shows that temperatures mainly vary with a periodicity of 22years which is the magnetic particle effect cycle of the sun whose magnetic field changes direction every 11 years (which is the main period of sunspots and particle numbers from the sun.) "No C02-based theory can explain any of these variations", said Mr Corbyn.>>

>>

3. To admit that the freak science film 'The Day After Tomorrow' is scientifically utter nonsense and accept that the last time there was an effective switch in the Gulf Stream - the story of the film - which made Europe much colder coincided with a very low level of sunspots, solar activity and particles from the sun notably between 1645 & 1715 (The 'Maunder Minimum' of solar activity).>>

"There is no evidence that CO2 has ever caused any switch in the Gulf Stream, but there is evidence that solar activity has", said Mr Corbyn.>>

>>

Mr Corbyn dismissed anecdotal claims such as that bits of ice breaking of Antarctica or the advent in Europe of either hot Summers (caused by positioning of High pressures) or summer floods (caused by persistent Low pressures) were proof of man-made global warming. He said "We now live in an era where anecdote plus pseudo-theory is taken as proof. This is a sorry state and counter scientific">>

>>

Mr Corbyn showed Weather Action's current long range weather forecasts which had from months ahead correctly predicted the warmth in early-mid week 17th-19th May and the cold wet spell on Thursday 20th/Friday21st. "The end-May Bank Holiday will be fine", he said. "This is all done months ahead through predictable particle effects from the sun". >>

>>

In answer to questions and comments he said that the warmest times over the last two thousand years were during the second and third centuries AD (see Yang, Braenning, Johnson, Yafeng, http://www.co2science.org/journal/2002/v5n39c2.htm ).>>

He said the Global Warming Lobby was not led by science but driven by politics and spin. "There has never before been a movement which asks to pay taxes in the name of saving the planet, no government can resist this and will only encourage it", he said. "Furthermore it enables the advanced world to control the developing world through technology and energy rules". >>

He also cited cases of scientists taking money for Global Warming research even though they had admitted the basis of it is nonsense but would not speak out.>>

>>

Mr Corbyn ended by reminding everyone that hitherto all scientific theories had been shown to be inadequate, man-made CO2 based global warming theory being an example; and appealed to scientists to adhere to the principles of objective scientific measurement, method and judgement - 'which is why we came to Imperial College in the first place' - and to reject modern trends to spin and nonsense.>>

>>

Commenting later on the Russian Government's announcement that it would 'move towards' the Kyoto agreement on Global warming, Mr Corbyn said "They haven't got there yet and furthermore top Russian scientists and economists have rightly criticised the claims and basis of the Global Warmers and have had the integrity to say so in public".>>

>>

----------------------------------------------------------->>

>>

*Mr Corbyn, a Royal Scholar to Imperial College, graduated with a First class degree in Physics in 1968 and as a post graduate was the first democratically elected (by vote of the student body) President of Imperial College Student Union 1969-1970. >>

In his after dinner speech held on Friday evening 21st May in the oak-panelled Union Dining Hall in Imperial College Union building, Prince Consort Road. London, he first reminisced on the RCS Mathematical & Physical Society which he ran for a while and included top lectures on problems & paradoxes in Physics and on then on the heady days of student activism. He said that those were the 'best ever days for students'. 'We were the peak of the post war baby-boom, the hopes of the future were ours, and we had full student fees and decent grants all paid for, so we could study properly and have time to think. The present system is a disgrace.' He said.>>


Not on the net yet I'm afraid, just a press release.

And another one:

1: The water vapor is not acting as positive feed back to increase the greenhouse gas effect.
2: The global warming climate models failed to predict the past
3: The Kilimanjora snow is not melting due to warming but to aridity.

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=14871
Global Warming Fears Melting

New Studies Appearing in Respected Scientific Journals Suggest Time is Running out For the Biggest Eco-Scare of the Twentieth Century
Written By: James M. Taylor
Published In: Environment News
Publication Date: May 1, 2004
Publisher: The Heartland Institute
NASA: Predictions "Exaggerated"

In the March 13 Journal of Climate, Ken Minschwaner (...) and Andrew Dessler (...) noted, "In most global climate models, an initial warming caused by additional CO2 and other greenhouse gases leads to enhanced evaporation at the surface and a general moistening of the atmosphere. Since water vapor is a strong infrared absorber, the added moisture causes further warming. The amplifying effect can be quite large, increasing the global average warming by 70%-90% compared to calculations that maintain a fixed water vapor."

According to the new NASA data, water evaporation has not increased nearly as much as alarmists have predicted and have factored into their computer models.

As a result, according to the March 18 New York Times, "Dr. Minschwaner said the new research raised questions about the high end" of temperature predictions from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, ...

According to Environment & Energy Daily, the new data show "predictions about global warming have exaggerated its potential effects."

Stated NASA, "In most computer models relative humidity tends to remain fixed at current levels.

Computer Models Fail Test

Another study, published at the same time as the analysis of new NASA data, also undercut claims that computer models are accurate predictors of future climate.

The study, published in Climate Research (25:185-190),

(...) the predictive accuracy of alarmist computer models can be assessed by feeding past atmospheric data into the models and observing how well the resulting predictions match up with the current climate. "If this predicted feature of global warming is not evident in the real world," stated Sherwood Idso of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, "there is little reason to believe anything else the models predict, including both the cause and (or) magnitude of the observed surface warming."

Importantly, according to the Climate Research study, "at no time, in any model realization, forced or unforced, did any model simulate the presently observed situation of a large and highly significant surface warming accompanied with no warming whatsoever aloft."

Moreover, noted the study, "significant errors in the simulations of globally averaged tropospheric temperature structure indicate likely errors in tropospheric water-vapor content and therefore total greenhouse-gas forcing. Such errors argue for extreme caution in applying simulation results to future climate-change assessment activities and to attribution studies (e.g. Zwiers and Zhang, 2003) and call into question the predictive ability of recent generation model simulations."

New Studies Further Debunk Kilimanjaro

A new study in the March issue of International Journal of Climatology further debunked alarmist claims that global warming is causing a retreat of the famous alpine glacier atop Africa's Mount Kilimanjaro.

According to the new study, however, reductions in the Kilimanjaro snowpack are due to regional recent dry weather patterns rather than a warming of the atmosphere. The study's authors found no evidence that human factors have played any role in the regional dry spell or any other factor associated with the retreat of the Kilimanjaro glacier.

"Now the pendulum has swung," commented the March 23 New York Times. "The authors wrote that the dry weather both limited the snows that help sustain tropical glaciers and, by reducing cloud cover, allowed more solar energy to bathe the glacier. In dry, cold conditions, the ice vaporized without melting first, a process called sublimation. There was no evidence that rising temperatures had caused the melting."

The International Journal of Climatology study supports the conclusions of other recent studies that have cast doubt on the asserted link between global warming and the retreat of the Kilimanjaro snowpack.

(...) the (Kilimanjaro) ice loss on global warming, researchers think that deforestation of the mountain's foothills is the more likely culprit.

Added S. Fred Singer...) "Surface measurements of East Africa show no warming trend. Weather satellites show a pronounced cooling trend of the atmosphere there. No one has questioned these data."

"Kilimanjaro turns out to be just another snow job, precipitated by a journalistic community ..."

http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/world/story/0,4386,252084,00.html

Is Global Warming worse then we think, and is there anything we can really do about it? I mean Kyoto is a start, but some detractors will say otherwise. I am wondering your position on this most important of matters.

Global Warming has always fascinated me. First, it was Global Cooling. The panic-mongering environmentalists were quick with there pseudoscience sensationalism: Greenhouse gases were going to snuff out the sun, plungeing the earth into a second ice age.

Then something interesting happened: an analysis of global weather patterns revealed the earth was warming up, not cooling down.

Uhoh, says Greenpeace, did we say "Global Cooling?" Lets make that Global Warming. And its still all our fault. Forget that the most recent eruption of Mt. St. Helens, an event lasting ~3 hours, threw more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than all of humanity has in its historic entirety. Or should volcanic eruptions be punishable by heavy fines and lengthy prison terms for the euptor?

Ultimately, heres the facts: The earth has been warming for as long as man has been measuring regional weather patterns. This predates industrialism. It is the natural and logical next step following an Ice Age if we assume a circular terrestrial life cycle. Pointless human meddling in the process is infinitely minute when one considers the true scale of the factors involved.