How Can We Stop Global Warming?


Strange Facts and Questions about Global Warming ACADEMIA and the CLIMATE EMERGENCY ITS THE LIFESTYLE, NOT THE SCIENCE Sceptics and Deniers Contact the Author, Michael Tuckson References and Acknowledgements Short CV For Beginners and the Bewildered COPENHAGEN and  AFTER BLOG WHAT YOU CAN DO NOW My Sitemap

An Independent, Global and Flexible Approach: This site has no national, political or scientific sub-theory bias. It is regularly Updated and Improved.


Climate Science

(Updated 28 and 29 March 2010) 

Dr. Michael Tuckson

Climate science must be the first stop in the climate debate.

The deniers ruthlessly attack climate science as they know it is critical, but they also know it is only slightly understood by the people. For this reason everyone must try to understand as much as possible, to the limits of your ability and time. But at the same time we must keep in mind that the denier onslaught is nothing to do with science. It is all about a false understanding of how to preserve income, welath and lifestyle.  They only pretend to be interested in the science. See....... COPENHAGEN and AFTER BLOG  or IT'S THE LIFESTYLE, NOT THE SCIENCE.

 I have here five web pages under the general heading climate science:

  1. Basic Global Warming Information 
  2. Thermal Inertia of the Oceans 
  3. Surface Earth System Feedbacks  
  4. We Must Strengthen Our Temperature, Concentration and Emission Goals 
  5. Palaeo-climates 


Some Well Established Theory


1. Global temperatures continue to rise even though they oscillate yearly and the rise slowed a little over the last decade. The rise has also plateaued on some previous occasions, but risen subsequently.

2. Solar radiation cannot explain the temperature rises in the last three decades.

3. Cosmic rays cannot explain recent temperature rises.

4. Global warming is mainly in rural regions, thus is not due to urban heat islands.

5. We must consider short-term and long-term gases and dusts. 


These five basic statements (that might be known as truths) are covered in ...Basic GLOBAL WARMING Information   This page also lists the main ways in which anyone can observe the consequences of warming without understanding models or sophisticated statistics.


Oceanic Thermal Inertia


Oceanic thermal inertia is due to the intrinsic nature of water and the volume of the huge oceans. I don't believe it is well understood by most people interested in global warming, but it is very important. It means that the atmosphere is both warming more slowly than it would without the great oceans, and will continue to warm long after we stop spewing greenhouse gases and dusts into the atmosphere.

Read more.....Thermal Inertia of the Oceans




Feedbacks are processes that tend to speed up or slow down changes already in train. In the context of global warming the feedbacks that speed up warming are known as postive or amplifying feedbacks and those that slow it are known as negative feedbacks. Their speed varies, so they are known very roughly as fast and slow. An example of a fast amplifying feedback is the increased evaporation from the warming oceans raising water vapour levels in the atmosphere that in turn causes further warming. A slow amplifying feedback is the melting of the great land ice sheets, that will decrease reflection of sunlight back to space. A negative feedback is the increased mineral dust due to droughts reflecting more sunlight back to space. All in all, the effects of the amplifying feedbacks are stronger.

Read more........Surface earth system feedbacks


GHG Concentration Aims


Some commentators are saying it is too difficult, given human technology and habits, to stop carbon dioxide concentrations rising above even 450 ppm and thus probably reaching 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial temperatures (see graph below). They say we can stop the rise at perhaps 500 ppm or 550 ppm. But this is definitely too high, as even 450 ppm will result in calamitous degradation, and could possibly see uncontrollable warming and climate change. We are now at 387 ppm and 0.8 degrees (or really 1.3 because of inevitable warming due to CO2 already in atmosphere) so 400 ppm is unrealistic, but something between 400 and 450 ppm, say 430 ppm must be our aim for maximum concentration of carbon dioxide. About 300,000 people are dying each year at 387/0.8, a number of deaths that will rise on average each year. After stopping at 420 ppm we must then return to 300 ppm by air carbon capture and other measures. 


Temperature - Carbon Dioxide Relationship


A safe level for GHGs may be 300 ppm just above pre-industrial levels, certainly no higher than 350 ppm. A safe temperature rise may be, or rather would have been, 0.5 degrees. 


Even though it is technically feasible to lower concentrations, whether we can also lower the temperature is a mute point. Attaining such goals may be extremely difficult, but if we don't aim for a figure like 430 ppm as a maximum, greater disaster may await. But note that even if we manage to capture huge volumes of carbon dioxide, The heat in the oceans will continue to dissipate due to inertia. It will be necessary to use other methods to cool Earth.


We need to start to address the future problem of aerosols that are created with carbon dioxide, but that help to keep the world cooler than it would otherwise be. Unlike carbon dioxide they have a short lifetime. This means that when we reduce carbon dioxide emissions, the cooling effect of the aerosols will fall much more quickly than the heating effect of CO2. We thus must offer an alternative to aerosols to cool the Earth. What is the alternative to geo-engineering. We will have to compare the risks of doing nothing to substitute with that of using a partly proven idea.


Firstly we need radical change to many aspects of our ways of life, especially in modern sectors, facilitated by the best adult education we can devise with excellent international communication. Either you wish to save your descendants lives and culture, and if you are young, your own life and culture, or you don't. Another solution of sorts is birth control to avoid having further descendants.


Read more on this topic.....Emissions, Concentration and Temperature




Many climate scientists refer to the probability of say 0.33, 0.1 or even 0.01 of temperatures rising above 2 degrees, apparently causing massive change, if particular net emission targets are not met. What they are saying in this case is that there is respectively a one third chance, a one tenth chance or a one in a hundred chance that many of our descendants will suffer misery if not die if we emit a given amount of pollution. How many readers would send their children on a motor cycle trip if there was a one third chance or even one in a hundred chance they could be seriously injured or even die in a crash? My preferred chance of death is less than one in 100,000. Although the odds are much vaguer, to achieve that in the climate stakes, we need to aim at a temperature rise much less than 2 degrees.


Consider the alternative strategies for change..... 

Social Conditions and Strategies

Strategies to Strengthen Government Policy



Because the rise in carbon dioxide emissions and atmospheric concentration has been steadier than the irregular rise in temperature over the last 100 years, it is instructive to look at Earth history for evidence of a relationship. And it is indeed remarkable that more than just about any other natural relationship, the evidence for the rises and falls in surface earth temperature are correlated again and again with the evidence for rises and falls in carbon dioxide concentration over tens of millions of years. Although, not evident in every detail, this correlation should be enough for us to be extremely worried about the future.

The cause and effect relationship takes place like this. There are two main cycle types in Earth history. The long one takes place over 100-150 million years and the short one over about 100,000 years and less. The long cycle involves volcanism, subsidence and subduction of strata under continents during continental drift (and plate tectonics) and the deposition of carbon rich organisms in sediments that then become sedimentary rocks. These processes cause long term changes in carbon dioxide concentrations and temperature. Shorter-term periodic changes in sun-earth geometry cause small changes in temperature that are then amplified by water vapour, reduced ice reflection, carbon dioxide and then methane feedback. This is why the periodic temperature changes precede the initial carbon dioxide concentration changes in Earth history by a few hundred years at least.

This topic is covered in more detail in ......Palaeo-climates

The Scientists Must Lead

Our 'economies', 'polities', technology and schooling have created our own rapid fire technological volcanism that is raising the GHG concentration in parallel with early feedback. Although no scientific theory claims to explain everything in perfect detail, something like this is our best at the moment. Can our ‘leaders’, our political, legal and economic power holders, nearly all trained in other disciplines, in almost every country, understand this science before they take us to oblivion?  What should scientists and others who understand do? It is now up to scientists and similarly trained people to take the political lead in this time of our greatest need, as most of the socially trained power holders hardly understand, even if they have been convinced by the scientists. Possibly the best strategy is quiet face-to-face discussion with as senior people as possible, rather than public spats that appear to be progressing nowhere.

Air Capture of Carbon


Meanwhile, increased effort should be put into capture of carbon already in the atmosphere now, by biological and technological means. This is necessary because carbon dioxide concentration has already passed the safe level that is less than 350 ppm, and the gas has a very long atmospheric lifetime. This can be done by first slowing then stopping emissions and conserving forest, then by planting trees, by storing carbon in soil, by burying biochar or minimum tillage, and by geo-engineering if can be shown to be cost-effective and environmentally safe.


Wapi Pathum Tree Planting

Tree planting on monastery land at Wapi Pathum, Northeast Thailand, 1990. These trees have likely been cut by now but most of the carbon will be stored in timber use and the trees will be coppicing, storing extra carbon. 

A huge effort is required to ensure that forest conservation and tree planting are sincere, well planned and secure from theft, fire, die-back and fraud. As the world warms, forests and plantations will become more susceptible to fire, pests and disease. If trees are in danger in massive numbers, efforts should be made to protect the carbon by felling in wide fire breaks and storage for gradual construction or manufacture of biochar. Rapid research and adult education are needed.   More on this topic in ........Trees and Forests

Apart from lowering carbon dioxide concentrations, we must also lower temperatures presumably by geo-engineering. If we do not try to lower temperatures, then ice bodies will continue to melt and sea levels will continue to rise and intrude low lying land with the help of storm surges. Apart from that, relatively high temperatures will cause feedback effects such as ocean evaporation and tree die-back........  Surface earth system feedbacks

Will those who still advocate aiming for a rise to 450 ppm, that will almost certainly be exceeded, promise to take in all those environmental refugees created since 300 ppm was passed, until of course they themselves become refugees?

Science in Dispute

I would like to make a plea to climate scientists not to ignore other's work that you believe is wrong. In everyday research we could afford to ignore in the assumption that the poor idea will die a natural death. This is no longer so, partly because of the denier virus, and partly because we have no time to play gentlemen with climate. If you believe it is wrong, say so, say clearly, and say why. Climate scientists should realize that it is difficult for non-climate scientists, let alone journalists and others, not to mention politicians, to "adjudicate" in the subtle and less subtle disputes. Forget about the deniers. We have enough problems sorting out the real scientists. This should apply to both peer-reviewed work and the better non-peer-reviewed work such as the Copenhagen Diagnosis and Spratt and Sutton's paper Target Practice. Note also that peer-review is no guarantee of excellence, as some such papers are subsequently criticized by other writers who normally write for peer-reviewed journals.


For some years, a small, quiet but significant gap appears to have been growing between IPCC on the one hand, and NASA and other independent climate scientists. This is not simply a scientific dispute, because IPCC is now a massive body with some political input, considering it includes scientists from all the major fossil fuel producing and using nations. The Copenhagen Diagnosis, written by a significant group of 26 IPCC scientists, and claiming, largely justifiably, to be a scientific update, does not even refer to Hansen et al's (NASA et al) famous 2008 paper in which the figure 350 ppm is first raised. The IPCC is consistently scientifically conservative, as has been shown by its low estimates of ice melting and sea level rise, and relatively high temperature and GHG concentration estimates of what causes danger, as has been pointed out by the Copenhagen Diagnosis, among others. The Deniers who hacked into East Anglia have got it back to front. The IPCC is not exaggerating global warming. Quite the opposite.  If this is not resolved it could lead to disaster. It may be worthwhile for an independent scientific body to bring the IPCC and the independents together, or set up another independent group to propose a scientific resolution. The politicians representing industry no doubt prefer a conservative bias. Our grandchildren prefer accuracy.


 Access to Information


Most readers live in large wealthy cities and may have access to large scientific paper libraries and major bookshops, usually in universities. Those of us in smaller and poorer cities or the countryside depend on the internet, including books from internet shops sent by mail. Virtually all scientific journals display abstracts on their websites. These abstracts are often weak, possibly on purpose. Moreover, many do not give access to the full paper without an absurd payment, often up to 35 USD per article! This means that I, and others like me, can read only a proportion of the science out there. The expensive science does not get read, does not get referred to, and is thus of limited use as far as I and millions of others are concerned. I can only use the weak abstracts and the references to the work in other articles. Much scientific information is far too expensive.


Scientists doing important research would be well advised to write clear summary papers for websites so the world can know the basics. 99.9 percent of readers will never read a full scientific paper, but millions want to know the main results and ideas.  I invite any out there who would like to contribute a page to this website to email me at



  Copyright © 2010 Michael Tuckson.  All Rights Reserved 


 Print this page  |   Bookmark this page


Language Links Above




Các chiến lược mới để làm giảm nhẹ sự thay đổi khí hậu      

Semi-Random Slogans

Invite a denier to lunch

Eat less meat every day

Form a small climate group

Inertia will kill us, twice

Holiday on bicycles

Learn how to plant and nurture trees

Drain your rice fields sometimes 

Auction caps 

Grow and store carbon 

Write to a newspaper in a denier region 

Help the employees, not the fossil fuel owners

Read a book, not a newspaper, on the bus

350 not 450

Study tropical forest protection

Why are most deniers men?

Carbon tax before cap and trade

Look for a home closer to work

Write a new page for this website

Oppose lobbying

Put a new slogan on your bicycle or bag every day 

Study the latest climate science first

No air-conditioning before lunchtime

Drink just a little cow milk

Study Earth's thermal inertia

Learn how to teach

Send parts of this website to a politician

Grow and store carbon in houses 

Organize exchanges with Asian universities 

Grow crops not livestock

Rationing is equitable

Study thermal inertia in buildings

Practice dialogue, not argument

Behaviour before technology

Make a bicycle path plan

Don't use concrete

Drive a much smaller car

Study the denier claims

1.5 not 2.0

Don't use trees for offsets

Work with a bilingual person 

Eat even less meat every day

Support better democracy

Do deniers care for their grandchildren? 

Paint your roof white

Oppose advertising by polluting companies

Consume less, save money

Form an international group 

Help a politician to learn

Making cement emits CO2.

Education must be global 

Grow and store carbon in the soil

Fans, not air-conditioning

Lobbying is bribery

Study growing algae

Improve the school curricula

You can't read driving a car

Find dated photos of glaciers

Study which companies bribe political parties 

How do you entice a denier to want to learn?

Share your job with an oil driller

Plant trees to absorb carbon dioxide already in the atmosphere

Have you tried Tahini dip?

What do deniers understand?

Dress less formally in the heat

Design a more tempting commuter bus

Get to know a denier's children

Pay tax to fund retraining

Less clothing, not fans

Eat kangaroo meat 


Improve the university curricula

One is enough

Interview a climate scientist on video

Insulate your home

Open a wind turbine factory in a coal town

Study Earth feedback processes

300 not 350

Wheat is safer than rice

Take men's fashions up, and women's down

Use a condom in emergencies

Share some job-time

Protest forest destruction

Wear a cotton coat

Study tree plantations

Eat just a little cheese

Get to know a denier's grandchildren

Why do the rich want to grow?

Put on an extra jumper when its cold outside

Offer a new job to a coal miner

Adopt two

Join an NGO today

Political bribes, not donations

None is enough

Holiday close to home

Invest in a diverse plantation

Wear less in the heat

Talk to migrants about emailing home

Make compost

Promote eco-tourism for locals

Read more of this website

Ask a politician have they read James Hansen

Eat less cream

Jumpers are cheaper than gas

Arrange a climate debate

Build a thick-walled house

Study how to turn moderate deniers

Study fast growing trees

Hand out appropriate leaflets at railway stations

Study your local energy organization

Learn about the delights of veganism

Study Chinese

Practice walking

Shirts are enough in hot weather

Support rapid research on how to turn deniers

Try an IUD

Asians make blankets from cotton and kapok

Get to know your neighbours

Recycle jumpers and coats

Holiday by mass land transport

Drink red wine, not milk

Support rapid research on capturing CO2 from the air.

Hand out leaflets at bus stops

Men's legs are beautiful too

Talk to local government about recycling biological waste

Keep a stock of morning after pills


Adopt another one

When will the USA go metric?

Write and publish leaflets

Holiday on a sailing ship

Start a course on climate change and solutions

Exercise periodically when its cold

Farmers now support the Green party

Give a talk at the local school

Chocolate's great with soya cream

Climate crisis not climate change

Share a car with your neighbours

Study tipping points and irreversibility

Email government ministers

Form a climate group with your neighbours or friends

Read Climate Cover-Up

Study palaeo-climatology

Soon meat becomes less tempting

Improve your foreign language skills

Adopt a baby girl 

Write an article for your local newspaper

Read Storms of My Grandchildren (after reading some climate science such as on this website)

Take plastic packaging off at the shop

Climate emergency not climate crisis

Ask you government to make a good video on the climate emergency

Move your company to where your workers live

Invite your favourite denier to a vegan lunch

Ask the supermarket to turn off half the lights

Study carbon taxes in more than one nation

Join yours with other climate groups

Shop at dimly lit shops

Email people you know abroad

Ask a climatologist to explain the various! meanings of CO2e

Plant and nurture trees in your garden till its full

Learn about biochar

Study the bus routes in your town or city

Support James Hansen for the Nobel Prize for physics, peace or whatever.

Protest new oil exploration

Install a solar thermal hot water heater

Shop for food where the fridges have lids or doors

Plant 10 trees a month in neighbours' gardens and in parks

Ask your adult children what they think

Write a better letter to the newspapers

Organize a demonstration outside coal company offices.

Where are the Nobel prizes for Earth and social sciences?

Form a climate group at work

Give a talk at a school in a coal town

No children is best

Buy a glass of wine for a denier

Start an NGO

Support honest and intelligent politicians

Study short-term GHGs

Join a good political party

Give a talk at a school at an oil town

Study hire-purchase for solar panels

Stake out a coal energy factory

Don't export coal or oil

Work in a vulnerable area

Invest in geothermal

Live with a farmer family in the holidays and help them plant trees

Build a sailing ship

Give talks at the local town.

Hand out leaflets at another station

Video a debate

Move to a swinging seat in time for close elections



















 Michael Tuckson

The website author and publisher, December 2009.


Easy Summary


We must try to understand up-to-date climate science coming out over the last few years that warns of possible disaster. Ice shelves and sheets are melting much faster than before. Global temperatures are rising, with oscillations due to ocean oscillations. Natural causes are minor compared with pollution. This understanding must be spread by advanced adult education, especially among the powerful. As many readers as possible must spread understanding.


Denier leaders are funded by the fossil fuel, tobacco and similar corporations and/or are ideologues. Their arguments are always against, not considering pro and con, as with real science. They rarely call for better understanding, just attempt to confuse. None are climate scientists. Their motivation is salary and weak government, not salary and discovery. Either they do not care about their descendants or they do not understand the probable future.


We must put more emphasis on the short-term greenhouse influences such as methane. Carbon dixide must be captured from the atmosphere. Also we must lead with behaviour change before appropriate technology spreads. Birth control is important in some regions. Job-time sharing and retraining can reduce any unemployment resulting from mitigation measures. Mitigation must be coordinated globally by government and citizens in modern sectors. City pairing could be useful.