Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

Drink Driving, Don't Risk It!

Climate change is a challenge, say Scots

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 23 January 2008
AN OVERWHELMING number of Scots believe climate change is "one of the most important challenges facing the world", according to a poll.
The survey of more than 1,000 Scots, commissioned by Catholic aid agency Sciaf, found that 88 per cent of women and 84 per cent of men tended to agree or strongly agreed this was true.

Just 6 per cent of men and 2 per cent of women "strongly disa
greed" while 5 per cent of both sexes tended to disagree.

It was published as the Scottish Catholic International Aid Fund (Sciaf) issued a report on "Why Scotland must act now to combat climate change".

"Scientific evidence suggests that, if we are to maximise our chances of avoiding catastrophic climate change, greenhouse gas emissions need to peak and substantially fall within the next five to ten years," the report said.

"There is a narrow window of opportunity which must be seized by individuals and by our political leaders."

It called on the Scottish Government and parliament to take seven measures such as including aviation and shipping in greenhouse gas targets and establishing a carbon fund to give financial incentives to reduce emissions.

The report said the onus was on developed countries to "take the lead" on reducing emissions, saying the UK and Scotland had made "disproportionately large contributions".

India has more than 16 per cent of the world's population, but produces just 4 per cent of emissions, Brazil emits seven times more than Scotland but its population is 37 times higher, while the average Chinese person produces 3.6 tonnes of compared to the UK average of 9.6 tonnes.

"In 2005, just one of Scotland's power stations, Longannet, emitted more than 10 sub-Saharan African countries – Malawi, Rwanda, Burundi, Chad, Comoros, Uganda, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Gambia, Mali and the Central African Republic," the report said.

"In fact, we estimate that Scotland emits more emissions than the combined total of most of the countries in which Sciaf works."

AWARE AMY Vs GREEDY GEORGE: HOW GOING GREEN MAKES A DIFFERENCE

GREEDY GEORGE
• CHILDHOOD: Wears disposable nappies as a baby and is driven to nursery and primary school in his parents' four-wheel drive car. Gordon also leaves computers, stereos, televisions and video game machines on for hours when not using them. Instead of putting on a jumper, he turns up the heating in his room. Family holidays involve flights to France and Egypt.

• EARLY ADULTHOOD: Buys a seven-year-old old Ford Escort as a student, flies to Thailand on holidays. On getting a job, he upgrades to a VW Golf GTI, goes to a large out-of-town shopping centre, buying food from all over the world, and takes holidays in Spain.

• FAMILY MAN: Buys a Volvo V70 estate car, food bill and miles rise as children are born. Holidays are in the United States. Children leave home, reducing emissions, but Gordon buys a Mercedes Benz S500 and now holidays in Peru. He consumes 33kg of food from around the world a week, resulting in 4,370kg of greenhouse gases a year from transport costs.

• RETIREMENT: Buys a Jaguar XJ8, takes annual holiday in New Zealand.

• DEATH: Chooses a brushed steel coffin and elaborate concrete catacomb.

Lifetime emissions of greenhouse gases: 1251 tonnes

AWARE AMY
• CHILDHOOD: Wears washable nappies, saving 12kg of greenhouse gas emissions a year, compared with disposables. Parents take her to nursery by bicycle and she later goes to school by bus. Family holidays are in UK towns, such as Plymouth and Chester. Amy turns off appliances after using them.

• EARLY ADULTHOOD: As a student, she uses a bicycle and public transport to get about, stays in UK for holidays. Sets her computer to go to sleep mode when inactive for more than a few minutes. Uses low-energy light bulbs. On getting a job, buys energy-efficient appliances, insulates her well-designed home, recycles and composts, buys local food.

• FAMILY WOMAN: Arrival of children sees increase in emissions, with amount of food bought rising to 33kg a week. Buying local food limits rise in emissions from transport costs to 147kg a year. Holidays spent in Skegness and exploring home city.

• RETIREMENT: Uses public transport to get around and continues to holiday in UK.

• DEATH: Buried in a hessian sack.

Lifetime emissions of greenhouse gases: 370 tonnes

TIME TO TAKE THE PLEDGE FOR A GREENER SCOTLAND
THE Scotsman and the Scottish Government are running a joint campaign to persuade people to change the way they live to help fight climate change.

The "Let's Go Green Together" campaign is asking people to sign up to one or more of the following pledges:

&149 recycle household waste using locally provided facilities;

&149 turn the tap off when brushing teeth;

&149 switch to using energy-saving light bulbs;

&149 leave the car at home at least once a week and cycle, walk, share a car, or use public transport more often;

&149 use rechargeable batteries instead of disposable ones;

&149 reuse carrier bags when you shop;

&149 buy more seasonal and unpackaged food;

&149 hang your washing up to dry, rather than using a tumble-dryer;

&149 organise or volunteer in an environmental project in your community;

• and/or pay back the environmental impact of any flights you take and choose not to fly when there's a suitable alternative.

Anyone wanting to join the campaign can sign up through The Scotsman by e-mailing gogreen@scotsman.com with your name, where you are from, the pledges you plan to try. We would also like to hear what you think about the issues generally.




Page 1 of 1

 
1

Mark Renton,

Edinburgh 23/01/2008 03:30:40
Fact: By far the most substantial "green" contribution anyone can make is also the simplest. Simply have fewer children. Any other contribution pales by comparison. Having one child creates a legacy of consumption that completely obliterates any and all "green" efforts that you could ever make in your own lifetime. This truth is self-evident and yet we are left with the guilt-inducing nonsense that is printed day-after-day in this wretched publication.
2

Faye,

23/01/2008 03:46:59
#1 Absolutely!
3

Pete40,

Tassy 23/01/2008 05:42:58
Turn your airports into plowed fields. You now have broadband connections that allow face to face electronic conferencing. Strictly speaking, your average politician should be able to carry out his business in his living room.
4

Pilrig.,

Livingston 23/01/2008 06:19:24
3 So the ordinary punter isn't allowed to have a holiday abroad, I take it ?
5

Pete40,

Tassy 23/01/2008 06:43:57
The ordinary punter fifty years ago tried down the water, Portobellow, Dunbar, Eyemouth, Crail, St Andrews. Never heard anyone complain. You guys are looking for the rich life.
6

Pete40,

Tassy 23/01/2008 06:45:33
The ordinary punter fifty years ago tried down the water, Portobello, Dunbar, Eyemouth, Crail, St Andrews. Never heard anyone complain. You guys are looking for the rich life.
7

Pete40,

Tassy 23/01/2008 06:48:06
Sorry about that!
8

Unimpressed one,

23/01/2008 08:20:02
A bit rich of the catholics to insist on reducing our 'footprint' yet they are firmly against reducing the biggest contribution to 'emissions' - human population. Yet another example of an organisation wringing its collective hands at an non-existant problem. God knows what future generations will think of our gullibility. I know if I was born in Africa and faced with the prospects of a life of impoverishment and deprivation, lacking still the basics of health, education and sanitation, knowing the world was more concerned at carbon emissions rather than accepting the fact that the sun was the instigator of periods of climate change, I would feel pretty let down to say the least. You couldn't make up this carbon insanity unless you ignored the real world around us and placed all your faith in 'scientific' predictions, everyone of which has failed us miserably in the past.
9

Mark Renton,

Edinburgh 23/01/2008 09:15:54
Climate change is a challenge, say Scots: The only reason the headline is true is because of the guilt-inducing nonsense that is printed day-after-day in this wretched publication.
10

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 23/01/2008 09:19:19
#1 Mark Renton

Mark, it's a pity that you diminish an otherwise important and rational point - the desirability of having fewer children - by your irrational and unjustified swipe at other measures that can be taken (your "guilt-inducing nonsense").

This is particularly the case following an article in which the lifetime effects of an "aware" lifestyle, in contrast to a "greedy" one, are quantified.

If you look at the figures given in this comparison, 370 tons of CO2 equivalent for an aware lifestyle compared to 1251 tons for a greedy one, it is evidently NOT the case that "any other contribution pales by comparison". Indeed, three "Aware Amys" would consume less than one "greedy George".

By all means promote the idea of having fewer children, but if you ridicule other contributions you are not only missing their importance, but giving the impression that you haven't really thought this through.

Incidentally, one could equally throw the label "guilt-inducing" at the idea of having fewer children as at the other contributions. My own experience is that those that tend towards Amy's way of life are far from guilt ridden: they seem much happier than others. Perhaps because the greedy George's of this world are never content, always wanting what they have not got.
11

Alternative (High Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 23/01/2008 09:56:26
So there we have it. Proof if proof were needed. The "green" brigade want us all to live boring, paupers' lives.

How about modifying this slightly...

When George grows to be an adult, electrical power is generated from nuclear, hydro-electric, wind and tidal power sources, so he can leave his lights and power on as much as he likes without generating and CO2 emissions.

The trucks that deliver the food to the out of town supermarket are powered by fuel cells or electricity generated as above.

When he flies, he uses the new generation of aircraft which are powered by fusion engines, can fly at 3 times the speed of sound and generate no emissions except helium.

When he retires, he buys himself a new Jaguar XJ8 which is powered by a fuel cell engine that only produces water as emissions and will give the car better performance than the XJR of 2008.

Why can we not have our cake and eat it? Nothing I've said there is impossible---even the airliner. There is a patent in existance for such an engine and it could feasibly be developed.
12

tomislav,

Frozen wet Scotland 23/01/2008 10:59:48
Quicker it changes the better
13

Neil,

Glasgow 23/01/2008 11:11:10
Such is the propaganda atmosphere in the media that such a general answer was to be expected. It is a bit like caqrrying out a poll, while standing in front of a church, asking "are you against sin".

Had the question been more specific such as "is it your experience that last year was the warmest, equal, on ever", "do you live within 15" of sea level, the IPCC's espected rise by the end of the century"* or "would you like the government to stop you flying abroad on holiday" I suspect the answers would be less supportive.

*I would quite like to see this question asked anyway since I suspect about 3% of the population would be stupid enough to say "yes".
14

Gothic Rose,

23/01/2008 11:15:05
Anyone want to buy a Hession Sack? Two for the price of one!
15

bluehead,

edinburgh 23/01/2008 11:16:21
ah wish aw'they greenies wid gang awa' in bile thir heeds', am seek listening ti them,if thir no greeting aboot yin thing thir greeting aboot aneother
tak a slow boat ti china,then yi'll hiv something ti greet aboot,in gee us peace
16

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 23/01/2008 11:44:02
#13 Alternative (High Octane) Fuel Head

You have a point that (presumably) all the calculations for Amy and George's lifestyles were based upon current technologies, and that therefore the conclusions may not be so valid in say 50 year's time. But it is surely obvious that this demonstration of the effect of two contrasting lifestyles is intended to be understood as giving information for present day individuals. That is, if you behave like George, whatever your present age, you will be producing more than three times as much CO2 as Amy.

As for your other implication - that non-CO2 emitting energy will become so plentiful that we can afford to leave unused lights and appliances on and still go buzzing around the world on a whim - well, we will see.
What is undoubtedly the case is that we have all grown up in a world of cheap and plentiful (relative to any other time in history) fossil fuels, and that that time is coming to an end. Also, that that time has caused a crisis in terms of CO2 emissions, and the future for energy generation and climate is uncertain.
17

Guthrie,

Edinburgh 23/01/2008 12:04:07
Gordon #14- what on earth are you on about? Unless you know more about the polling methods, i suggest you stop being so stupid.
18

Guthrie,

Edinburgh 23/01/2008 12:05:26
Hey, did nuclear ever become too cheap to meter?

No.
So, what makes anyone think we are guaranteed extremely cheap energy sources in the future? We may get some breakthroughs in physics in 30 years time that allow personal fusion plants. Or, we may not. But this does not allow people to ignore the current issues and hope that technology will solve the problems.
19

sceptic,

23/01/2008 12:19:56
"India has more than 16 per cent of the world's population, but produces just 4 per cent of emissions, Brazil emits seven times more than Scotland but its population is 37 times higher, while the average Chinese person produces 3.6 tonnes of compared to the UK average of 9.6 tonnes."
Must we continually be fed this guilt complex inducing propaganda? If we just legalised our illegal immigrants our emissions per capita would fall by 5%, if our birth rates had been similar to India and China over the past 80 years the UK average emissions would be similar.
As for Rulesbutnotrulers "For a start, just think of all those feral youths that have no place in decent society; and all those loaby dossers, and as for those neighbours-from-hell, the English! Well, what can one say?
This is typical of your frequently expressed warped and jaundiced attitude to your fellow man. One can only wonder what deviant pleasures contribute to " my life is far from boring and pauperised."
20

Padraig,

23/01/2008 12:26:27
Slioch (21) said "That is, if you behave like George, whatever your present age, you will be producing more than three times as much CO2 as Amy."

Yes, but to matter at all, it has to be established that CO2 WILL actually make an iota of difference to the climate.

Man-made global warming is far from established (except in the eyes of a tax-hungry government) and is even disporived by the last two years being no warmer than the ones before. This supports the significance of Sun Cycle 24 having kicked in, bringing gradually cooler weather - to take us back to the cold winters of the '70s and '40s - part of the thirty year climate cycle.

Only an eco-loony or someone who wants government grants would argue that our climate is consistently warming, just as car-envy Trots claim that the number of cars will increase in the same proportion to their growth in the last twenty years. Where are these additional drivers going to come from in an ageing population that is not growing dynamically?
21

Urban Guerrilla,

Edinburgh 23/01/2008 12:27:01
Climate change is a fuss about nothing. We were worried about it in the 1970s - only then it was supposed to be global cooling.
22

techpunk,

23/01/2008 12:46:16
Dont panic!

http://www.newstatesman.com/200712190004

23

Guthrie,

Edinburgh 23/01/2008 13:02:18
Padraig #25- you did read that sun cycle 24 has started earlier than expected, which usually suggests a cycle will be strong?

As for your other assertions about CO2 not being proven to cause warming, I'm afraid it has been so shown. And what 30 year climate cycle is this? Do you have any data on it?
24

nabodican,

Portree 23/01/2008 13:15:10
Who on earth are sciaf and what the hell do they know about climate change ?
How could they afford a survey
What questions did they ask
Who did they ask
You had better believe that money comes into the equation somewhere.
25

Unimpressed one,

23/01/2008 13:19:48
#28, Yes but it is also shown not to be the main influence on heat retention in the atmosphere. This must surely be obvious given, that warming has flattened off since 1998 (please don't attempt to refute this as even the warmists can't dispute the measurements) yet our CO2 emissions have kept on increasing. Basic logic here.
26

Richard Lionheart,

23/01/2008 13:27:42
#3 Pete, don’t you mean close your airports and tarmac over them. According to Green campaigners growing crops is a contributory factor to Co2 output and possibly as damaging as flying.

#10 Mark well said. There is very little found on the pages of this publication about adapting to climate change. Our forefathers adapted in centuries past. Perhaps if we were them we would not be??

#14 Chairman Gordon, You are quite right. #22 Guthrie accuses you of being stupid. But what answer do you expect when you randomly survey 1000 Scots attending a climate change conference in Bali?
27

drew 33,

duddingston 23/01/2008 13:47:21
Great fairy tale about George and Amy. Pity Amy aged 10 years died under the wheels of a bus while riding her bicycle to school.
28

TimW1234,

Ottawa, Canada 23/01/2008 13:58:29
10 Mark Renton

Since you consider The Scotsman to be a "Wretched publication" the only honourable thing to do is to stop reading it and posting your ludicrous comment and not be such a pompous hypocrite.
29

11+failed,

the pans 23/01/2008 14:01:40
32
What a blessing that premature death rescued Amy from a dreary, prosaic unfulfilling existence.
30

GP,

23/01/2008 14:01:50
32# good one.
13# spot on
to the 1000 scots using more co2 attending conferecnes in Brazil than the average punter does in his liftime, get lost.
To the poor unimaginativae Amy's of this world don't waste your life you only get one see the world while yopu can. Take your year out of Uni in the far reaches of the world meet people and find out for yourself if they really want to be converted by our modern day missionaries (Sciaf etc).
What a complete and utter load of garbage and not worthy of printing.
31

Guthrie,

Edinburgh 23/01/2008 14:27:56
32, 34- Love the way you joke about dead children.

Richard #31- that is the question- Gordon, on the evidence so far presented, gave his usual kneejerk reaction, i.e. its all a con. You on the other hand claim they surveyed people going to a conference in Bali. Where did you get that information from?

As for little found in the Scotsman about adapting to climate change, thats because people don't seem to be interested in doing so. Perhaps you need to persuade your MP that a proper study into adaptation costs would be a good thing.
32

Guthrie,

Edinburgh 23/01/2008 14:33:18
unimpressed one #30- no, temperatures have, as expected continued to rise in the past 10 years. 1998 was a monster El Nino, which pushed up temperatures a great deal in the Pacific especially. The years before and after were much cooler, however, those with eyes can see that temperatures after 1999 increased further until they were around 1998's record.
33

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 23/01/2008 14:41:43
13. Petrolbrains writes: 'Why can't we have our cake and eat it?' (fusion planes and fuel cell cars).
Because no-one has figured out how to bake them cookies yet!
34

sceptic,

23/01/2008 15:58:04
#36
"32, 34- Love the way you joke about dead children."

Perhaps you didn't realise Amy was mythical. A real life Amy with her impeccable environmental credentials would have graduated with a worthless degree in media studies or such. She would have gone on to visit the most fashionable resorts of the world attending environmental conferences as part of the retinue in Al Gore's private jet.
35

Euan,

Edinburgh 23/01/2008 18:07:23
I'm all for recycling and making things more efficient, but this 'green' stuff is getting WAY out of control.

In my opinion, man-made 'climate change' is a myth and this whole 'CO2' thing is nothing more than a complete scam to prise even more money out of our pockets in order to keep the people who have created the myths in a job.

The myths are now so engrained that it is now an industry - unbelievable.


36

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 23/01/2008 19:51:53
#27 techpunk

Sorry to see that you appear to have been taken in by the garbage written by David Whitehouse in the New Statesman, techpunk. (see your link in #27). My first memory of David Whitehouse was when he was the BBC science correspondent reporting about Chernobyl, saying that there had been a 200 fold increase in leukaemia cases since the accident, when he meant a 200% increase. I wondered then how the BBC could employ someone so numerically challenged.

Anyway, there is an excellent article addressing the question "has global warming stopped?" at the link below. Global warming hasn't stopped, of course. Globally 2007 was the second warmest year ever recorded (tying with 1998), and 2005 was the warmest. Unlike the David Whitehouse article, this one has lots of graphs so you can make your own judgement from the actual data: I have my hat lying by my computer. If you come back to me after studying the following article by Tamino and tell me that you still think global warming stopped in 1998 as David Whitehouse maintains, I will eat it*. Here is the article:

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/01/09/dead-heat/








* I won't actually - I just said that to raise your interest, I'm blowed if I'm going to choke to death just for you; besides, it's a nice hat.
37

Legacy,

N.E. 23/01/2008 20:19:09
#42 I agree Climate Change is a Myth, the weather has always been unreliable in the British Isles, extremes of it are absolutely nothing new. To talk about 'man' contributing to Weather good or bad, is pure arrogance, we are insignificant in the great scheme of things.
Does it really take much from the heavens to influence our weather, look at the tides, our weather comes from the great blue/black yonder, and the natural occuring phenomenon in/from and around space.
Global Warming = Government Tripe
No more or less



38

bibleprophecy_ndbpsa,

United States 23/01/2008 20:26:43
The root cause of the environmental declines we are facing throughout the world is a fulfillment of Bible prophecy. Once one-fourth part of the earth is destroyed (Re.6:7-8) we will move forward to the next Seal events, followed by Trumpet events, followed by Plague events. The earth is on a downhill slid; it will not recover. The first four Trumpet events will destroy an additional one-third part (Re.8:7-12).



Pat (ndbpsa ©) Bible Prophecy on the Web
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BibleProphecy
39

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 23/01/2008 20:35:23
#28 Guthrie

I beg to differ. It has not been "shown" that CO2 causes global warming. Even the IPCC Assessment does not make this claim. It uses phrases like "highly likely" but is not purporting to be 100% certain. Only the "Summary for Policymakers" make that claim and as we all know this part is approved by politicians not scientists.

A rather inconvenient truth for you is the many hundreds of climate experts who do not agree with your thesis (400 in the recent report).
40

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 23/01/2008 20:40:59
#44 Slioch

We can see through your dishonesty. The term "ever recorded" neatly excludes periods in out past where the temperature was 2 deg C higher than today. True, they were not directly measured, but all scientists agree that this was the case.
41

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 23/01/2008 20:42:13
our
42

Jock Tamson,

Scotland, Caledonia, Alba 23/01/2008 21:03:04
Seems like climate change and global warming is the new PC. Offseting my carbon footprint is the new Presbyterianism. Guilt, guilt, guilt. And pay for it, pay for it, pay for it.

Show me tangible proof of all this carbon offsetting cost and let me be human being.

In case nobody knows what being a human being is, it is linked to being adaptable to climate change.
43

Jock Tamson,

Wow, I've just had a moment 23/01/2008 21:10:39
Carbon offset taxation (in a country near you, soon) is supposed to allow your government to invest in new technologies to be world leaders in combatting this deadly menace.

Well, UK citizens would be better off not holding their breath. Gas masks from China will be cheap.
44

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 23/01/2008 21:39:48
#48 connaughtboy

You would be well not to accuse someone of "dishonesty" when you yourself are so clearly confused.

RECORDED compilations of global temperatures go back to 1880 in the US NASA GISS record, which was the subject of the link to which I referred and which you clearly haven't bothered to consult. Temperatures prior to 1880 are not "recorded" but are derived from proxies. My statement was entirely correct: 2007 was the second warmest year etc in that series.

Further, as far as "periods in our past where the temperature was 2 deg C higher than today": no such period has been established to exist within the last thousand years. The US National Academy of Sciences looked into this question and published a major report about it in June 2006. It stated, "The basic conclusion of ... was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that includes the additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions and documentation of the spatial coherence of recent warming described above (Cook et al. 2004, Moberg et al. 2005, Rutherford et al. 2005, D’Arrigo et al. 2006, Osborn and Briffa 2006, Wahl and Ammann in press), and also the pronounced changes in a variety of local proxy indicators described in previous chapters (e.g., Thompson et al. in press). Based on the analyses presented in the original papers by Mann et al. and this newer supporting evidence, the committee finds it plausible that the Northern Hemisphere was warmer during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period over the preceding millennium."
45

Van (not white) Diesel,

Amsterdam & Augsburg 23/01/2008 23:02:05
One of the certainties in life is that every newspaper will carry an article on climate change at least twice each week.
As far as the posts in this journal are concerned, opinion seems fairly evenly split between the prophets of doom, and those of the view that it is all down to natural cycles of one kind or another. The experts (no such animals, by the way) are equally divided.
Funny thing is, similar scenarios exist in opinions expressed on football, politics, religion, and Dancing On Ice.
I just wish that the human being would occasionally accept that he is not as clever as he thinks he is.
46

techpunk,

23/01/2008 23:12:51
can anyone tell me why co2 increases FOLLOW temperature increases?

and why so many people insist that co2 increase LEADS temperature increase?
47

Van (not white) Diesel,

23/01/2008 23:33:30
#54 techpunk
a) The yellow thing in the sky, perhaps?
b) see 53
48

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 23/01/2008 23:51:08
#54 techpunk asked, "can anyone tell me why co2 increases FOLLOW temperature increases?"

I'll address that point in the morning techpunk - off to bed for now.

Did you see my post at #44?
49

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 24/01/2008 08:48:03
#54 techpunk asked, "can anyone tell me why co2 increases FOLLOW temperature increases?"

You are referring to the several transitions from glacial to interglacial conditions that have occurred during the last million years or so of the ice age. These transitions occur at fairly regular interval, more recently about once every 100,000 years and are therefore regarded as being caused by changes in the Earth's orbit that then cause changes in the amount of solar radiation reaching the Earth.

The increase in solar radiation at one of these transitions causes the earth to slowly warm up: that is the "temperature increase" to which you refer. As the Earth warms, there is a tendency for CO2 in the warming oceans and wetlands to be released into the atmosphere, and that is what is observed. There is a time lag of several hundred years because a) the increase in solar radiation is small, therefore heating is slow and b) because of the huge thermal capacity of the oceans, they take a much longer time to warm up and (release some of their CO2) than does the atmosphere.

That's it really. But some extra points: as the Earth warmed the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere and the reduction in ice and snow cover both acted to increase the amount of heat retained by the Earth (the former by the greenhouse effect, the latter because dark surfaces absorb more radiant heat than light snowy surfaces). Hence these effects amplified the initial waming caused by the sun.

Incidentally, the increase in atmospheric CO2 at those transition was never more a) at a rate of more than 30ppmv in 1000 years and b) never exceeded a level in the atmosphere of more than 300ppmv.

In contrast at present a) the rate of increase is greater than 30ppmv in 17 years - ie CO2 is now increasing at a rate about 60 times greater than ever before in the last at least c.one million years, and b) the level of CO2 is c.385ppmv - far greater than at any time in those million years.
50

Guthrie,

Edinburgh 24/01/2008 08:50:43
Ahh, Gordon, you havn't worked it out, have you? Your comments are so brain dead that I have to point this out. That you are too stupid to see this is your problem.
51

Guthrie,

Edinburgh 24/01/2008 09:13:22
Connaught boy-
Unfortunately, the IPCC report, being a scientific document, will never say with 100% certainty that we are blame. This is down to the nature of science as practised these days. However, it does give people such as yourself wriggle room in which to ignore the fact that the report makes it clear we are to blame.

What is this list of 400 experts? Can you perhaps list them and their expertise, and what work they have done related to climate change? I absolutely guarantee that many of them have not done any work relating to climatology, and many more have no coherent scientific reason to reject AGW. Go on, have a look for yourself.

Further to Richard Lionheart (Scaredy cat more like) and his accusation:
"But what answer do you expect when you randomly survey 1000 Scots attending a climate change conference in Bali?"

If you go to the SCiaf website, you'll find the report in question, and it says:
"Survey of 1028 Scottish adults carried out by Scottish Opinion, using
telephone interviews in all Scottish Parliamentary constituencies,
8th – 13th January 2008."

I don't think I need to say more.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 

Today's Vote

Do you think Scotland faces a serious threat from the effects of climate change?
Yes
No


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.