Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Geography exams turn green to test pupils on climate threat

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: 04 September 2008
By FIONA MACLEOD
EDUCATION CORRESPONDENT
GEOGRAPHY exams in schools are changing to reflect growing concerns about the environment, it emerged yesterday.
Higher and Advanced Higher courses this year will include more green topics, such as global warming and sustainability, in an effort to make them more relevant to the wider world.

A spokesman for the Scottish Qualifications Authority (SQA) said th
e courses would be broadened to include the consequences and causes of global climate change.

Candidates will also be given additional options for studying green issues and the chance to answer more questions on the topic in next May's exam paper.

The SQA spokesman added: "The environment, and everything that encompasses, is a particularly interesting and important area of study."

Geography teachers welcomed the changes, which they said reflected the growing popularity of the subject and the growing interest in green issues shown by pupils.

Malcolm McDonald, the president of the Scottish Association of Geography Teachers (SAGT), said: "In the Higher exam, students will get a free choice of question in the second paper. They used to have to do both a physical geography question and a human geography question.

"This is the section where students look at the important environmental and social issues which are affecting the UK and further afield."

He said recent scientific discovery had also made changes to content necessary, in areas such as atmosphere.

Mr McDonald went on: "If students are to find out the science behind climate change and the effects of increasing rainfall and changing climate on Scotland's landscape, such as landslides and flooding, they will learn about it in geography.

"Geography's strength is that the science is linked to the effects on human society and the landscape."

However, geography teachers have expressed anger that the subject is not among the choices available to students taking the new science baccalaureate.

Two months ago, Fiona Hyslop, the education secretary, announced science and languages baccalaureates at Higher level to encourage more teenagers to take the subjects.

Mr McDonald said the SAGT was astonished at the omission, adding: "In the languages baccalaureate, a space has been found for ancient Greek, which had just seven students sitting the exam in 2007, and also Russian, with 16 students.

"In the science baccalaureate, geology and management of environmental resources, mostly taught by geographers, and fabrication and welding engineering – which had just 13 students last year – are included but geography is not."

However, the Scottish Government defended the decision. Maureen Watt, the schools minister, said: "The decision to focus on science and language was made because these are key areas for education and the economy.

"While there are no specific plans at present to develop baccalaureates in other subject areas, this has not been ruled out."



Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 03 September 2008 11:26 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Teaching , Climate change
 
1

Resolutions,

04/09/2008 00:52:25
#1 Under what system were you studying? Never been a compulsory section on that!

What is more worrying is why Geography is not included in the 'bacs'. It is a link subject between Science and Arts with a very wide remit.
2

Tatties ower the side,

Johannesburg 04/09/2008 05:08:03
So children are now to be "tested" on their knowledge of the causes of Global Warming when scientists all over the world are undecided and, although theories exist, no one can claim to have discovered an absolute reason!!!
3

Unimpressed one,

04/09/2008 07:50:50
The continuing dumbing down of Scottish education. What happens in a few years time when the media change course and the 'scientists' decide on a new theory that will fit the prevailing facts? Meanwhile will a pupil be marked down for quaestioning the myth? Will they be penalised for answering that nuclear power is beneficial and that 'renewables' are a waste of space? Think I'll tell my kids to avoid geography as an option for study, since it's morphed into 'media studies and politics'.
4

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 04/09/2008 10:13:33
#2 & #3 Keep banging your heads against the brick wall fellahs.

#4 Rulesbutnotrulers

Do you also support the teaching of creationism alongside evolution in biology classes?

As for "The climate is changing of course but then it always is.", why not have a read of the latest paper in that regard, linked to below. The point about the "hockey stick" graph is that it shows, yes that climate has changed in the past, but that it is now changing faster than ever and that the "Past decade is warmest in at least 1,300 years".
See:http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2008/09/past_decade_is_warmest_in_at_l.php
5

Resolutions,

04/09/2008 11:02:12
As suspected the armchair 'experts' think they know it all!
Especially #4!

Geography the study of the planet, from its very nature cannot be static as the planet is constantly changing. An understanding of the effects different factors have on this 'working' of the planet, and Man's response to those factors is at the crux of the subject.

What has been 'taught' and marked for many a year, is what these factors are, what appears to be happening, recording that and QUESTIONING that - something that a lot need to learn. Also taught how to research and question and apply the questioning to what they see.

Those are disciplines widely needed.
6

GlenB,

04/09/2008 11:15:50
#5 "Do you also support the teaching of creationism alongside evolution in biology classes?"

Actually that would be a very good idea as it would demonstrate that evidence can be interpreted differently depending on what ones starting presuppositions are.
In that way children would be taught how to rubustly challenge and test scientific theories.

Children at present are just taught that evolution is the only position so just accept it and now they want to teach that global warming/climate change is all mankinds fault so just accept it.

The real scientific evidence for both is lacking but few appear honest enough to say so.
7

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 04/09/2008 11:56:16
#7 GlenB

There are mountains of evidence, both for anthropogenic global warming and for evolution. What there is not, nor ever could be, is absolute proof, which is what deluded individuals who don't want to believe in either demand to be shown. In so doing they demonstrate their ignorance of science: the test of such theories is to resist falsification and both AGW and evolution have done that admirably.

As for creationism, there is no evidence for it, other than the brute fact of the existence of complex organisms, for which evolution provides a vastly more coherent and compelling explanation.

The problem with AGW is that it impinges directly upon people: its truth demands changes to peoples' lives. Therefore, it is resisted by people who have little understanding of science and its methods, as these threads provide abundant witness.
8

GlenB,

04/09/2008 12:47:47
#8 "As for creationism, there is no evidence for it,"

Actually the evidence is exactly the same as that used for evolution ie. the earth and everything in it.
Evidence needs interpretation and may have different conclusions depending on assumptions.

Without absolute proof it is all the more important to teach how differences in interpretation of the evidence arise and can be tested thus giving children a proper understanding of science.
Just teaching one side as the only acceptable conclusion be it evolution or climate change will just add to the general ignorance of what science does and does not show.

The teaching of evolution is simplistic and uncritical and I have no doubt that the teaching of climate change will fall into the same pattern.
9

seanie,

04/09/2008 12:55:16
The body of scientific evidence supporting evolution is overwhelming and drawn from a multitude of discipines. As scientific theories go it's about as secure as you could possibly hope to find.

The scientific evidence for creationism is zero. Making up stories to explain things doesn't constitute evidence.
10

,

04/09/2008 13:15:05
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
11

Unimpressed one,

04/09/2008 15:14:51
Slioch instead of being a denialist, why not accept the fact that 'climate change/global warming/climate catastrophe'is pure bunk now that temperatures have gone into reverse whilst CO2 has kept increasing? Presumably you have an alternative theory as to why the models don't fit the observable facts. Face it - you've been suckered by econuts!
12

eyeswider,

dreakit again 04/09/2008 15:31:24
This is great. There is no better education in the way of propagandistic repetition of lies than to have a lie repeated constantly and then have it shown as such.

By the time these children choose their degree course they will be well versed in how to spot charlatans. They will recognise hysteria and political interference for what it is.

Anyone who gets "taught" this will be wondering why it got so cold and why the all seeing scientists didn't warn anyone about hypothermia on the horizon.

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a788582859~db=all

"Computations based on the adiabatic theory of greenhouse effect show that increasing CO2 concentration in the atmosphere results in cooling rather than warming of the Earth's atmosphere."

Bad monkey. Stop burning stuff. Pay here.


13

eyeswider,

04/09/2008 15:39:51
http://www.atypon-link.com/IAHS/doi/abs/10.1623/hysj.53.4.671

"Geographically distributed predictions of future climate, obtained through climate models, are widely used in hydrology and many other disciplines, typically without assessing their reliability. Here we compare the output of various models to temperature and precipitation observations from eight stations with long (over 100 years) records from around the globe. The results show that models perform poorly, even at a climatic (30-year) scale. Thus local model projections cannot be credible, whereas a common argument that models can perform better at larger spatial scales is unsupported."

But then we all knew this.
14

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 04/09/2008 15:51:37
#15 eyeswider

That is the (at least) second time that you have link to the Russian paper that refers to an "adiabatic theory of greenhouse effect".

Since you obviously think so highly of it, perhaps you could explain to us all what you understand by this "adiabatic theory of greenhouse effect."

I'm sure we would all be very interested to know.
15

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 04/09/2008 16:11:03
#14 Unimpressed one

Have you ever bothered to look at a graph of average global temperatures against time, Unimpressed one?

Such as this one for example?

http://news.scotsman.com/climatechange/Geography-exams-turn--green.4456561.jp#3198406

I doubt it, because if you had you would have noticed that temperatures are continually going "into reverse whilst CO2 has kept increasing". At a rough count, I make it nine times since 1975, all of which, including the present, are entirely consistent with theory.

You have never demonstrated the remotest understanding of global warming theory and your post #14 is consistent with that trend.

As for why the graph shows ups and downs, the answer is as simple. There are two factors to consider: firstly, the anthropogenic greenhouse effect is adding heat to the Earth's atmosphere at a rate such that the average surface temperature is increasing by about 0.19C per decade in recent decades. Secondly, natural variations, such as volcanic eruptions, El Nino/La Nina episodes, changes in ocean currents etc. cause variations in temperature of about the same amount (c.0.2C) in a YEAR. In other words, natural variation are about ten times greater than the slow steady, but relentless, increase from increased CO2. Far from models not fitting the observable facts, it is INEVITABLE that there will be periods of falling temperatures of a few years every few years. So far, there is NO evidence that the long term trend of 0.19C per decade has changed.
16

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 04/09/2008 16:26:06
#15 eyeswider

As for "wondering why it got so cold", eyeswider said (under The Scotsman article "Do not give up hope on global warming", published 15th February 2008), that "I speak with the utter confidence that accompanies total certainty" that "It will be cool/cold until the end of May."

In the event, May 2008 was the warmest May on record for Scotland.
17

Geomac 1,

Scotland 04/09/2008 16:54:04
Pure propaganda - questions and answers coutesy of the IPCC???
18

eyeswider,

04/09/2008 17:12:39
http://www.adn.com/front/story/503528.html
Alaska bee problem due to cold:

"An uncharacteristically wet, cold July in Anchorage and across the Interior has devastated bee season..."

http://www.homernews.com/stories/090308/news_1_005.shtml
Alaska Native Elders express surprise at cold summer:

"It's global warming? This kind of confused me. This cold summer? How come it's cold?" asked Alice Green of Nanwalek. "Blueberries aren't quite ready. Usually, they're ready by July."

"I don't call it global warming. It's global cooling. It's very unusual weather wise," said John Moonin, also of Nanwalek.

Branson's son litters Arctic wasteland with 192 flags as he fails to kayak to the north pole - now _he_ could have done with a geography lesson - it's cold up there mostly.


19

Resolutions,

04/09/2008 17:59:18
Eyeswider
Climate is a pattern over time. Weather is the atmospheric condidtions now. The pattern shows warming; atmospheric conditions are very fickle -always have been, but there seems to be a particularly fickle phase on at the moment.
The Arctic regions have experienced a wet summer - yes they have summer - its the bit when there is 24 hours daylight and temperatures are warmer than the winter! They are supposed to be a cold desert. To have RAIN you need warmer temperatures. Dampness makes it feel colder. As far as the Arctic animals are concerned, the season is haywire.

You should be thankful if the kayak expedition fails! You are not supposed to have sea ice that thin, but the very fact, it has got so far is worrying. This is the time to try at the end of 'summer' when melting at maximum.

You need to open your mind and access - something which hopefully the youngsters will be shown how to do. That is the sign of education, not indoctrination.
20

Resolutions,

04/09/2008 18:02:26
Counting system was haywire in here! My comment now appears as 1 when it was responding to something first and above is 22 when 23 appears on the list!
Crazy!
21

eyeswider,

04/09/2008 18:34:24
#19 Slioch
That was an interesting thread wasn't it. Dear me, only February.

I have since given up arguing with cherry picking religious zealots. Your quotes were from two different posts.

I got it wrong, Piers Corbyn got it wrong, William Gray got it wrong and Caleb Weatherbee also got it wrong. We all now know why (that is the beauty of hindsight) and have taken it on board. I still beat the bookies with 80% accuracy over a year.

Has it been cold this year? Just wait until November. The power companies face a windfall tax. It will be bitter.
22

eyeswider,

04/09/2008 19:00:14
#22 Resolutions -

Cold Arctic, open mind, access, education and indoctrination.

The kayak kid's post dated September 2008:
"We are still struggling to get beyond 81 degrees north. The MV ‘Havsel’ continues to push east in the hope of finding a break in the ice so that Robbie and I can paddle further north. So far, to no avail - we are right up against the edge of the ice wall."

Note the "81 degrees north" bit.

This dated November 1922:
http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/050/mwr-050-11-0589a.pdf

"The expedition all but established a record, sailing as far north as 81 degrees 29' in ice-free water."

Note the "ice-free water" bit. In November - what was that about thin ice and Arctic summer again?

From yesterday:
http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=12851&red=y#3403

"Data from the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) has indicated a dramatic increase in sea ice extent in the Arctic regions. The growth over the past year covers an area of 700,000 square kilometers: an amount twice the size the nation of Germany."

In the face of an avalanche of fraud, condescension and wilful ignorance I am trying to educate myself. Thank you.
23

eyeswider,

04/09/2008 19:28:18
Future geography students, please listen to Dr Robert Carter at the International Geological Congress in Oslo:

http://www.33igc.org/coco/EntryPage.aspx?guid=1&PageID=5100&ContainerID=11823&ObjectID=12520

at 7 minutes in....

"There has been no statistically significant warming of the planet since 1995, there has been no warming at all since 1998 and there has been cooling since 2002.... CO2 continues to rise....The planet is telling us it's cool"

NO ONE disputed his statement - the room was full of scientists and not one pulled him up on this.

There were also another 7 scientists on the panel (and one politico) and they did not refute his statement. They had ample opportunity.

Bob Carter is Research Professor at James Cook University (Queensland) and the University of Adelaide (South Australia). He is a palaeontologist, stratigrapher, marine geologist and environmental scientist with more than thirty years professional experience. He holds degrees from the University of Otago in New Zealand and the University of Cambridge in England. He has held tenured academic staff positions at the University of Otago (Dunedin) and James Cook University (Townsville), where he was Professor and Head of School of Earth Sciences between 1981 and 1999.

For the AGW crowd; Tell him he is wrong. Go on. He is an Aussie with all the good attributes. He has thick skin, a good sense of humour and the usual Antipodean BS detector.
24

Unimpressed one,

04/09/2008 20:19:14
My kids can tell you all about the 'bad' polluters (the US, china and the UK) but can't point out where most of these places are on a world atlas. It's time to put a halt to this tripe and throw out all the leftist, eco-nutter 'teachers' and replace them with ones who were educated 30-40 years ago. Oh, and my 8 year old daughter gets colouring sheets called "Ramadam awareness week - islamic art", again from the same PC nutters running our schools. This country is fcuked by socialist bams who want to wreck our economy with green taxes then brainwash the next generation with their guff about 'evil' capitalism.
25

,

04/09/2008 21:29:34
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
26

Resolutions,

04/09/2008 22:44:01
Eyewider
Are you sure that you have the correct end of the planet?

Was Dr Carter at Svalbard this year? Funny the scientists there were not saying what he is saying and also those farther north at the research station - on the ground so to speak where research is ongoing. (And international at that) They were observing the effect on the animals and birds as well as plants, recording and observing what is happening this year and are doing so right at this moment.

Have you been to these areas and seen for yourself?

Funny the sea ice this summer had retreated much farther north than they had expected. I expect, that the scientists are checking the data again. And their photos. And in Canada, what about the ice shelf? Last year it was a massive shelf lost off Antarctica. So?

Unimpressed one - educated 30 - 40 years ago and taught then how to observe, record, research, assess and draw conclusions. Taught how to use an atlas to look up and use and interpret maps as well as annotate them. That was Geography then and now. We were made aware of keeping aware of new information and bluntly these are skills that are always needed. Your 8yr old needs to be aware of cultures within this planet, to be a citizen of this planet, as we all are, and the others sound a bit below Higher standard too so they've a lot to learn yet. That is not lefty or anything else.

UKIP Propaganda? Have you been a marker in exams? Doubt it from that drivel.
27

,

05/09/2008 08:01:34
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
28

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 05/09/2008 08:08:25
#26 eyeswider

Bob Carter continually writes articles and gives talks (as at Svaalbad, which unfortunately my antediluvian PC cannot access, something to do with "Activex WM7 not found", which use the technique (amongst others) of examining something and making it appear important when it has little significance.

He first (as far as I am aware) made the claim that "global warming stopped in 1998" in an article in the UK Daily Telegraph of 9th April 2006. His argument has been comprehensively debunked many times, eg here:

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2007/08/31/garbage-is-forever/

and here:

http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/dept/0108_globaltemp.htm

Assuming your quote of Bob Carter, Eyeswider, is accurate: meteorologists usually look to a thirty year period before declaring a trend to be "statistically significant", so, by that criteria, NO set of temperature data starting at 1995 could yet be regarded as statistically significant. (one would also need to quantify the level of significance - 99%? 95%? etc.).

I know you have a visceral dislike of the Realclimate site (because, I believe, it tells you things you don't want to know), but it would be instructive for you to read the following entry in which Bob carter is questioned in the blog following the following comment by Rasmus, at:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/08/are-geologists-different/#more-590

Rasmus was at Svaalbad and made this comment about Bob Carter's contribution:

"Robert Carter ... made a point of the last couple of years being cold. But he did not appear to understand Jansen's explanation of the difference between trends and natural variability. What really struck me was not who was saying what, but the intellectual level of discussion: the debate often got stuck at misunderstood trivialities which for a long time have been regarded as solved or explained in the climate research community. When you keep starting at square one, you'll never make much
29

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 05/09/2008 08:09:06
contd.

When you keep starting at square one, you'll never make much progress."

30

Resolutions,

05/09/2008 11:01:46
#30 I assume that you realise that these islands are not on a planet of their own as you seem to fantasise about!

This planet is unique in that it is 'home' to many living organisms, some intelligent, some less so, who have a common aim for the most part - survival.

Granted some seem to wish to self -destruct like selfish drivers. Trouble is they take inoocent and far more worthy lives with them.

#Slioch Thanks I was trying to remember where I had seen Dr Carter challenged - the star of eyewider! Svalbard is a magical place!
31

,

05/09/2008 13:13:28
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
32

Resolutions,

05/09/2008 15:54:33
#vote UKIP
You are definitely well off the mark.

Try 'educating' yourself by following up some of Slioch's excellent links, which would have taken me ages to find.

Freak weather conditions,as you mention,are indicative of a disturbed atmosphere and what you need to consider are the overall trends (not the blips) and ask yourself why. Some of it is natural variation, but this is happening at a speed, never before seen from the evidence we have over a very long time. It seems likely that mankind's activiteis may be having an effect.

In this day and age isolationalist stuff you spout is Medieval. You cannot act on your own.
33

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 05/09/2008 20:11:59
#37 Ken Wyles-Thenoux

I'm not sure what the point is that you are trying to make.

Are you of the opinion that predictions had been made in the scientific literature of sea level rises of greater than that amount by 2100? If so perhaps you could point to them.

And to save you the trouble of looking, last year the IPCC suggested a sea level rise of up to 59cm by 2090-2099, but specifically ruled out from that calculation increases in the contribution from Greenland above levels already observed. The paper to which you refer takes increased contributions from Greenland into account, hence the INCREASE in predicted rise.

If you have a serious question by all means ask, but I have yet to detect one.
34

seanie,

05/09/2008 21:52:09
And a 2m rise by 2100 would be pretty catastrophic in many regions of the world.

Just to be clear to the hard of thinking...

A 2m rise in sea level wouldn't be a good thing.
35

Resolutions,

06/09/2008 00:24:57
#40 Good description of yourself hard of thinking!

Sea levels are rising in some parts and have been recorded as doing so. Predictions vary for future.And 2 metres rise can have catastrophic effects as base level changes and water couses adjust to cope. Think; think.

Heard of the Fenlands BELOW sea level now?

More important possibly is the effect on the oceam currents of the world and no-one has come up with any contradiction to that yet.
36

eyeswide,

06/09/2008 00:32:24
Resolutions - sorry for your loss. You are younger than me if your claim to have been edumacated 30-40 years ago is correct. My brain is still working ok thanks. It particulary rails against doctrinaire assertions with zero proofs. I hope that your "excellent links, which would have taken me ages to find" help to clear your head of the religeous/political aspects of AGW but, as the one who proffered them is sucked right into that shower of manure, I somehow doubt they will.

Slioch.

realclimate, tamino, wikipedia, etc. Where to begin? rc, haven't been there for a while...

On the thread you "recommend" the first dissenting voice amongst the brown nosing has had his post (#11) "edited" and gavin was straight in with a riposte - at least this guy didn't have his answer deleted - who knows if he gave a reference to anywhere other than rc or tamino or the ippc and that is the main point - we will never see dissent with science backup on rc - it is blasphemy, it causes uncomfortable guilt and cognitive dissonance that must be excommunicated. It does make me laugh now though - the thread is titled "Are geologists different?" and attempts to paint a quaint, eccentricity onto the events at Lillestrom and is written by some rasmus guy (presumably Rasmus E. Benestad, D.Phil in physics)who "didn't attend the meeting" but is obviously qualified to comment on the science that underpins the whole climate issue, geophysics.

I am on a couple of boards where rc is mentioned rarely for this very reason. And the rudeness. And the censoring of posts. And the deletion of posts. And the ad-hom attacks. And the holier-than-thou attitude of people with an obvious vested interests yet double standards. And the arrogance. And the certainty. And the constant use of the word "deniers". And on and on and on...
37

eyeswide,

06/09/2008 00:34:43
Back to rasmus' opinions:

"...the debate often got stuck at misunderstood trivialities...".

If they were either misunderstood or trivialities then 1) there is no better opportunity to thrash them out than the top conference in your field, and, most definitely, 2) global fiscal policy should not be "fixed" around them.

Bob Carter spent the whole symposium listening and participating in debate. That alone would win my vote over, say, James Hansen, or Al Gore, or Gavin S as they all refuse debate becuse the "science is settled" - very scientific. He remained calm, expressive and patient throughout. Even during statements that I was certain were loaded purely to provoke dissenters by virtue of their assumptive, and erroneous, nature.

I was going to continue this but I find the nausea overcoming me. The real problem is that both sides are looking for a knockout punch that will "prove" their point. One side does it generally without rancour, other by spitting and snarling, name calling,defamation and threats. I am glad that most of the people in my camp remain polite, even if I can no longer do so.

I wonder what car gavin drives? He can afford a good one - even though he is obviously writing on rc when he should be at work - oh yeah, that's right, NASA is a political entity not scientific so he is allowed leeway just lke Hansen. Elitists.

Anyway - "meteorologists usually look to a thirty year period before declaring a trend to be "statistically significant", " So what was Hansen doing in 1988 when he told congress that "we have 10 years before we reach a tipping point, blather, blather"? The world had cooled until '79 - that gave him just over 9 years warming to build a trend/theory out of.
OK. I pick the last ten years of falling temps and add to that the ocean temps (at depth also) which are so low that another atmospheric warming is next to impossible anytime soon - is that a less valid conclusion than his?

Someone you know, about someone you lov
38

eyeswide,

06/09/2008 00:38:58
Gotta love that it won't let me post the full name of Gavin Sch midt(We have detected some potentially unsuitable words in your post:
S. h. i. t.
Your comment has not been processed.


Anyway - here's the link again


http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/002838.html

Some of the comments about rc are a great laugh.



39

eyeswide,

06/09/2008 00:39:50
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/002838.html

Some of the comments about rc are a great laugh.
40

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 06/09/2008 07:33:12
#40 Ken Wyles-Thenoux

I asked you for a scientific reference to your previous assertion similar to, "Not so long ago, their shamens in the MMGW cult predicted 'catastrophic' sea rises of tens of metres in our lifetimes."

You don't give any, for the simple reason there aren't any. No scientist has made a prediction of that order. I told you (as did the BBC article to which you linked) that the IPCC gave a (qualified) prediction of 59cm maximum. Perhaps that is the trouble - do you understand the difference between centimetres and metres?

As for a prediction of up to 2m this century, it doesn't stop there: that rate would be continued for several centuries. If you don't find that alarming then I disagree with you. It would in the UK would see the eventual destruction and abandonment of much of London, Liverpool, Glasgow and other coastal cities as well as low lying rural areas that include our best agricultural land.
41

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 06/09/2008 08:35:01
#42 eyeswide

"shower of manure", "brown nosing" and you complain of rudeness! You are one of the more foul-mouthed contributors to these threads. And, as you noticed, the word on the RC thread, which you don't know, was removed.

But of course, you are merely wishing to distract attention from Bob Carter's performance.

#43 "If they were either misunderstood or trivialities then 1) there is no better opportunity to thrash them out than the top conference in your field"
No it is not, conferences are for looking at difficult grown-up stuff and new research. The schoolboy errors that Bob Carter keeps making have no place in a scientific conference, and are normally eliminated at an undergraduate level. It does not surprise me that people become angry at his behaviour. You have no scientific education and no understanding of science: that is why you are so full of bile and are taken in by fools and charlatans (there's an ad hominem for you) like Bob Carter.

"Anyway - "meteorologists usually look to a thirty year period before declaring a trend to be "statistically significant","

Yes, I didn't think you would understand that point and I should have expanded it. You pointed out that no scientists picked him up on his initial assertion - no significant warming since 1995. The reason is that they abided by that strict definition even whilst Bob Carter abused it - he could defend his absurd statement by appealing to that strict definition. But if you want some data about 1995 compared with recent times, here it is, (from HADCRU):

Five year average global temp. anomaly centred on 1995 = 0.21C.

Five year average global temp. anomaly centred on 2005 = 0.43C.

(you can check the figures here (except the site is down at present):
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/gtc2007.csv

In #17 above, I asked you what you understood by the "adiabatic theory of greenhouse effect". You don't respond, of course, because you haven't got a clue. But that doesn't
42

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 06/09/2008 08:35:55
contd.

You don't respond, of course, because you haven't got a clue. But that doesn't stop you linking to any bit of nonsense, as long as it says what you want it to say.

Some time ago, I suggested you take a science course. Say a one year undergraduate course in environmental science, or climate change. I assume such courses exist on the Open University, or you may live next to a college. It is a serious suggestion. It might save you from an increasingly bitter and futile old age. Being led by the nose by charlatans is no way to live, and education is the only escape.

I'm away now, for a few days.
43

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 06/09/2008 09:53:13
#47

The CRU site is now up. Hence able to use real (not approx. remembered) figures:
Thus:

Five year average global temp. anomaly centred on 2005 = 0.45C.
44

eyeswide,

06/09/2008 11:56:30
You really don't get it do you Slioch.

IPCC = political.
HadleyCRU = political.
NASA/GISS = political.
rc = activists.
tamino = data torturer.
wikipedia = overrun with activists.

I give up on your condescension and scientist bashing. You are lost. I will ignore your every post from here on in as my blood pressure cannot take dealing with wilfully blind elitists prigs like yourself.

I now know full well what you would wish I didn't. The world is waking up to your dangerous idiocy. It only takes some real weather.

You are a bully and deserve all you get, along with your perverted "friends" on real (hahahahahahahah) climate. "Being led by the nose by charlatans" - your education has not helped you in the least.

Cold. Soon.


45

seanie,

06/09/2008 14:43:05
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2008/TargetCO2_20080407.pdf

"Humanity today, collectively, must face the uncomfortable fact that industrial civilization itself has become the principal driver of global climate. If we stay our present course, using fossil fuels to feed a growing appetite for energy-intensive life styles, we will soon leave the climate of the Holocene, the world of prior human history. The eventual response to doubling preindustrial atmospheric CO2 likely would be a nearly ice-free planet."

"Continued growth of greenhouse gas emissions,for just another decade, practically eliminates the possibility of near-term return of atmospheric composition beneath the tipping level for catastrophic effects."

"The most difficult task, phase-out over the next 20-25 years of coal use that does not capture CO2, is herculean, yet feasible when compared with the efforts that went into World War II. The stakes, for all life on the planet, surpass those of any previous crisis. The greatest danger is continued ignorance and denial, which could make tragic consequences unavoidable."
46

Resolutions,

06/09/2008 17:18:03
Eyeswide -Suggest you follow Slioch's suggestion and follow an environmental science course, where you would be introduced to many viewpoints and have to assess and judge them as well as learning how to research and USE concrete figures collected world-wide.

Take note of Seanies last comment
"The greatest danger is continued ignorance and denial, which could make tragic consequences unavoidable"
Well said.
47

,

06/09/2008 19:04:08
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
48

,

06/09/2008 19:07:53
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
49

seanie,

06/09/2008 20:25:56
Unlikely.
50

Resolutions,

06/09/2008 22:32:47
#53 Al Gore is NOT the only voice on this topic by any means. You also need to read up on biogeography as well as physical geography, oceanography, economic geography and environment in general. Good 'Higher' course may do as a start!!

#54 Think it was reported that you need to change and be more open. Hear! Hear!

Besides where was he speaking and this topic was on the development of Geography, remember?
51

Spanners,

07/09/2008 08:21:11
The Socialist agenda (enviro-taxes to control capatlist markets and comrade citizens) isn't here to "teach students about climate" it's to test how well they understand the propaganda. The Socialist cronies have been installed througout all British scientific bodies and have moved into indoctrinating children, an abhorrant and immoral strategy by corrupt adults.

There's onle a few things students actually need to learn about climate to unravel the climate fraud;

1). CO2 emissions: 360-380 Giga Tons per annum of natural emissions. 6-8 Giga Tons per annum man-made emissions. Nature makes 50 times more CO2 emissions per annum than man.

2). CO2 is 0.038% of Earths atmosphere: Yes this 'greenhouse gas' is only 38ppm (parts per million). Barely 100ths of 1%. It is a trivial greenhouse gas for climate but an essential gas for life (a fertilizer/building block for plants).

3). CO2 has limited warming ability (radiative forcing) : Because of CO2's limited radiative forcing, nearly all CO2's warming ability is reached at 22ppm. So CO2 at current 380ppm is almost no extra warming than 22ppm and tomorrows predicted 600ppm will also have no additional warming effect.

4). CO2 follows Temperature: The 720,000 year geological record and the 420,000 year ice core records both demonstrate unequivicably CO2 is a follower of temperature, not a driver of temp. CO2 has no history of forcing Earths temperature because it is trivial as an atmospheric trace element and because of its limited radiative forcing.

Conclusion. Global warming is a hoax. Students may get 10 out of 10 if they answer correctly and learn that the politicisation of science by Socialist politicians, businesses and scientists all wanting funding (public money) is fraudulent and that such frauds are a jailable offence.

52

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 07/09/2008 08:54:24
57:

So how do you explain the Mann curve?
53

,

07/09/2008 09:11:46
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
54

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 07/09/2008 10:03:31
57 Spanners:

Your arguments have been dealt with many times in this and other threads. However your points 2 and 3 are contradictory.

Point 2 claims that the concentration of CO2 is trivial but point 3 implies that it is fully absorbing at 22ppm.

This deserves further elucidation. The major infrared absorption bands of CO2 are indeed saturated at sea level, but, and this is a big but, as you go higher in the atmosphere the pressure and density fall. This means that you eventually reach an altitude where the bands are no longer saturated. This altitude increases as the concentration of CO2 rises. Consequently as man adds to this concentration the insulating blanket of the atmosphere effectively thickens and the earth's temperature rises.
55

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 07/09/2008 10:08:36
60 cont:

Additionally the higher layers of the atmosphere are colder and so radiate less heat into space.
56

,

07/09/2008 19:32:05
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
57

Spanners,

08/09/2008 06:22:01
Fred Bloggs - Posts 60 & 61

It is the hoax that's been "dealth with many times". The hoax (it's actually a fraud by polticians and carbon trading scams) is a theory and computer prediction both undone by solid (real and known) science. Every scare story has been undone, unravelled and the theory ruined. The hoax/theory does not stand the test of known science or hold water when measured by real observational measurements.

Firstly your reference to the Michael Mann 'hockey stick' graph shows you're not exactly up-to-date. It's been so soundly debunked the IPCC itself who spun these tree ring records removed the graph from their 2007 Report. Not nly was the data not correlated correctly but the comparisons against previous world temperatures were entirely inaccurate. The claims and the data were unsustainable and should have been opened to peer review beofre publication by the IPCC.

Regards your claim CO2 'gains' radiative forcing in altitude that's junk science. Indeed the 'hot spots' at altitude which you allude to have been shown to be false in altitude measurements.

In the plot from the Hadley Centre’s radiosondes, showing actual, observed temperatures in the troposphere as predicted by 5 IPCC computer models, the repeatedly-predicted “hot-spot” signature of anthropogenic greenhouse warming is entirely absent. Indeed, very nearly all observational data on mid-tropospheric temperature trends over the past half-century show no tropical “hot-spot” at all.

Similarly while CO2 levels have risen consistently for 100 years Earths temperature record shows ups and downs including coolings in the 70's and despite a 20% increase in CO2 over the last decade our temp has remained flat as a pancake. In fact the last 7 years we've actually been cooling including the 2007/8 winter the coldest winter worldwide for a century.

CO2 rising DOES NOT, and has not in 700,000 years driven Earths temperature. That's a fact and tha fact why, CO2 limited radiative forcing,
58

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 08/09/2008 09:06:37
Spanners: The evidence for increased global warming caused by greenhouse gases generated by human activity is overwhelming and accepted by the vast majority of scientists.

The deniers like yourself have been shown in many cases to be paid apologists for fossil fuel industries or phsychologically unwilling to understand the serious consequences that the human race faces.

Your posts show no evidence of you understanding the science and your jibes of 'junk science' are a giveaway that you belong to one or both of the above groups.
59

eyeswide,

08/09/2008 15:48:08


p(h)sychologically unwilling - sums up the warmers and their shrill bleating and constant labelling of opponents as "working for the devil"

Cognitive dissonance anyone?

Seriously though - there is absolutely no point entering discourse with religious fundamentalists.

They constantly use the term "deniers" to make it seem as if anyone who disagrees with their fairy story is a Nazi. Nice people with the right ideas on how to win someone over to their side of the "argument". I see now how wrong I am to upset them and their precious consensus - whatever that is.

Shame that not a one of the famous "true believers" will debate the science in public.







60

Spanners,

08/09/2008 17:13:21
Fred Bloggs : the evidence is overwhelming the man-made warming is a hoax and junk science. The theory itself does not stand up under testing against reality. The Theory does not stand up under known scientific nowledge. It leaks, trips, falls apart and then falls flat on it's face time after time.

As do the constant shrill desperate claims "the debate is over" and "there's a consensus". The consensus is actually AGAINST man-made warming. 31,000 scientists have now signed The Oregon Petition. The 2,500 scientists of the UN's IPCC do not even support man-made warming, they have never been surveyed yet Al Gore et al take that as another arrogant assumption. Many IPCC scientists have resigned and questioned this politicised cronie of a body, the most controversial quasi-political-scientific body in history.

Even its Vice President, Yuri Isreali, has said the IPCC have made too many mistakes and over-extended the science and that politicians have been too keen to run with policy based on an unproven theory (like Iraq/WMD).

Man makes 6-8 Giga Tons of CO2 per annum compared to natures 360-380 Giga Tons. Nature is responsible for 5 times more CO2 than man. We are barely 1-3% of the 'signature' of CO2. How do imagine in your tiny mind we can control CO2? How much halucinating do you need to do to imagine curbing 50% of our emissions will change atmospheric CO2?

Not only is it folly but CO2's historical records are patently clear. CO2 follows temperature. It has never driven temperature in 700,000 years even when it's at its highest (20-40 times higher than current 380 parts per million).

CO2 cannot drive tempearture because its radiative forcing runs out of puff at 22ppm. Current 380ppm makes almost zero difference to its warming. Predicted 600ppm by 2050 will also make no difference. CO2 simply cannot force any more warming. And its warming (radiative wavelength) has been known for almost a century.

Fact after fact after fact drives a horse and coac
61

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 08/09/2008 18:46:16
65 and 66 regurgitate the phony arguments and propaganda originated by unscrupulous people with a political agenda.

I recommend that you catch the new BBC2 series by Dr Ian Stewart 'Earth - the Climate Wars'.

Watch and learn some real science and common sense.
62

eyeswide,

08/09/2008 20:49:20
Nice one Spanners.

There was a climate program on the beeb last night and I nearly fell off my plinth when the guy said that Keeling's CO2 graph was "the only piece of scientific evidence" in the whole global warming climate accelerated whatever......

Until now anything by the beeb has usually been alarmist. I was expecting this to be more propaganda but was surprised.

While I am here I must regurgitate some political agenda stuff:

"The global UAH Temperature delta from July to August 2008 was .049°C and is 0.287°C cooler than in August 2007. It becomes the fourth time the UAH data has dipped below the zero anomaly line in 2008"

As we all know weather is not climate so I must point out:

The 12 month running mean for Aug, 2008 is 0.047C

The 12 month running mean for Aug 1980 is 0.087C

Damn those political satellites they will be telling us that Alaska just had it's coldest August since.....



1980



63

eyeswide,

08/09/2008 21:02:04

Of course, if I remember my geography lessons from 45 years ago I must point out that it has been cloudy all year all over the world.

As it happens, clouds hold the night time temperatures higher than they would otherwise be so I guess we were lucky and June, July and now August were not colder than the last 10 years. Except they were - doh.

But that's ok because the "trend is upwards" -

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1998/trend/plot/uah/from:1998/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1998/trend


Ooops - that can't be right. Anyway 10 years is not enough time to work out what the weather is going to be like - unless you use a computer program to predict into the future.

It must be really horrible for those pesky political propagandists right now what with the world warming up and all - they must be spending their money hand over fist.



64

eyeswide,

08/09/2008 21:21:24
I feel really sorry for everyone who has their heating on right now - usually it would be September before we needed to do that.

Just write in to those folks at the Ministry of Defence and ask them if they are getting a good return on OUR money at the Hadley center or CRU.

Or you could ask Sir John Houghton:(margaret thatcher's hitman)
co-chair of the InterGOVERNMENTal Panel on Climate Change
former Chief Executive at the Met Office
founder of the Hadley Centre.
founder member of the International Society for Science and RELIGION
current president of the Victoria Institute(stated objective - to defend "the great truths revealed in Holy Scripture ... against the opposition of Science falsely so called.")

I am sure he will give you an unbiased non-political reason for all this that will set your troubled hearts at rest and fill your bunkers with nice cheap fuel.



65

eyeswide,

08/09/2008 21:37:38
I used to find this funny but indoctrinating children with lies that are only accepted by the "great unwashed" because the newspapers and TV and politicians etc tell us continuously "it is happening" "pay here" is beginning to grate.


Here is some climate mixed in with geography and archaeology:

http://news.yahoo.com/story//afp/20080905/lf_afp/switzerlandarchaeologyclimatewarming

Apparently:
"Some 5,000 years ago, on a day with WEATHER MUCH LIKE TODAY'S, a prehistoric person tread high up in what is now the Swiss Alps, wearing goat leather pants, leather shoes and armed with a bow and arrows."

Then a nasty glacier came down and covered up "300 objects dating as far back as the Neolithic or New Stone Age -- about 4,000 BC in Europe -- to the later Bronze and Iron Ages and the Medieval era have been found in the site's former icefields."

Now the weather - sorry, climate, has warmed again and allowed scientists to examine what was for a long time icebound FROM FOUR HISTORICAL ERAS. Sort of begs the question - how many times has that particular glacier melted?

Damn those political glaciers - never there when you need them.

66

eyeswide,

08/09/2008 21:49:20

VK Raina, India's leading Glaciologist:

"Claims of global warming causing glacial melt in the Himalayas are based on wrong assumptions," Raina told the Hindustan Times on February 11, 2007. "Out of 9,575 glaciers in India, till date, research has been conducted only on about 50. Nearly 200 years data has shown that nothing abnormal has occurred in any of these glaciers. It is simple. The issue of glacial retreat is being sensationalized by a few individuals." Throwing down a gauntlet to the alarmists, he said "The issue should be debated threadbare before drawing a conclusion."

I bet he has heard a lot of crickets chirping while he waited for James Hansen (politics NASA) or Al Gore(Democrat) or Sir David King(codswallop) to step up to that particular plate.






67

eyeswide,

08/09/2008 21:49:31
Dr. Edward Wegman—former chairman of the Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics of the National Academy of Sciences—demolishes the famous “hockey stick” graph that launched the global warming panic. Dr. David Bromwich—president of the International Commission on Polar Meteorology—says “it’s hard to see a global warming signal from the mainland of Antarctica right now.” Prof. Paul Reiter—Chief of Insects and Infectious Diseases at the famed Pasteur Institute—says “no major scientist with any long record in this field” accepts Al Gore’s claim that global warming spreads mosquito-borne diseases. Prof. Hendrik Tennekes—former director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute—states “there exists no sound theoretical framework for climate predictability studies” used for global warming forecasts. Dr. Christopher Landsea—past chairman of the American Meteorological Society’s Committee on Tropical Meteorology and Tropical Cyclones—says “there are no known scientific studies that show a conclusive physical link between global warming and observed hurricane frequency and intensity.” Dr. Antonino Zichichi—one of the world’s foremost physicists, former president of the European Physical Society, who discovered nuclear antimatter—calls global warming models “incoherent and invalid.” Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski—world-renowned expert on the ancient ice cores used in climate research—says the U.N. “based its global-warming hypothesis on arbitrary assumptions and these assumptions, it is now clear, are false.” Prof. Tom V. Segalstad—head of the Geological Museum, University of Oslo—says “most leading geologists” know the U.N.’s views “of Earth processes are implausible.” Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu--founding director of the International Arctic Research Center, twice named one of the “1,000 Most Cited Scientists,” says much “Arctic warming during the last half of the last century is due to natural change.” Dr. Claude Allegre—member, U.S. National Academy of Sciences a
68

eyeswide,

08/09/2008 21:51:42

Dr. Claude Allegre—member, U.S. National Academy of Sciences and French Academy of Science, he was among the first to sound the alarm on the dangers of global warming. His view now: “The cause of this climate change is unknown.” Dr. Richard Lindzen--Professor of Meteorology at M.I.T., member, the National Research Council Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, says global warming alarmists “are trumpeting catastrophes that couldn't happen even if the models were right.” Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov--head of the space research laboratory of the Russian Academy of Science’s Pulkovo Observatory and of the International Space Station's Astrometria project says “the common view that man's industrial activity is a deciding factor in global warming has emerged from a misinterpretation of cause and effect relations." Dr. Richard Tol--Principal researcher at the Institute for Environmental Studies at Vrije Universiteit, and Adjunct Professor at the Center for Integrated Study of the Human Dimensions of Global Change, at Carnegie Mellon University, calls the most influential global warming report of all time “preposterous . . . alarmist and incompetent."

Of course all these scientists work for the tobacco miners federation so their opinions are worthless.


69

eyeswide,

08/09/2008 22:06:37
Ah but models suggest.....

Prof. Freeman Dyson—one of the world’s most eminent physicists says the models used to justify global warming alarmism are “full of fudge factors” and “do not begin to describe the real world.”

Even the beeb - not generally given to rocking the boat (could be political)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7381250.stm
"Professor Andrew Watson at the University of East Anglia researches carbon uptake in the oceans. He fears dangerous climate change; but he told BBC News that basic science on the carbon cycle is too poorly understood to make a meaningful contribution to models."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7081331.stm
"In these model vs data comparisons, we find gross inconsistencies - hence I am sceptical of our ability to claim cause and effect about both past and future climate states. Mother Nature is incredibly complex, and to think we mortals are so clever and so perceptive that we can create computer code that accurately reproduces the millions of processes that determine climate is hubris."
Professor of Atmospheric Science, University of Alabama and IPCC Lead Author John Christy.

I have another suggestion for models but the censorbot here will not even let me write the words Gavin Schm idt without swearing at me.

70

eyeswide,

08/09/2008 22:15:46
Sometimes the effort pays off and someone comes over from the dark side.

Meet Lucy. Vocal about climate change and worried that some folk were misguided she began a crusade to show why we should all believe our government. They wouldn't lie to us would they? Surely they would protect us from snake oil salesmen?

But she had an open mind. Oh dear.

This is what she found (and now I send everyone that asks for both sides' opinions to her site)

http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Science/Curious.htm



71

Spanners,

08/09/2008 23:00:46
Eyeswide,

Thanks for the links. There's some I've not seen before and will check them out over the next day or two. I've been researching climate science for about 10 months like a 'hobby' (as per most men, that makes it a mild obsession!).

What I've found is one sides words hold water and are sound. The other sides are hype, shrill or alarmist and fall apart on closer inspection or when solid science or actual real data is applied. From an initial believer I've turned into a 100% convinced believer this is the global biggest scam since the fraudulent WMD/Iraq dossier and nearly as big as the enviro-genocide, the ban on pesticide DDT.

As for the BBC their demise (loss of balance and integrity) began over WMD/Iraq when Greg Dyke was sent packing by a BBC govenor Dame Pauline Neville-Jones who had vested interests in companies supplying the Iraq War.

Since then, as you've observed, the BBC have been 100% biased about climate science despite more than half of the worlds scientists disagreeing. Nobody can get a word in edge ways at the BBC about this being a hoax. And their bias extends to pro-Democrat coverage and anti-Republican because Obama plans to screw Americans with green taxes.

Anyway hope to see you around (here or there). Thanks again for the links, here's a fabulous (huge) resource for you too;
http://z4.invisionfree.com/Popular_Technology/index.php?showtopic=2050
72

Spanners,

08/09/2008 23:26:39
Fred Bloggs,

Thanks for recommending the BBC2 series by Dr Ian Stewart 'Earth - the Climate Wars'. I saw last nights, short of facts, heavy on vacuous generalisations and full of inaccuracies in my opinion.

I particuarly like his smeering of one side and fullsome endorsement of clapped out, disproved science. Highlights of inaccuracies include;

1. CO2 experiment - Dr Stewart demonstrated how putting CO2 in a glass tube snuffed out its heat signature. What he failed to demonstrate is that CO2 has a limited ability to block a heat signature and if he'd pumped in two, three or four times more CO2 it would not have blocked out any further heat. Namely as I've told you, 22 parts per million in Earths atmosphere is the upper limit of CO2 effect as a greenhouse gas. Todays 380ppm or 2050's 600ppm won't make ablind bit of difference. Dr Stewart 'omits' this known fact of science, Opps!!

2). CO2 smoke stacks - Dr Stewart kept contending man was pumping out CO2 at an alrming rate combined with the usual industrial smoke-stack pictures. Man produces only 6-8 Giga Tons per annum. Nature produces 360-280 Giga Tons. Funny Dr Stewarts film completely failed to show nature pumping out 50 times more CO2 than mans puny efforts!!

3). Temperature Data Errors - Dr Stewart failed to mention Earth isn't warming. It's been as good as flat for 100 years. He also mentioned the computer predictions of the 1970's were "very accurate". He failed to mention he cherry-picked 1 out of 60 scenarios to find the right one. And his rediculous prediction the poles would warm 10-12 degrees was "pretty much what we are seeing". Antarctica hasn't mpved temp in 50 years!!

So I can't wait for the next weeks episode where he gives the 'other side' of the argument - he has already made his case in the just finished 'Earth' series - frankly he doesn't appear qualified to give either side of the argument!!
73

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 09/09/2008 08:40:28
78 Spanners:

1. I'm afraid the physics of CO2 infrared absorption is a little more complicated than that.

As I tried to explain earlier in this thread, it is true that the absorption becomes saturated as the concentration of CO2 increases, but ONLY AT THE PEAKS OF THE ABSORPTION LINES! The absorption falls off as you move away from the absorption lines.

Indeed there are wide gaps in the infrared where there is no absorption at all. This is why a clear winter's night can produce a ground frost because the ground is radiating its heat straight out into space.

2. Nobody disputes that the amount of manmade CO2 is small compared to that produced by nature. Nevertheless it is sufficient to upset the balance and cause a steadily rising concentration of the gas in the atmosphere which builds up over time because it takes CENTURIES for it to be reabsorbed back into the earth and oceans.

3. Quite wrong.
74

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 09/09/2008 10:15:23
#80 Ken Wyles-Thenoux

So, despite having been asked twice you still cannot give a single example of an "expert" who predicted sea level rises of several tens of metres by the end of this century. Yet you continue to assert that several did so. No wonder you have to resort to bluster and throwing childish insults around.

If you had any evidence for your assertion you would provide it. You clearly have none.
75

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 09/09/2008 10:21:59
#78 Spanners

Fred has already dealt with your various errors, however, I would be interested to learn where you got the erroneous idea that "22 parts per million in Earths atmosphere is the upper limit of CO2 effect as a greenhouse gas." Do you have a reference for that?
76

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 09/09/2008 11:24:39
#85 Ken Wyles-Thenoux

You are just being ridiculous. Not only have I never predicted sea level rises in the order of several tens of metres by the end of this century, no one of any repute has either and neither has any peer-reviewed scientific paper.

You are just demonstrating your ignorance of this subject. Anyone with a scrap of integrity would withdraw an assertion when it became obvious that it was wrong and could in no way be substantiated. You respond by throwing insults around.
77

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 09/09/2008 11:50:37
#87 Ken Wyles-Thenoux

You are actually providing a good example of the hopelessly muddled thinking characteristic of those in denial about climate change.

You make a specific assertion that 'experts predicted ten of metres of sea-level rise by the end of the century'. I tell you that I know of no such prediction being made and challenge you to substantiate your claim, which you are manifestly unable to do.

So, instead of withdrawing your claim, you start hurling insults around and then introduce complete irrelevancies about tobacco or asking for my qualifications!

It is bad enough to make a wrong assertion based on no evidence. It is quite another to continue with that assertion and to respond to requests to substantiate or withdraw it by insults and irrelevancies. But such are the ways of climate change deniers.
78

Resolutions,

09/09/2008 13:01:52
#90/#91

You have been asked politely several times, by various posters to provide a link to your evidence, which you have consistently failed to do. All you seem to be able to do is to 'yell' at people who do provide a wide ranging series of links, as being indoctrinated.

When you provide the links and the names etc as most genuine well and widely read, genuine researchers are able to do, you could possibly be taken seriously.

Most well-educated people are well able to search out their interests and quote what they have found, can assess the evidence and interpret data recorded.And discuss them by asking 'what do you think'? You appear to be lacking these skills.

As for the BBC programme referred to, I had to record it and have yet to see it. However, I realised that it was presented by a extremely well qualified graduate in the subject and would have presented evidence and probably, if the other programmes re anything to go by, given where more info can be found. This has been turned into an atttack on the producers and their integrity without any reason.
79

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 09/09/2008 13:50:48
Iain Stewart's excellent programme is available on i-Player at:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00dhlgl/

The second episode is about the sceptics and their grubby game. It should be very interesting. I believe it's on Sunday evening.
80

Resolutions,

09/09/2008 14:14:27
#78 Might just add that Dr Stewart is obviously far better qualified than you are in presenting material and has been associated with several very well respected universities - who according to you are hotbeds of ignorannce

I did record the programme - no need for iplayer in this case. However, I did see Joanna's search for the Northern Lights - that filmed sequence near Tromso was breathtaking!
81

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 09/09/2008 18:12:56
#95 Ken Wyles-Thenoux

The only significance you should draw from the lack of response to your challenge, "Prove to me that the IPCC reports haven't been similarly "back-engineered" to save face" is that some requests are just too silly to respond to, especially from someone who is unable to provide any evidence for his own false assertion concerning sea level rises.

But if you really want proof that the IPCC has not "back engineered" its publications I suggest you go to a library where you will find hard copies of its reports that have been sitting on its shelves for years. I'm certainly not going to spend any time pandering to your idiotic conspiracy theories.
82

Resolutions,

09/09/2008 18:28:44
#95/96
By your assumption of 'superannuated hippies' you prove that you are in fact even sillier than Slioch says. Go and find the hard copies; find your references and when you are at it, find out just how well qualified Dr Stewart is in his field! As I said - far better than you and he provides information for anyone with any sense of research to go and dig further.

Then perhaps you can argue your case from an informed viewpoint.
83

Spanners,

09/09/2008 23:48:30
Resolutions,

It's a hard question for a green but can you count?

Count how many articles, reports, programmes support climate warming and how many dont'.

If your ratio comes out like mine, 100 for/0 against would you assume bias?

If over 50% of the worlds scientists and the vast majority of scientific papers do not support man-made warming would you assume the BBC are 'ever so slighty' biased' editorially or would you assume the BBC by random chance are snuffing out contrary views?

Want to try the same count with newspapers?

I do anjoy the Guardian et al. Gives credability to the loonies that used to walk down high streets with "The End is Nigh" signs. The Town loonatic is alive and well in full employ as enviro-journlists!
84

Spanners,

10/09/2008 00:51:14
It was inventer of the Web, Al Gore, that said sea-level rise of up to 6m (20 ft) will be caused by melting of either West Antarctica or Greenland and Pacific islands were already "inundated because of anthropogenic global warming".

This bottom-of-the-class student appears unable to make a credable claim! Sea level has been rising consistently 1mm per annum for 8,000 years (+/- 1mm) and shows no man-made signature.

The IPCC’s 2007 report estimates humankinds influence on sea level at little more than "50/50" and halved its 2001 estimate from 3ft to less than 2ft. Gore has accordingly exaggerated the official sea-level estimate by approaching 10,000%.

Just some of the 35 misleading claims in Gores fictionalised account of climate authored by his climate 'expert friends' in the global fraud movement (I say "fraud" because the aim is extortion of money by socialist Governments businesses such as carbon-con schemes).

Gore picked up a Grammy for his fictionalised acting in the movie and a further Nobel Prize held jointly with the IPCC. Obviously the Nobel Committee, like Gore and the IPCC itself, have abandoned the scientific method for science fact and now pander/sell science fiction to political agendas.
85

Spanners,

10/09/2008 01:04:57
Slioch,

Rather than smeer other people with your uninformed views would you like me to post a long list of errors, emissions and unscientific practices of the IPCC here?

The IPCC are as corrupt as most United Nations bodies. The IPCC was set up politicians, funded by politicos, cherry picked scientists and report authors selected by politicos. It's Reports are drafted and the words 'chosen' and agreed by politcos (much like Blair did with the Iraq/WMD dossier) until everyone is 'happy with the agenda'.

As science goes, a worse system could not be imagines. Which is probably why it is the most criticised quasi politcal-science body in history. The majority of the worlds scientists are now on record as demanding the IPCC "return to the scientific method for conducting science" and not continue this corrupt political process.

whilst the IPCC employ many sound and honourable scientists you should also not arrogantly assume, as Gore et al do, that they support the AGW agenda. many have resigned and many still at the IPCC do not support its views or believe in AGW.

So you do not have to "refer to the many IPCC reports on file" to establish the IPCC are a bunch of monkeys you just have to listen to the worlwide scientific community (inside and outside the IPCC).
86

Spanners,

10/09/2008 02:01:36
#74 Fred Bloggs,

My first question to is do you know what you're talking about?

What the pork pie has ground frost and night time warmth got to do with CO2 porkie?

1. There's nothing "complicated" about CO2's absorbtion spectra. It acts as a 'catch' for certain infra-red wavelengths and that's it. Regards "peaks" and "falling off" both are irrelevant. CO2 runs out of puff at 22ppm. Rising emissions, from man or nature, will have literally no additional warming effect. Science lesson done. Warming hysteria over.

The BBC's Dr Stewart gave a demonstration that was a half-truth in order to scare. Misleading as usual and as his entire programme was.

2. You say mans trivial output "is sufficient to upset the balance". What balance? Can you determine what level the balance is, 180ppm, todays 380ppm, 2050's predicted 600ppm?

CO2 has been in a constant state of flux following Earths temperature up and down for 4.5bn years! From as low as 80ppm in ice ages to 20-40 times higher in warming periods or great volcanic activity. What "balance"!!

Also CO2 does not hang around in the atmosphere "for centuries". This is another false IPCC claim. CO2's atmospheric life is between 1 and 7 years before it is absorbed by cold polar oceans, organisms or plants.

3. The BBC's Dr Stewart was misleading viewers saying some 1970's global climate models (GCM's) predicted accurately todays temp and "warming of 10-12 Degrees at the ice caps". A quite rediculous claim even for his bent programme. GCM's predict a range of scenarios like a set of headlights, a high, a low and many in between.

Nobody picks out a figure and says "that's the one that's bang on". And to date no GCM has accurately mapped all the weather factors including some major emissions like cloud albedo.

Dr Stewart is living on Planet Plonker as are the BBC running these constant public propaganda films.
87

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 10/09/2008 08:51:40
Spanners it is painfully obvious that you don't understand the science.

Watch Iain Stewart's next programme and learn what a bunch of charlatans you have hitched your wagon to.
88

eyeswider,

10/09/2008 10:41:14
Spanners.

Please do not run out of steam on this. So many get utterly exasperated with the constant "we are right" of the watermelons. They wear people down with their viciousness, ignorance and perpetual breeding of fear, uncertainty and doubt.

The whole establishment are lined up on this one - it is not going to take just a couple of cold years to dislodge these leeches - they know a good thing when they see one and being mostly subservient slaves to ideology they know how to fawn and bend over for the man.

If there were a knock out punch, on either side, we could all just go home but it ain't going to happen any time soon. Even with a world shrouded in cloud (as it has been recently thereby keeping "average" temperatures up) they will claim that increased precipitation was predicted by their playstations and that Henrik Svensmark's science is flawed. Even in a bitterly freezing winter such as the upcoming one they will claim it is a result of the carbon cycle not the solar cycle.

There are none so blind who will not see.
89

eyeswider,

10/09/2008 10:41:35

The whole point of picking CO2 in the first place is because there are zero proofs. There is not one engineering quality paper that shows the real effects of CO2. There is no accurate proxy. I know the paper you allude to with the 22ppmv statistic and although written by someone who has used CO2 laser technology all his life he has not been able to get poor reviewed because poor review itself is flawed and twisted by this gang of funded pirates. John Nicol may well never be poor reviewed because he says the wrong things.

We get called conspiracy nuts or oil addicts or criminals for even questioning the "consensus" yet Al Gore gets a Nobel prize (political) and a fantasy fiction award at the Oscars and goes on to make $100,000,000 in less than 8 years on the back of a scheme that was cooked up while his boss was undoing the safeguards that were put in place to stop the fiasco in the markets we currently witness (and with the collusion of the same "people" at CitiBank, JP Morgan and Chase) and the supposedly intelligent thinkers with all their supposed clarity of vision fail(refuse) to see through the sham.


Or do they. Do they fail to see this for what it obviously is, the biggest fraud in modern times? Or do they have their own agendas? There is a lot of effort (funding) put into naming, shaming and blaming of anyone who sticks their head above the parapet and "denies" the un-natural assumptions being made about natural processes.
90

eyeswider,

10/09/2008 10:42:12

You just have to look at this thread.

A geologist of 30 years experience in the field, who's main area of expertise THE ENVIRONMENT, is ridiculed and vilified for suggesting that we should just wait for some proof before committing entire economies to mitigation in the wrong direction and subjecting entire nations to poverty and starvation.

Versus another who has spent the last 6 years (since vacating the lectern where he spent his first 12 years after graduation) working in THE MEDIA yet is considered a hero by a couple of activists on here (and doubtless elsewhere) for merely recycling propaganda about a subject (CO2 as climate driver) that he has spent none of his academic career studying.

Let us dig(pun intended) a little deeper.

In the blue corner:- Dr Robert Carter:

He is a palaeontologist, stratigrapher, marine geologist and environmental scientist with more than thirty years professional experience. Bob Carter's current research on climate change, sea-level change and stratigraphy is based on field studies of Cenozoic sediments (last 65 million years) from the Southwest Pacific region, especially the Great Barrier Reef and New Zealand, and includes the analysis of marine sediment cores collected during ODP Leg 181( http://www-odp.tamu.edu/publications/prelim/181_prel/181prel.txt ). He receives no research funding from special interest organisations such as environmental groups, energy companies or government departments. He strives to provide critical and dispassionate analysis based upon scientific principles, demonstrated facts and a knowledge of the scientific literature.

30 years environmental research since graduation. Not afraid to buck the "consensus".

In the red corner:- Dr Iain Stewart:

After finishing his PhD in 1990, he lectured in geology at Brunel University in west London, then left in 2002 to take up an Honorary Research Fellow post at Glasgow University while getting the "Journeys" series off the ground. His main res
91

eyeswider,

10/09/2008 10:43:13

In the red corner:- Dr Iain Stewart:

After finishing his PhD in 1990, he lectured in geology at Brunel University in west London, then left in 2002 to take up an Honorary Research Fellow post at Glasgow University while getting the "Journeys" series off the ground. His main research interests are in the broad area of Earth hazards and natural disasters, particularly in terms of identifying past major earthquakes, tsunamis and volcanic eruptions in the Mediterranean region. His geological research has featured in two BBC Horizon specials - The Search of Ancient Helike and Earthquake Storms - and he was the geology member of the science team in the recent BBC Two series Rough Science.

All over the place since graduating 18 years ago. Lectured until 6 years ago. Seems like he has spent most of the time since then being a hack for the Beeb who know better than anyone that a Scottish accent is the most trusted in the UK, probably in the whole English speaking world.

I know who I would put my money on in a crunch and it ain't the guy constantly on the telly.

One has merely to see how the system works. Is the protagonist working for big oil/coal/tobacco etc? Yes? Great criteria for disregarding their research. No? Search for something else. Is there a single debatable point in their argument? Yes? Pick on that to the exclusion of all else. No? Search for something else. Are there gaps in the science? Yes? Shout loudly. No? Search for something else. Have they said/done anything questionable in their past? Yes? Use it to the exclusion of all else. No? Search for something else. If there is nothing else ignore them and their work. Lalalalala.

The main aims of this BIG LIE (copyright Dr. Paul Joseph Goebbels) are not to save the world. Far from it. The main aims are to enrich the savings accounts of a few politicians and governments whilst ensuring that the "lower" races remain there for the foreseeable future. A land grab of historic proportions. Evil in my
92

eyeswider,

10/09/2008 10:43:31

The main aims of this BIG LIE (copyright Dr. Paul Joseph Goebbels) are not to save the world. Far from it. The main aims are to enrich the savings accounts of a few politicians and governments whilst ensuring that the "lower" races remain there for the foreseeable future. A land grab of historic proportions. Evil in my opinion.

Nice people. Anyone who stands up for the flawed and incomplete science or claims "we should act now" or that "there are too many people" or that "there are too few resources" are lying, hypocritical, racist, elitist, Marxists or eugenicists. Or any combination thereof.
93

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 10/09/2008 10:49:21
Something odd has happened to this thread. All of Ken Wyles-Thenoux contributions (and perhaps others) have been deleted and the numbers of the posts changed accordingly. Perhaps the Scotsman has been running a garbage filter ... .

As for Spanners ... as Fred says, it is obvious that you don't understand the science. Let me pick up on a few points:

#85 Sea level: Gore did not say that sea level would rise 20ft (which also, of course, is not tens of metres) by 2100 though he did imply that the time scale might not be long. It is the case that the melting of the Greenland ice cap would raise sea levels by about that amount. As far as the IPCC predictions in the 2004 report is concerned, it explicitly excludes any contribution from Greenland or Antarctica greater than that already experienced. This is NOT because such extra contributions are unexpected but because they are not sufficiently quantified. IE the IPCC was being cautious - and in the opinion of many too cautious - in its sea level estimates. Meanwhile, sea level rises are increasing - they are not constant as you claim.

ref. #87
1. Your claim that CO2 infra-red absorption reaches a maximum at 22ppmv is wrong. I asked you above (#76) for a reference to where you got that figure. You don't respond. So I had a little Google and found this:

http://www.theclimatescam.com/2008/04/29/what-a-load-of-b*lls**t/

(You will have to replace the 3 *s in the url with the correct letters)

It is just another of the garbage sites that festoon the Internet, but it does mention 22ppm CO2, though not at all in the context you claim for it. Your claim is nonsense.
CO2 absorption is complex, and you clearly don't understand it.

2. From ice cores we know that CO2 levels in the atmosphere did not exceed 300ppmv and were fairly stable in at least the previous 800,000 years, until the industrial revolution got going. They are now at 387ppmv and that increase is entirely due to human caused emissions. That is a 3
94

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 10/09/2008 10:50:20
Contd.

They are now at 387ppmv and that increase is entirely due to human caused emissions. That is a 38% increase above the 1750 level of 280ppmv. Your claim that the human contribution to atmospheric CO2 is insignificant is wrong, as is your claim that its atmospheric life is between 1 and 7 years.


95

Resolutions,

10/09/2008 17:10:56
Slioch I was wondering what has been going on re our Ken's posts. But it has happened on other threads too - he seems to have vanished. Garbage filter mmmm........! Interesting idea.

Pseudo scientist Spammers seems to be having colour trouble in that 'they' have made several blatant assumptions re 'greens'. They seem to fail to realise what Geography is - the study of the Earth basically. Does that make all Geographers 'greens'? Don't think so! That would include all biologists, oceanographers, meteriologists,vulcanologists, geomorphologists, geologists et all under that label Naw! What the pseudo scientists fail to do consistently, is to look at the overall picture and shut their minds to ideas they do not like. Its also a pity that they failed to give the links asked for and left you to find the internet sites, they claim are the bees knees.

As for you Chairman Gordon, bully describes you well, from what I recall of some of your postings.

Eyeswider - get a new name -eyesshut, may be appropriate.

96

eyeswide,

10/09/2008 17:21:41
And may you be *resolute* enough to end your closed mindedness and surety.
97

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 10/09/2008 17:33:46
Spanners has stated above that the life of CO2 in the atmosphere is only 1 to7 years.

Unfortunately, according to this paper:

http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~archer/reprints/archer.2005.fate_co2.pdf

'we expect that 17–33% of the fossil fuel carbon will still reside in the atmosphere 1 kyr from now, decreasing to 10–15% at 10 kyr, and 7% at 100 kyr. The mean lifetime of fossil fuel CO2 is about
30–35 kyr.'
98

,

10/09/2008 18:56:47
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
99

Resolutions,

10/09/2008 18:59:03
#97 Slanderous? Merely an observation on a recollection
100

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 10/09/2008 19:19:41
Slioch:

The reference by eyeswide to the 'adiabatic theory of greenhouse effect' had me puzzled for a while but after a bit of googling I found on Wikipedia some information on 'lapse rate' that refers to the change of temperature with altitude in the atmosphere which defines the 'adiabatic lapse rate' which is the change in temperature of a mass of air as it moves upwards.

Clearly this has relevance to the greenhouse effect in which convection plays a part. (However it is doubful that our erudite friend Eyeswide comprehends any of this).
101

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 10/09/2008 20:25:48
#104

Thanks Fred. Incidentally, Spencer Weart (who wrote "The Discovery of Global Warming") has a current guest article on the Realclimate site on the problem of calculating climate sensitivity (ie the increase in surface temperature consequent on doubling CO2), here:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/09/simple-question-simple-answer-no/#more-595

Perhaps Spanners should ask him about the "22ppm as the upper limit for CO2 absorption" or Eyeswider about the "adiabatic theory of greenhouse effect".
102

Resolutions,

10/09/2008 22:40:03
Sorry to but in on the 'academic' stuff, but I was wondering how our 'friends' would explain how the satellite photos of the retreating Arctic pack-ice and the pictures and interviews on the news tonight, fit in with 'we are not getting warmer' theories. And presumeably they are not going to claim that the news channels are 'doctoring' the pictures and the interviews!

There are a lot of questions there that they could ask, but they are not going to like the evidence, supplied along with the answers.
103

Resolutions,

10/09/2008 22:43:44
#107 I am no mouthpiece and try being accountable to yourself. You were merely asked to provide information to back up what you were saying and you failed to do so.
Why did your posts vanish then?
104

eyeswide,

10/09/2008 23:08:53
Resolutions needs to do some serious research and also think about the propaganda machine a little. I presume by "interviews" you mean the Branson brat, his idiot mate and their icecapade publicity stunt to make daddy richer? You need to get out more. They are miserable and miserable failures also.

Check this - second item down at the moment:

http://www.climate-resistance.org/

Even if that is not what you were on about it should be said. I refuse to watch the propaganda machine so if that is not what was meant, tough.

Even GISS, which is guarded by Hansen himself, have just published another drop in global temperatures.
105

eyeswide,

10/09/2008 23:15:54


http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png


http://www.mounteverest.net/news.php?id=17551


Losers.

106

Resolutions,

11/09/2008 00:20:53
Actually no - the interviews happened to be with the US military and the satellite pictures are easily found if you look.

As I've actually been to the Arctic, I reckon that is research in the field - seen for myself, looked for myself, asked questions of folk living there, seen the data they have collected and taken it from there.

I am not self-appointed or anything else and am as sceptical of 'propaganda' as anyone else. There are lies and lies and more lies from people who with a little time at a computer claim 'knowledge'.

The climate is changing. Full stop. Reasons you can argue about, but it is changing.

Pack ice is diminishing - plenty of evidence and you dismiss it as some sort of myth and refuse to think out what this means for you, your families, let alone the Earth on which we all live.

It is you lot needing the reality check.
107

eyeswide,

11/09/2008 08:32:26
Actually no.

Climate always changes. It is a dynamic variable. A little warming here. A little cooling there.

I spent 26 years in marine salvage and have been as far north as the pack. This is meaningless.

Having spent my entire working life outside I know weather. I also know indoctrination when I see it. When the two are mixed together by a failed politician and anyone expects it to be true is where it all breaks down.

I cannot see anything to alarm here:

http://i38.tinypic.com/2lwkmlf.jpg

The Arctic has its own agenda. It could very well be that a recent slight warming there is a marker for the cooling everywhere else.

There are a couple of pictures around showing three subs at the pole in the 80'ies. More than once. In open water. I dislike the fact that we only have accurate (satellite) data going back to '79 but that limitation should not constrain investigation.

I would suggest readying the snowploughs. It is not going to be just cold and dreakit.

108

eyeswide,

11/09/2008 08:37:02
#113-

The problem is massive. Some days I despair. All the dominoes have been lined up. Forcibly. Something is afoot and we don't know what it is, do we Mr Jones.....


109

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 11/09/2008 10:47:45
#118 Chairman Gordon

Go on, Chairman, amuse us, tell us how it is that those who accept the evidence and theory of MMGW have been rumbled. Go on...
110

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 11/09/2008 14:54:06
Check out the latest BBC video from the Arctic Sea - no ice in sight:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/7609500.stm
111

Resolutions,

11/09/2008 22:50:24
#121 Speaks volumes about you!

You appointed yourself as Chairman.At what latitude is the pack ice this year in the Arctic? How many countries have research facilities in the farthest north permanent settlement?
Eyesshut - when were you last in the Arctic?



112

eyeswider,

12/09/2008 10:23:08
#122 Nosolutions - Meaningless question.

Here be science-

Comparing Arctic ice extent:

http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=09&fd=10&fy=2007&sm=09&sd=10&sy=2008

The above is yesterday compared to the same date last year.


http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=12851&red=y#3403

"Data from the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) has indicated a dramatic increase in sea ice extent in the Arctic regions. The growth over the past year covers an area of 700,000 square kilometers: an amount twice the size the nation of Germany."

"....the new ice had less snow coverage to insulate it from the bitterly cold air, resulting in a faster rate of ice growth."

The site referenced above:

National Snow and Ice Data Center(USA)

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

The blue line on the topmost right-hand graph is this year's ice coverage.

Nice dramatic shots from the back of an aeroplane over open sea proves nothing. Especially with no compass in sight. I thought you guys were the intelligentsia.

The Arctic seems to be your last refuge. Enjoy it while you may because next year it will be obvious that real cold has set in.
113

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 12/09/2008 11:52:45
Statement from US National Snow and Ice Data Centre as of 4th September 2008, see:

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

"Arctic sea ice extent on September 3 was 4.85 million square kilometers (1.87 million square miles), a decline of 2.47 million square kilometers (950,000 square miles) since the beginning of August."

"Extent is now within 370,000 square kilometers (140,000 square miles) of last year’s value on the same date and is 2.08 million square kilometers (800,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average."
114

eyeswider,

12/09/2008 12:13:52
The blue line on the topmost right-hand graph is this year's ice coverage.
115

eyeswider,

12/09/2008 12:14:30
It is not lower than last year no matter how much you believe it to be.
116

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 12/09/2008 12:56:17
#119 eyeswider said, "It is not lower than last year no matter how much you believe it to be."

I'm not aware of anyone who has claimed that it is.

The quote I gave in #117 was more up to date (4th Sept.) than that to which you referred, with its misleading headline "Arctic sees massive increase in ice coverage" and its false statement "With the Arctic melting season over for 2008, ice cover will continue to increase until melting begins anew next spring." Moreover, the more recent extent of sea ice was "within 370,000 square kilometers of last year’s value on the same date", not the 700,000 sq km that you posted.

see:

http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=12851&red=y#3403

The graph you linked to, here:

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png

shows the extent of ice decreasing to a minimum in about mid-September.
117

eyeswider,

12/09/2008 13:02:56
The best explanation for this is that this summer did not experience the "perfect storm" of atmospheric conditions seen throughout the summer of 2007.
118

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 12/09/2008 14:21:46
#121 eyeswider said, "this summer did not experience the "perfect storm" of atmospheric conditions seen throughout the summer of 2007."

Yes, that seems to be so. Those conditions reportedly included persistent (warm) southerly winds and clearer skies, both of which act to melt ice. See:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Arctic-sea-ice-melt-natural-or-man-made.html

Incidentally, it is interesting to see how this summer's sea ice retreat has been catching up with 2007's. The following figures give the difference between 2007 and 2008 in square kilometres of sea ice (with 2007 always less than 2008):

July 17th 1,050,000 sq.km.
Aug 1st 890,000 sq.km.
Aug 11th 780,000 sq.km.
Aug 25th 580,000 sq.km.
Aug 26th 430,000 sq.km.
Sept 4th 370,000 sq.km.

August 2008 saw the fastest daily rate of sea ice loss ever recorded in that month. At the end of which the DailyTech website puts out a piece entitled "Arctic sees massive increase in ice coverage"!!! If you want an example of misleading spin from a garbage website look no further.

See links in:

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/index.html

and of course,

http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=12851&red=y#3403

119

eyeswider,

12/09/2008 15:42:48
http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=09&fd=10&fy=2007&sm=09&sd=10&sy=2008
120

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 13/09/2008 08:31:45
'Ice at the North Pole melted at an unprecedented rate last week, with leading scientists warning that the Arctic could be ice-free in summer by 2013.'

The Guardian.

121

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 13/09/2008 08:41:54
'For the first time in human history, the North Pole can be circumnavigated

Melting ice opens up North-west and North-east passages simultaneously. Scientists warn Arctic icecap is entering a 'death spiral'.'

The Independent, 31 August 2008.

122

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 13/09/2008 09:12:08
more:

'it is the simultaneous opening – for the first time in at least 125,000 years – of the North-west passage around Canada and the North-east passage around Russia that promises to deliver much the greatest shock. Until recently both had been blocked by ice since the beginning of the last Ice Age.'
123

Resolutions,

15/09/2008 12:39:00
I see comments from the web's creator about concerns about the MISLEADING information and rumours put out about pseudo websites.

The ability to assess and discard the garbage sites seems to be a skill yet to be learned by some.

It also seems that people who live and work and observe in the areas are 'talking rubbish' as are those who record the statistics as these 'experts' think that they know better.

Fact is the Arctic is on sea and sea is more susceptible to warm ocean influences than land. Less ice, less reflection, more open water to absorb warmth, less ice, less reflection etc Mixing of this affects the airmasses which affects the weather OK?

Basic science.
124

eyeswide,

24/09/2008 09:44:35
Nosolutions - One would wonder why it continues to get colder then.

And as to the beebs propaganda piece just read the beebs blog:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbpointsofview/F1951566?thread=5868837&skip=100&show=20

It would seem that the "scientists" on this thread have a LONG way to go before they see a "consensus" amongst the public on anything but insightful dismantling of the lies and realisation that this is ALL a faudulent tax exercise.

The beeb lost all credibility as a reporting agency some time back. They are fully absorbed into the ministry of truth.

Buy blankets. Chop wood. Go long on dried foodstuffs.
125

jms,

hull 06/10/2008 21:25:24
!!!!

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
RSS Feed of this article's comments
Delivery formats: RSS, Atom, Javascript & Email
 
  

 
 

More Education

More Education >>

More Teaching

More Teaching >>

Features

Free financial brochures & guides Dianomi
Paperboy Paperboy Customised news
Scottish Business Briefing Scottish Business Briefing ...Sign up today

Featured Advertising



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.