Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

Drink Driving, Don't Risk It!

Summers that will kill thousands…

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: 19 June 2009
DEADLY summers similar to the one that killed tens of thousands of people across Europe earlier this decade will become frequent in Scotland over the next century, according to climate projections unveiled yesterday.
Average summer temperatures in Scotland will rise by about 4C in the worst-case scenarios predicted by the Met Office.

Hottest summer days will be about 6C warmer by 2080, resulting in scorching 32.5C temperatures in Scotland, akin to those curren
tly found in Mediterranean countries.

Experts warn that, although the idea of basking in sunnier summers may be appealing, the temperature increases could bring a huge array of hazards – from drought to disease.

In 2003, Europe suffered a heatwave that killed more than 50,000 people. This type of summer would become common, according to climate scientists.

The long-awaited UK Climate Projections 2009 study was unveiled yesterday, with predictions of temperature and rainfall based on three emissions scenarios.

The worst-case scenario will occur if little or no action is taken globally to tackle greenhouse gas emissions.

In this case, summers in Scotland would not only be warmer, but also about a fifth drier.

Winters would be warmer and wetter, with rainfall increasing by about 20 per cent.

Sea levels around Edinburgh would rise by more than 30cm, putting even more homes at risk of flooding.

And snowfall would reduce by more than 60 per cent in the Highlands, potentially spelling the end of the ski industry.

Even under the best-case scenario, in which there is a considerable reduction in greenhouse gas emissions globally, summer temperatures would rise by about 2.6C by 2080, and there would still be about 15 per cent more rain in winter, and about 10 per cent less in summer.

WWF Scotland director Dr Richard Dixon said: "A warmer Scotland doesn't sound like too bad an idea at first but the reality is that the weather is set to become more extreme and more unpredictable. That means more floods, storms, droughts and heatwaves.

"This scientifically robust analysis of the potential impacts of climate change in Scotland and the rest of the UK predicts a range of future scenarios from unpleasant to unthinkable. "Many parts of the world will be much harder hit but even in Scotland these results paint a picture of a very unappealing future if the world does not get serious about serious emissions reduction."

Regardless of which emissions scenario is used, the Met Office predicts very similar changes in temperature and rainfall up to about 2050. This, it says, is because the impacts of climate change have already been determined for the next 30 to 40 years by our past and present emissions.

This means that in Scotland there is guaranteed to be a summer temperature increase of about 2C, an increase in winter rainfall of about 10 per cent, and a decrease in rain in summer of about 10 per cent over the next four decades.

"Only after that do we have some control," said Professor John Mitchell, director of climate science at the Met Office.

This, he said, meant it was important to adapt to inevitable changes in the climate, as well as to try to prevent worse impacts further down the line.

He warned yesterday that even a 2C temperature increase would mean summers such as that which led to tens of thousands of deaths across Europe in 2003 would happen "every second year".

Dr Dixon said summers similar to 2003 would "certainly become much more frequent".

"It's not just that with exceptionally warm days people will keel over from heat waves. It's also that various bacteria will do better in warmer conditions, so there is certainly a disease potential there too," he said.

He added that he thought the agriculture sector, particularly in Fife, Perthshire and the Lothians, could also suffer, because of drought.

And he said there could be situations where water supplies to houses would have to be closed off due to shortages.

People would have to use buckets to take their allocation from a central supply.

"It's not that people will keel over and die because they haven't got enough water because extra supplies will be brought in.

"However, in the 21st century, the idea of having to collect it in buckets is quite scary."

He claimed transport would also be affected.

"Trains may have to travel more slowly because the rails get too warm and start to buckle. And on the roads, there would be more landslides and floods."

Stewart Stevenson, the climate change minister, said global warming was the "greatest environmental threat facing the world", but he added that Scotland was "already ahead of the game" by taking forward the "most ambitious and comprehensive climate change legislation anywhere in the world".

The Scottish Climate Change Bill, which will go to final vote on Wednesday, will set targets for an 80 per cent reduction in emissions by 2050.

However, Sarah Boyack, Labour's environment spokeswoman, said it needed to go further, with a reduction target of at least 40 per cent by 2020.

"Scotland needs to be prepared to push the boundaries to tackle the effects of global warming and that means getting everyone to reduce their emissions," she said.

LABOUR URGES TOUGHER TARGETS

THE SNP was yesterday challenged to set tougher targets in the Scottish Climate Change Bill.

Labour has tabled an amendment calling for 2020 emissions reduction targets of at least 40 per cent, rather than 34 per cent included in the draft legislation.

The SNP will bring in 42 per cent emissions reduction targets only if Europe agrees to tough targets after a conference in Copenhagen later this year.

The amendment will go to the vote on Wednesday, when the result is likely to be close because the Lib Dems and Greens also support tougher 2020 targets.





Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 18 June 2009 10:57 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Climate change
 
1

DunCraig,

Brisbane 19/06/2009 03:32:16
More 'woulds', 'coulds', 'maybes' and 'mights'! Over-exaggeration at its worst! Stewart Stevenson is wrong, as he always is, with his claim that "global warming was the "greatest environmental threat facing the world!"! Hasn't the clown realised that the Earth hasn't been warming since 1998?
2

SouthernSkye,

19/06/2009 04:35:18
Snow in the Cairngorms in June dost not global warming make !
3

weeshooie1,

Wollongong 19/06/2009 05:15:20
NSW, Australia, New Years Day 2006, the temperature peaked at 53deg Celsius in the shade on our front verandah at approximately 1.45pm. All of our well established potplants plus a 10 year old Staghorn plant hanging on the wall just curled up their leaves and died. That sort of heat does'nt have anything to recommend it at all :0(
4

Alexander,

Edinburgh 19/06/2009 06:30:20
What utter rubbish! The self proclaimed "world class scientists" at the National Oceanographic Centre Southampton told us five years ago that the Gulf Stream was due to fail, possibly within seven years, plunging Scotland into a freezing icy wasteland.
Oh, I forgot the "world class" science didn't stand up to the rigors of "O" level physics, rather like this latest alarmist nonsense perhaps?
5

sceptic,

livingston 19/06/2009 06:40:44
"However, in the 21st century, the idea of having to collect it in buckets is quite scary."
Daft Dr Dixon, the green brigade had been collecting their water in bottles from the supermarkets for years.
6

sceptic,

livingston 19/06/2009 06:55:06
The most recent eight forecasts by the Met Office have all proved to be as exaggerated and plain wrong as their absurd claim that 2007 would be the warmest year ever recorded.
Obviously having learned a lesson they are now making a ludicrous forecast that will be proved wrong when the forecasters are no longer alive to be further ridiculed.
7

Max F,

19/06/2009 06:57:38
MSPs from all parties need to back stronger climate targets next week.
8

sceptic,

livingston 19/06/2009 07:10:00
Now well into year twelve since global temperatures peaked and no sign of an imminent return of record temperatures. Indeed, the Met Office's graph representing their own statistical analysis of the mean global temperature has decisively turned down and shows, if anything, an accelerating downtrend.
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/comparison.html
9

drew 33,

duddingston 19/06/2009 07:31:28
7Max F
"MSPs from all parties need to back stronger climate targets next week."
Wow! Gordon Brown "saved" the world now our MSPs are going to control the climate. Modesty knows no bounds!
10

madrab,

Edinburgh 19/06/2009 07:36:41
I always wondered what happened to the Muppets after their show finished, at least we've found one of them.
11

Hmm ...,

19/06/2009 08:08:58
... I am heartily sick of these increasingly desperate scaremongering claims by discredited career "climatologists".

Average temperatures are falling as a new cycle comes in - soon we shall return to their claims of an approaching new ice age that they peddled thirty years ago, claiming then as now that it was already too late and immediate drastic measures needed to be taken to to offset the damage.

As for sea levels increasing by 30cms (more than a foot) - where do they think this water is to come from? The Earth's surface is more than 2/3 covered by water and even if the entire Arctic ice sheet melted (which no one claims it will) this would make no visible difference spread over the entire surface.

Worse still, these propagandists are supported by organs of our discredited government, desperate to find new justifications for increased taxation and restrictions - any justification will do!
12

Unimpressed one,

19/06/2009 08:09:33
We're still waiting for the hotter and drier than average summer for this year that was predicted by these buffoons.

My prediction is that the last few decades will be treated with incredulity by future generations when they read late 20th/early 21st century history. There's enough material to fill a whole human psychology degree course never mind anything else.
13

Unimpressed one,

19/06/2009 08:13:31
"The Scottish Climate Change Bill, which will go to final vote on Wednesday, will set targets for an 80 per cent reduction in emissions by 2050."

Before these idiots commit economic suicide on our behalf, perhaps they might have the decency to put hard figures on these proposals. Then we'll see how many sane people, as opposed to brain-wilted beardies, back them.
14

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 19/06/2009 08:14:13
#2 SouthernSkye

This is what the staff at the Cairngorm Mountain centre said:

"Our countryside rangers have a saying that until it snows in June, summer has not really started.

"Our weather has become less predictable over the years but the summer snow is not unusual and we do not see it as a sign of global warming." See:

http://www.strathspey-herald.co.uk/news/fullstory.php/aid/4317/Summer_snow_is_now_on_show.html
15

broadgait,

gullane 19/06/2009 08:28:52
From the Met Office "The coming summer is 'odds on for a barbecue summer',"

Yesterday the weather presenter on BBC1 advised Ascot visitors to wear "winter woollies" and "nail" their hats on!
16

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 19/06/2009 08:30:58
#8 Sceptic

The recent downturn in the smoothed graph of average global temperatures to which you refer is an artifact of the way the graph is constructed and is likely to disappear in future years. The smoothed graph showed a similar downturn, for example, in the early 1990s where now there is a continuing upward trend.

This is because the smoothed graph is constructed by using values ten years either side of of the year in question. The smoothed value for 2008, for example, is calculated by use of annual values from 1998 to 2018. Since the annual values for 2009 to 2018 do not yet exist, the value for 2008 is substituted meantime. The smoothed value for 2008 will therefore increase in future years if the average temperature for the next ten years exceeds that of 2008 - which is highly likely.

This depression in the final years values of the smoothed curve is mathematically inevitable during a period of generally increasing temperatures. The only way to avoid it would be to not continue the smoothed graph until all annual values are available, but that would mean it being always ten years out of date.
17

broadgait,

gullane 19/06/2009 08:33:19
#14
"Our weather has become less predictable over the years but the summer snow is not unusual and we do not see it as a sign of global warming."

When was it ever predictable?
18

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 19/06/2009 08:35:21
#11 Hmm

"their claims of an approaching new ice age that they peddled thirty years ago"

There was no prediction in the 1970s by scientists of an imminent ice age. That is a myth born from the misinformation and lies of AGW deniers.
19

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 19/06/2009 08:35:31
8. Sceptic:

Everyone should take a look at your link. It does show what you term an 'accelerating downtrend'.

It also shows several such downtrends in earlier years which are all followed by upturns and overall a steady and unending uptrend. This is exactly in line with IPCC forecasts and the underlying science.
20

broadgait,

gullane 19/06/2009 08:45:07
#16
"The recent downturn in the smoothed graph of average global temperatures to which you refer is an artifact of the way the graph is constructed"

Obviously any up-trend is immune from the vagaries of graphical construction. As a fully paid up member of the the global warming secular cult you believeanything showing warming is "global warming" anything else is "noise" or statistical anomaly.
21

Unimpressed one,

19/06/2009 08:51:26
Summers that will kill thousands...

Let's suspend reality and suppose that the above is remotely true. Then the thousands saved by milder winters will offset the thousands dying from the heat. So this warming is a good thing and politicians should be encouraging it for all our sakes.

Back to reality. Summer 2050 - wind and rain, highs of 23 degrees on the good days.
22

broadgait,

gullane 19/06/2009 08:55:40
#19
"This is exactly in line with IPCC forecasts and the underlying science."
I must have missed it! Where is that IPCC forecast c.1997 that we were heading into 12+ years of falling global mean temperature. No indication whatsoever that the trend is about to change. What will the excuse be when after 20 years, global temperature fails to make a new peak, or perhaps continues on it's downward path?
23

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 19/06/2009 09:17:46
22. According to the history:

'In the 1990's scientists started to question the greenhouse effect theory, because of major uncertainties in the data sets and model outcomes. They protested the basis of the theory, which was data of global annual mean temperatures. They believed that the measurements were not carried out correctly and that data from oceans was missing. Cooling trends were not explained by the global warming data and satellites showed completely different temperature records from the initial ones. The idea began to grow that global warming models had overestimated the warming trend of the past 100 years. This caused the IPCC to review their initial data on global warming, but this did not make them reconsider whether the trend actually exists. We now know that 1998 was globally the warmest year on record, followed by 2002, 2003, 2001 and 1997. The 10 warmest years on record have all occurred since 1990.'

http://www.lenntech.com/greenhouse-effect/global-warming-history.htm#ixzz0IrWEGQSt&D
24

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 19/06/2009 09:19:07
#20 broadgait

"Obviously any up-trend is immune from the vagaries of graphical construction."

The smoothing process done by a mathematical algorithm. I can provide further details if you wish, but if you simply respond with denial then it is hardly worth the trouble. I think AGW deniers have reached a new nadir when they start to deny mathematics.
25

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 19/06/2009 09:24:11
#22 broadgait

There is no statistically significant deviation from the long-term trend of c.0.17degC per decade increase in temperatures established since 1975. ALL monthly and yearly average global temperatures, including the last 12 years, lie within two standard deviations of that trend.
26

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 19/06/2009 09:26:18
Further to 23:

We now know there are various causes of downtrends e.g. volcanic eruptions, particle emissions from coal burning which peaked around the 1950s before the clean air act came in, and El Nina events - one of which has caused the latest downtrend.

The point is that these phenomena can temporarily halt global warming because the latter is relatively weak in comparison.

27

Unimpressed one,

19/06/2009 09:42:15
#24, "I think AGW deniers have reached a new nadir when they start to deny mathematics."

Unlike warmists who deny reality.
28

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 19/06/2009 09:59:02
'Unimpressed one' and the other scientific illiterates who post nonsensical scepticism on these boards would appear to be suffering from the Dunning-Kruger effect:

'an example of cognitive bias in which people reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices but their incompetence robs them of the metacognitive ability to realize it". They therefore suffer an illusory superiority, rating their own ability as above average. This leads to a perverse result where people with less competence will rate their ability more highly than people with relatively more competence.'

Wikipedia
29

Mcsnagpile,

19/06/2009 10:01:05
There are nearly 7 Billion people (and growing) on this earth. The over whelming majority do not have what we consider basics.
To bring the populations of the world up to a reasonable standard of living will multiply the CO2 in the world one thousand fold.
Do you think the majority of humanity do not deserve electricity?
Do you think the majority of humanity does not deserve clean water, sanitation, food?
Global warming is a lot bigger than puny CO2 political agreements or turning off the standby on your telly.

What a shower of mugs.

When problems are seen but too big to comprehend then, the elephant dance with the link trunk to tail in never ending circles is the only answer?
30

Occam's Razor,

Edinburgh 19/06/2009 10:20:00
lol, carbon-poop. What a shame, all those poor earnest cross-eyed believers, fretting and mumbling, recycling their lives away in vain. It's like a weird cult, this high church of global warmism.

Cheer up, you miserable sandal-wearers. Life's too short for this enviro-b*llocks. The planet will look after itself thanks very much - we're an insignificant biological blip, just got here, gone tomorrow. The scale of this freely peddled and swiftly adopted human-guilt-centric arrogance and the gullibility of the great unwashed is vividly breathtaking.

The agenda-mongerers, the failing scientists on the green gravy train, in the pay of the political profiteers can't even draw on a mere hundred years of valid, verifiable data upon which to project their doomscape - it's made up as they go along, this pearticular pitch has goalposts on castors. Make the facts fit! Scientific enquiry is officially dead.

You're only credible if you agree, mind.
31

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 19/06/2009 10:24:08
29 & 30:

Nurse! 'Two more patients for the Dunning-Kruger clinic.'
32

El Franko,

19/06/2009 10:33:03
This is all part of a predicted intensification of scare stories at this time. It is a lobbying action aimed at increasing the chances of more stupid goals and commitments at the Kyoto Suicide Pact Follow-Up Conference in Copenhagen this December.

We can expect more of it. All the usual suspects will be expected to do their bit, and I daresay they will try to outperform one another, rushing back to their once-smoke-filled rooms with tales of coverage in the media.

The Met Office has remained on course to be the chief buffoon in the UK, our nearest equivalent to nutjob Hansen's output from NASA. It will all be grist for the Mills of God as they grind slowly through the dungheap of greenie alarmism. The day of reckoning must be nigh! Oh for a billboard!
33

Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 19/06/2009 10:38:52
"Hottest summer days will be about 6C warmer by 2080, resulting in scorching 32.5C temperatures in Scotland, akin to those currently found in Mediterranean countries."

Excellent News!!!

Pity I won't be around to enjoy it!

Honestly though, what a load of scaremongering rubbish. What hard evidence do they have to suggest that this is going to happen?

Only the beardy-wierdy merchants of doom could make a bit of nice weather sound like the end of civilisation as we know it. Come on... It really IS about time we stopped all this rubbish. It's got completely out of hand now.

Scrap this daft "climate bill" and lets get on with living our lives rather than inventing fairy stories about what "might" happen in the future.
34

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 19/06/2009 11:08:03
32 & 33:

Nurse! 'Two more patients for the Dunning-Kruger clinic.'
35

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 19/06/2009 11:11:20
#32 El Franko

"grist for the Mills of God as they grind slowly through the dungheap of greenie alarmism"

Hey! That's really good! You should start writing plays.

"The day of reckoning must be nigh! Oh for a billboard!"

Arrh. Yes. Didn't notice that bit at first.
Yes, that's far more appropriate - forget about the plays. I'm sure Fred's clinic would supply the billboard, otherwise I look forward to see you stravaiging the streets of Edinburgh laying into anyone with a beard or, God-forbid, sandals, in an overcoat in the middle of summer yelling out "Prepare ye for the way of cold! Excelsior! Excelsior!"
36

L,

Edinburgh 19/06/2009 11:33:04
"Average summer temperatures in Scotland will rise by about 4C in the worst-case scenarios predicted by the Met Office."

Worst case scenario? Sounds lovely to me.
37

Unimpressed one,

19/06/2009 12:36:12
#28, fred bloggs

Better than suffering from crass gullibility as you and all your type do. You slavishly believe any junk that is supposedly scientific but at the end of the day so-called scientific prediction has no more credence than gazing into a crystal ball.

Scientific opinion of the day said heavier than air flight was impossible, computers would be so powerful they would keep us as pets, and some said space travel was impossible. All scientific predictions - not worth a wa*nk. And when it comes to environmentalists' predictions, a Harry Potter novel is more factual. So by all means keep believing what you need to believe but remember that's all it is - belief.
38

Mcsnagpile,

19/06/2009 12:44:58
bloggs

The Dunning-Kruger effect, is the phenomenon wherein people who have little knowledge think that they know more than others who have much more knowledge.

Like Mr Brown on economics, the late Mr Bush and Mr Blair on WMD, My FSA, HBOS, I am running out of ink. Medical Dr’s stating publicly in the 1960’s that there was no proof that cigarettes gave you cancer, Maggie Thatcher in the 1980’s said that fast food in schools was perfectly healthy—and she is an ex food scientist.
Claiming expenses for toilet paper in the House of Commons.

Some people know they know
Some people don’t know they know
Some people know they don’t know
Some people don’t know they don’t know
Some people quote the Dunning Krueger Effect in the hope it will sound to be beyond criticism of whether they know or don’t know.
39

Iain Mac,

19/06/2009 12:51:53
The SNP must be held to account over this. Threats of an independant Scotland have seriously affected our climate. Shocking.
40

response,

Syd 19/06/2009 13:24:47
Yea thats right #39 the snp and these english folk och.
41

New Town Resident,

19/06/2009 14:11:21
Many more people die of the cold in winter than of heat in summer in this country.

So it follows that if it gets warmer LESS people will die overall due to temperature, even if more die in the summer.

Surprised this obvious point isn't made in the article - guess it wasn't in their press release?
42

Geomac 1,

Scotland 19/06/2009 15:00:23
Are these predictions from the same Met Office which can't even get their weather predictions right 5 days ahead (and even 5 hours ahead), never mind 5 decades??
People die from cold in the winter and people die from the heat in summer - why not just people die all the time - it's a fact of life (or death!!).
The climate is changing - agreed - it has changed regularly over past millenia - so what's new?
As I sit writing this, it's cold enough to consider restarting the central heating (my vest and long johns aren't enough!!). Did we not have our coldest winter for a long time last winter? Snow was abundant for the first year in ages - yet they are predicting no mor snow?
In the "Analysis" report by the Met Office (hardly unbiased!!) the write claims that "There is no more climate debate. Not any longer" and claims that the debate is won by the eco fascists - WRONG, VERY WRONG!!
Not one word about how these predictions are based on a theoretical model which has inherently built into it that CO2 increases cause earth temperature increases - this self same model has no empirical support and has certainly NOT been shown to correlate with actual earth temperatures over the past 20 years or so since the theoretical model was developed. So why are we being assailed by regular diets of this fear inducing nonsense?
It's long past time to stop the utter garbage of blaming every natural event (fewer butterflies, more jellyfish, depleted cod stocks, no more pine insects, flooding in flood plains, droughts in deserts, hurricanes in the tropics, etc. etc) under the sun (Hmmmm - could the sun have an influence?) on CO2 emssions.
43

Andrah,

Embrugh 19/06/2009 15:20:29
Pity many of us won't be around to enjoy it.

"This scientifically robust analysis of the potential impacts of climate change in Scotland and the rest of the UK predicts a range of future scenarios from unpleasant to unthinkable. "Many parts of the world will be much harder hit but even in Scotland these results paint a picture of a very unappealing future if the world does not get serious about serious emissions reduction."

"Seriously", this analysis is about as "robust" as a malteser that has been run over by a bus. Even Dean Koontz or Stephen King couldn't serve up horror fantasy like this.
44

Joe Plaice,

the Nutmeg of Consolation 19/06/2009 15:30:48
In fact we are in a lot more danger from a mini Ice-age, which would result in crop failure and the deaths of many animals and people, than we are from warming. I think that we should act responsibly towards the environment but we should do so with the best information possible at our disposal. These scare-mongering stories don't really qualify
45

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 19/06/2009 15:54:42
43. Geomac:

I see you still don't understand the difference between a weather forecast and a climate prediction.

Let me help you with a nice quote from today's Guardian:

'Paul Williams, a climate scientist at the University of Reading, said: "Sceptics will no doubt question how scientists can confidently predict the climate of 2080, when we cannot even forecast next week's weather with any skill. But climate prediction and weather forecasting are completely different problems. We can say with confidence that July is always warmer than January, because more sunlight is received. Similarly, we can say with confidence that the 2080s will be warmer than the 2000s, because of the extra heat trapped by greenhouse gases."
46

sceptic,

livingston 19/06/2009 16:09:33
26fred bloggs,Edinburgh

"particle emissions from coal burning which peaked around the 1950s before the clean air act came in"
You do write some rubbish Fred! Coal burning peaked last year at 6.8bNt, 1950 burn 4.05bNt around 75% up in 58 years. I doubt China, Russia and India took much notice of the Clean Air Act!
47

sceptic,

19/06/2009 16:11:48
46 fred bloggs,Edinburgh
"Let me help you with a nice quote from today's Guardian:"

Says it all really :)
48

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 19/06/2009 16:28:48
sceptic:

I was talking about the days when people heated their houses with coal and few had central heating and power stations did not have soot filters and there was no oil or gas or nuclear or hydro. It is the reduction is particulates that has allowed warming to return.
49

sceptic,

livingston 19/06/2009 16:43:04
Fred
In 1950 the UK burned about 5% of the coal burned in China alone, last year. If you think China is on "clean burn" you are deluded. Perhaps Slioch could utilise a 117 point binomial filter on the coal statistics for the past 58 years and "prove" that coal consumption and consequent particulate production are falling.
50

Occam's Razor,

Edinburgh 19/06/2009 16:45:25
Right then Fred, when will you take your chair at the IPCC? Has Obama called you yet? Are the big bad oil companies bugging your phone Fred? lol

I bet you've got a beard :o)
51

Geomac 1,

Scotland 19/06/2009 17:01:08
#46 Hmmm
So when the Met Office talks about weather (snow, flooding, warmer temperatures, droughts etc.) it's OK but it's not so for me - don't be daft!!!
As #48 sceptic says "from the Guardian" says it all.
Time you started quoting from scientists who's income grants are not provided by government, Greenpeace or the WWF etc.??
#51 - a beard AND sandals!!!
52

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 19/06/2009 17:21:48
This is what I was talking about:

'Global dimming is the gradual reduction in the amount of global direct irradiance at the Earth's surface that was observed for several decades after the start of systematic measurements in the 1950s. The effect varies by location, but worldwide it has been estimated to be of the order of a 4% reduction over the three decades from 1960–1990. However, after discounting an anomaly caused by the eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1991, a very slight reversal in the overall trend has been observed.

It is thought to have been caused by an increase in particulates such as sulphate aerosols in the atmosphere due to human action. The switch from a "global dimming" trend to a "brightening" trend in 1990 happened just as global aerosol levels started to decline.

Global dimming has interfered with the hydrological cycle by reducing evaporation and may have reduced rainfall in some areas. Global dimming also creates a cooling effect that may have partially masked the effect of greenhouse gases on global warming.

Deliberate manipulation of this dimming effect is now being considered as a geoengineering technique to reduce the impact of climate change.

Wiki
53

SouthernSkye,

19/06/2009 17:37:05
14 Slioch
Exactly my point. Snow in June is not a sign of global warming.
....Snow in June dost not global warming make.
54

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 19/06/2009 17:47:14
It snowed in Edinburgh and in many other parts of the UK one fine day in June 1975.
55

SouthernSkye,

19/06/2009 17:49:36
14 Slioch.
Sorry, I meant to copy the quote
...."Our weather has become less predictable over the years but the summer snow is not unusual and we do not see it as a sign of global warming.".....
56

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 19/06/2009 17:54:15
More on global dimming:

http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/earth/Atmosphere/aerosol_cloud_nucleation_dimming.html
57

El Franko,

19/06/2009 18:14:32
#46 The quotation makes a fatuous comment, all too typical of the superficial analysis of some climate scientists. The atmosphere system is far too complex for such simplistic conclusions concerning modest amounts of some constituents. In particular there are negative feedback mechanisms which protect us from even more variation in climate than we see and have estimated for past ages. Secondly, greenhouse gases have never appeared to have driven climate in the past, not least in periods with far far higher CO2 concentrations than even the crooks and clowns of the IPCC project in their wildest dreams. Thirdly there is some evidence to support further cooling over the next few years.
58

Geomac 1,

Scotland 19/06/2009 18:52:50
# 57 The only dimming I have seen is in the argument of the eco fascists!!
59

Voldemort,

Edinburgh 19/06/2009 19:47:59
57:- You are spot on with all your comments - no need for me here !!

The climate change clowns have been leading us up the garden path for years - Ice age one minute - meltdown the next. They are experts at telling half truths to keep the grants coming in and (hopefully) inadvertently provide instruments for governments to wield new taxes and spread fear - I especially love the fact that they make statements like;

CO2 is at its highest level in 650,000 years (which is a blink in the timescales of the world) - again the climate clowns are RIGHT if confined to the statement but CO2 and Methane were MUCH higher at points in the Paleogene, Cretaceous and Jurassic Periods which span 10's of Millions of years.

CO2 'directly' corresponds with climate change and the ice core samples 'prove' it -- again they are half right - it does prove that there is a correlation it also proves that there is an 800 year 'lag' between temperature and CO2.

'Green' fascism is the new scourge of our age. They even want it taught in schools much like the NAZI party taught it's ideals in Schools. The brainwashing of children with climate fascism is plain wrong and it has already begun here in Scotland and on Children's TV. Schools are for learning how to read an write not to get political ideals rammed down your throat. Climate fascists will argue that 'climate issues' are not political .... but they are the most lethal political instruments invented thus far based on lies, shoddy research and spin to manipulate populations enmass to whatever tune they want and make it seem like they wanted it !
60

n/,

Perth 19/06/2009 22:10:50
#60'Green' fascism is the new scourge of our age.

Yup ..and here is yet another example only recently reported.


Faculties set climate duty
Planning, 19 June 2009

Universities that fail to introduce climate change issues in their planning courses will lose RTPI accreditation.

The move to make the expectation an explicit requirement is part of the RTPI's seven climate change commitments launched at its annual Planning Convention yesterday by its president Martin Wil-ley and planning minister John Healey.
61

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 20/06/2009 16:24:12
58. Franko:

The comment in my quote is actually spot on; you cannot deny that CO2 increase is bound to affect the weather. A simple lab demo shows that that atmospheric air which contains CO2 absorbs a range of infrared wavelengths and is warmed thereby. This has been known and understood for a very long time and is at the heart of manmade climate change. To deny it indicates that your scientific understanding is nil.
62

El Franko,

23/06/2009 14:07:33
#62, you have picked one notion - that CO2 has increased absorption in the infra-red. Where you fall down dramatically is in your imagining that the atmosphere behaves like a jar of gas in a laboratory. The atmosphere, and the coupled ice and biospheres, is an immensely complex system with countless interactions and feedbacks on a huge range of space and timescales. Into this melee, CO2 has proven to be of negligible importance as a driver of climate. The massive cylcles of air and water from t3eh tropics towards the poles is the major daily phenomenon and it is utterly dominated by solar radiation, the earth's rotation, and water in all its phases. So, next time you think about CO2, think about a flea on the back of an elephant and you might just get your sense of proportion right.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


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.