Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Met Office says world is warming up faster than at any time in 100 years

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: 10 August 2007
THE world is warming up faster than at any time in the past 100 years, according to a global climate forecast that reveals Britain will be 0.3C hotter by 2014.
Scientists at the Met Office's Hadley Centre have unveiled the first ten-year climate prediction model.

It shows at least half of the years 2009 to 2014 will be hotter than 1998, the warmest year on record. And their research predicts 2014 is likely to be 0.3C warmer globally than 2004. This is a sharp increase, as the average global temperature has risen by only 0.8C since 1900.

Dr Doug Smith, the study's leader, believes the prediction for the next decade will help people to understand how quickly climate change is happening.

He said the model would aid businesses and policy-makers to prepare for short-term climate change.

Dr Richard Dixon, the director of WWF Scotland, said he was not surprised by the findings, which he described as thought-provoking.

"The four warmest years in Scotland have been the last four years, in data that goes back nearly 100 years. Very clearly, Scotland is already showing this pattern they are predicting," he said. "That certainly is a spur for businesses and decision-makers to look at this."

The report interprets the effects of sea surface temperatures, and factors such as greenhouse gas emissions, projected changes in the sun's output and the effects of previous volcanic eruptions. It is the first time these variables have been combined to make a prediction.

Duncan McLaren, the chief executive of Friends of the Earth Scotland, said he was disturbed by the model.

"While at the moment the best predictions are that we will see this relatively gradual, linear change, there is also emerging good reason to be concerned that there might be more abrupt change within the coming decades as a result of greenhouse gas accumulation," he said.

"This adds further confirmation of the importance of continuing to reduce our emissions and making a better effort at it than we have been in the past."

He also called for concerted action from the governments at Holyrood and Westminster to take the lead on tackling climate change.

"So far, world leaders have not taken the collective action that is necessary. We in the UK and in Scotland must take whatever opportunity we have to set a good example," he said.

His call for action at Scottish government level was echoed by Dr Richard Dixon, who is optimistic the new Holyrood administration has an opportunity to push the issue forward.

"Potentially, we already have business and policy leaders who are taking notice of this problem. If they do deliver on what they promised, Scotland would be the leading country in the world to take real action on climate change," he said. "That would be a tremendous spur to global action."

In June, John Swinney, the Cabinet secretary for finance and sustainable growth, said he intended Scotland to lead the world in action to combat climate change, cutting carbon emissions to just 20 per cent of present levels by 2050.

He told the Scottish Parliament he was committed to an "ambitious" programme of cuts that would be an inspiration to the world and help to turn this country into "the green energy capital of Europe".

He stressed the commitment of Alex Salmond, the First Minister, to clean-coal technology, but faced criticism showing how his target could be achieved - and for not bringing in financial penalties for government departments and public bodies which miss carbon-emission targets.

The UK government has set an emissions reduction target of 60 per cent.

BLACK DAYS FOR THE ARCTIC


SOOT from industry and forest fires had a dramatic impact on the Arctic climate, starting around the time of the Industrial Revolution, researchers reported yesterday.

Industrial pollution brought a sevenfold increase in soot in Arctic snow during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, scientists at the Desert Research Institute found.

Soot, mostly from burning coal, reduces the reflectivity of snow and ice, letting Earth's surface absorb more solar energy and possibly resulting in earlier snow melts and exposure of underlying soil, rock and sea ice. This in turn led to warming across much of the Arctic region.

At its height from 1906 to 1910, estimated warming from soot on Arctic snow was eight times that of the pre-industrial era.

Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 09 August 2007 11:48 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Climate change
 
1

UriahHeep,

Edinburgh 10/08/2007 01:05:15

and yet they're still unable to predict the weather 24 hours in advance......

2

Jenny21,

Queens, NYNY 10/08/2007 01:24:25

"Met Office says world is warming up faster than at any time in 100 years."


When it gets too hot... I just open a window. :-0

3

John M,

Melbourne, Australia 10/08/2007 02:51:16

McLaren says that he is disturbed by the claim. So am I. Has the model ever been proven to be correct, and by that I mean both the output and every step in the computer program? Or do they base this claim - or even the model itself - on the unverified data and estimates from the CRU?

This looks like yet another example of "science by press release". And that tells you a lot about the climate change debate today - don't put a statement before your peers, just get it into gullible news media like The Scotsman.

4

John M,

Melbourne, Australia 10/08/2007 03:01:00

Sorry ... something else I just noticed... The report says "This is a sharp increase, as the average global temperature has risen by only 0.8C since 1900"

WRONG - even according to the CRU's dubious data.

Average global temperature (AGT) in 1900 was 0.253 degrees below the 1961-90 average but the data was derived from measurements over just 40% of the globe. last year the AGT was 0.422 above that 61-90 average and up to June this year it was 0.455 above.

Those figures mean an increase of 0.7 degrees, not 0.8. It's a bit of a worry when the CRU can't add two simple numbers!

5

Boy Wonder,

10/08/2007 03:01:47

A little research into the history books shows you that the weather patterns were just as bad throughout the centuries. The Earth goes through cycles of weather change. While you can't completely discount global warming, the ozone layer depletion and massive deforestation, I believe the planet is going through one of the cycles, though how long it will last is anyone's guess.

6

Jim P,

Netherlands 10/08/2007 06:18:28

"Met Office says world is warming up faster"

- NO!, It should read: Met office model PREDICTS world...."

"It shows at least half of the years 2009 to 2014 will be hotter than 1998, the warmest year on record. "

So why has it not been as warm since 1998; sounds like nearly 10 years of staying the same (unlikely) or cooling since 1998.

Do they really have a clue?

7

11+failed,

the pans 10/08/2007 06:23:10

What happened to that assurance we were given by the green brigade a few years ago that Scotland would be an icy wasteland possibly within 8 to 10 years? Has the Gulf Stream been given a new lease of life or has that nonsense gone the same way as last year's assurance that we were in for warmer much dryer summers?

8

Guga II,

Rockall 10/08/2007 06:29:22

And here was me hoping it would warm up by at least another 10 degrees by 2014. We badly need some of this global warming. Where is it?

9

Media 1,

cape town 10/08/2007 06:30:50

#1 is correct. The met office cant even tell you with any accuracy what the weather will be like to tomorrow.

Global warming is a nonsense. I am sick of people telling us what the weather has done over the last 3 years. How about giving us the fact over the last 3 million years? You may find that any warming is essentially natural. Its been happening for millenia!

10

drew 33,

10/08/2007 06:35:45

"Soot, mostly from burning coal, reduces the reflectivity of snow and ice, letting Earth's surface absorb more solar energy and possibly resulting in earlier snow melts and exposure of underlying soil, rock and sea ice. This in turn led to warming across much of the Arctic region."
Is that the same soot that the Global Cooling Terrorists of the 1970's told anyone daft enough to listen to them would lead the earth back into an ice age?

11

MS,

Lounging in Limousin 10/08/2007 06:57:14

http://pseudo-chrysolite.blogspot.com/ (first post in July 2006 - detailed overview of the Earth climatic history)

Absolutely right: the world has had a constantly changing climate: no ice at all during the Cretaceous Epoch), a massive burst of warming 50 million years ago due to vulcanicity then approx 40 million years ago the start of the present Great ice Age with its cycles of glacial and interglacial periods.

The Ice Age intensified approx 16 million years ago and then even more 3 million years ago. The present interglacial began just over 10,000 years ago and for much of the time has been much warmer than today. (Detailed description of the last 10,000 years also in the blog above)

Temperatures plummeted from 1300AD (Little Ice Age) until 1800 with 3 minima - one of which was the Maunder Minimum with zero sunspot activity. Since 1800 the temperatures have been recovering and, interestingly, most so-called climate experts are not keen to discuss anything before 1800 AD.

I wrote to Al Gore raising issues from An Inconvenient Truth - has he replied ? Answers on a postcard .....................

12

sceptic,

10/08/2007 06:58:43

!We in the UK and in Scotland must take whatever opportunity we have to set a good example," he said."

Now that I am fully committed to recycling my empty milk cartons I am sure that the rest of the world will take note, particularly China, where, I confidently expect them to stop commissioning a new coal fired power station every week! Well every little helps.

13

MS,

Lounging in Limousin 10/08/2007 07:01:32

12.

The university libraries are full of detailed and peer reviewed material to substantiate all that I've posted. I've been working in this area for over 40 years.

Use Ask Jeeves with a query on great Ice Ages or the Cretaceous for example. Look up Encyclopedia Britannica. Even the material on Wikipedia is largely accurate.

How is pointing out the massive variations in the earth's climate over its ENTIRE HISTORY being a 'denier' ?

14

MS,

Lounging in Limousin 10/08/2007 07:03:28
15

MS,

Lounging in Limousin 10/08/2007 07:10:34

For anyone interested in a reasonably well written and easily assimilated book try "The Rough Guide to Climate Change".

Basic but reasonably good description of things like the Milankovitch cycles etc and could be fuller on descriptions but - as it says on the tin - a rough guide.

Mind you the conclusions are slightly at variance with the factors and changes he describes.....

16

Alexander,

Edinburgh 10/08/2007 07:19:16

Is the "ten-year climate prediction model" any more accurate than their 12 hour prediction model that forecast sunshine instead of rain on Monday of last week?

17

Douglas,

Bathgate 10/08/2007 07:30:57

Something's going on. A blue whale just surfaced in that street.

18

Media 1,

cape town 10/08/2007 07:39:06

The Earth has been going through these changes for millenia. Scotland has been an ice sheet, a forrest, a desert and a tropical rain forest already during the last 70 million years. So why is this suddenly a problem?

Its called nature, deal with it.

19

John M,

Melbourne, Australia 10/08/2007 07:46:28

Rulesbutnotnotrulers - are you disputing that climate has changed in the past? Are you trying to implicitly endorse the myth that consensus settles uncertain science?

I think you're showing extreme gullibility about the claims of climate modellers and about climate change in general.

If you want to continue to demonstrate your gullibility then go right ahead, but please remember that you won't easily sway those who've done some investigation beyond the reading of newspapers and watching television news.

20

MacLeod,

Earth 10/08/2007 08:01:10

These scientists (and the especially politicians who listen to them) are sufficiently arrogant to believe they have an impact on nature or can change the world.

Global warming is a sexy bandwagon. Of course they are going to jump on it. It gives some substance to their lacklustre characters.

The important issue for us is to see these people for what they are, rather than inteligent gods who run the country.

We can't base any predictions of climate change on just 100 years of data. Stand back and see the bigger picture or you will spend your life worrying about a day you won't see.

21

Guthrie,

10/08/2007 08:01:21

Oh good grief.

Fistly, the climate is not the weather . Although to the ill-educated they appear to be the same thing, they are not. Climate is long term agregates of conditions, weather is short term variation. The weather is more chaotic and unpredictable, whereas Climate can be more easily modelled due to the trends being affected by fewer things than your local rainfall.


JimP- it was around as warm in 2005 as in 1998, and the trend since before and after 1998 has been warming. 1998 was an El Nino year, in which vast amounts of heat stored in the Pacific are released back into the atmosphere.

Media 1- ignoring a problem doesn't make it go away, and that is all you are doing just now.

MS- I'd love to discuss things from before 1800- what do you want to talk about?

Rules- their like a stuck record, aren't they?

22

woodentop,

Laurentian Ice Sheet 10/08/2007 08:02:28

What a load of tosh. Yet another 'global warming' tale based wholly on computer model predictions. Does this one model cloud influences?

If you take the land based temperature record at face value, temperatures have risen around 0.8 deg C over the last century. But temperatures have been rising naturally since the Little Ice Age, and on a greater scale since the last 'proper' Ice Age. The more accurate satellite measurements (truly measuring the entire globe) show no real movement in temperatures in the last decade.

It should also be noted that the NASA GISS land temperature figures for the USA have, this week, been corrected due to a statistical error (discovered by Steve McIntyre): the revision now shows that 1934 is the warmest year in the last 100, not 1998.

CO2 does have a theoretical 'greenhouse' effect but it's so small it cannot have the influence being attributed to it. Unfortunately the models are built with the result pre-determined, riddled with parameters and fiddled to make the thing hang together (how many times do they either crash or produce runaway warming - they don't tell you that).

Excellent essay on AGW as religion here:
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/religion.htm

23

Guthrie,

10/08/2007 08:04:14

John M- I think we've all shown that you know bugger all about climate science many times in the past. Are you ever going to stop harping on about it?

#22- we have large amounts of data thanks to proxies going back over a thousand years. In fact even the thermometer record goes back over 120 years, although it suffers in accuracy the further back you go. The fact is that the modelling and predictions are based on physical constants that do not change- this is not the kind of modelling that you may be thinking of with regards to complaining about merely 100 years of data.

24

Alexander,

Edinburgh 10/08/2007 08:09:38

#23
"Climate can be more easily modelled due to the trends being affected by fewer things than your local rainfall"
That is just not true!

25

Guthrie,

10/08/2007 08:09:55

Woodentop, your being as ignorant as the rest of them-
The fact that temperatures have on a scale of thousands of years, been rising since the ice age ended has nothing at all to do with Anthropogenic global warming, since that is caused mostly by our activities in releasing more CO2 and other gases. Your comments about CO2 show that you have not understood the physisc involved. Heres a link to help you understand:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-s...

As for the satellite measurements, they do in fact show warming, so I don't know where you are getting that from.

26

Guthrie,

10/08/2007 08:14:27

#26- how do you mean? The inputs and outputs to the overall climate system are being measured as we speak, from solar insolation through to heat fux in and out of the oceans down to the CO2, methane etc concentration in the air. From that you plug it into various physical formulae, and get results which accord with the observations, although they need fine tuning, which is an ongoign process. Ok, if you want to know the precise climate in 10 years time in Scotland, there are a large number of variables, from the ocean currents to the jet stream, but the simple fact is that as climate is a long term average rather than a short term variable the way weather is, they can get a good handle on it in a way that it is hard to do when talking about weather. That is of course if you agree with the carpers on here that the weather forecasts are rubbish. The weathermen will tell you that their forecasts have improved in accuracy over the past few decades, for the same reason the climate models have improved- better computing power and understanding of the physics involved.

27

Masque,

10/08/2007 08:18:22

Ego accuso global tepidus!!

28

von-Scharnhorst,

Brandenburg Preußen (ex Bathgate) 10/08/2007 08:19:25

"Britain will be 0.3C hotter by 2014."

Get a bloody grip. I could sod around woith my central heating control for six months to make that difference.

and GUESS WHAT?

NO B****** WOULD NOTICE.

29

woodentop,

Laurentian Ice Sheet 10/08/2007 08:23:32

#25 - proxies - I hope you're not going to mention tree rings? (and do you really expect to get an unbiased opinion from realclimate? I suggest you cast your net a little wider).


As for the models; they are (by admission) incomplete, as our understanding of the complex interactions between the various elements that make up the atmosphere is limited, to say the least.

They also ignore the chaotic nature of the atmosphere and the mathematical impossibility of adequately defining the initial conditions.

These models are just a complicated and pseudo-scientific way of expressing an opinion. And that opinion is coloured by AGW groupthink. There aren't any research grants in showing there's nothing to worry about.

All the major temperature datasets are collated here:
http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Warming_Look.html

you might not like the hosting site, but the data is fully referenced back to its source (just so we don't go off on a sterile debate about junkscience)...

30

AJ of Fife,

10/08/2007 08:25:15

The lady in the photo looks like she's attempting to let a ripper go!!!! It reminds me of the opening credits in Shrek!!!

31

woodentop,

Laurentian Ice Sheet 10/08/2007 08:26:12

Oh and Guthrie #27 - that's a circular argument.

32

Guthrie,

10/08/2007 08:46:36

Woodentop- admission by scientists that things are not completely understood is perfectly normal, and does not in any way undermine the work that has been done, hence your post #31 misses the point completely.

AS for circular arguments, you are presumably reffering to the way that the different datasets are checked against each other, and then altered as necessary?

33

11+failed,

the pans 10/08/2007 08:47:33

25
"The fact is that the modelling and predictions are based on physical constants that do not change"
The IPCC conclusions drawn up by their committee of largely political appointees in their "Fourth Assessment Report" gave the following guidance to "policymakers" for the warming during the 21st century:-
Best estimate for a "low scenario” is 3.2 °F with a likely range of 2.0 to 5.2 °F
Best estimate for a "high scenario" is 7.2 °F with a likely range of 4.3 to 11.5 °F
While I may be arithmetically challenged that gives a range of 2F to 11.5F ie 575% is that the best that can be achieved "based on physical constants that do not change" Marvellous!

34

Guthrie,

10/08/2007 08:54:33

11+ failed again- the range of scenarios the IPCC puts out is down to possible changes in future emissions, hence the "High" is where emissions as normal continue and increase, and the "low" is where the emissions are cut and future growth reduced/ eliminated. These different scenarios then lead to different amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere, and hence different levels of warming.

35

woodentop,

Laurentian Ice Sheet 10/08/2007 09:05:26

#34 Guthrie - here's a simple experiment. Take the number 1.01 and multiply it by itself 100 times. Then do the same for 1.02. Whilst the initial conditions are VERY close together, you'll see the results are massively different. Now try doing that with 100s or even 1000s of poorly-understood, linked variables and you'll understand a) why they need supercomputers to run the models on and b) why the output is essentially meaningless, even when averaged over different runs (with the crashes/coolings/runaways thrown out of course, after all the result is predetermined).

As for your second point, I've no idea what you're talking about. Your circular argument is contained in the second sentence of #27.

36

11+failed,

the pans 10/08/2007 09:05:26

Well I got that wrong! The accuracy for unchanged conditions is 4.3 to 11.5 and that is only 267%

37

woodentop,

Laurentian Ice Sheet 10/08/2007 09:24:20

Just having a neb around the web as you do and, hey presto, I find this new piece of empirical research (ie not theory), which contradicted the researchers' predictions about cloud behaviour.

I quote:

'"To give an idea of how strong this enhanced cooling mechanism is, if it was operating on global warming, it would reduce estimates of future warming by over 75 percent," Spencer said. "The big question that no one can answer right now is whether this enhanced cooling mechanism applies to global warming."

The only way to see how these new findings impact global warming forecasts is to include them in computerized climate models.

"The role of clouds in global warming is widely agreed to be pretty uncertain," Spencer said. "Right now, all climate models predict that clouds will amplify warming. I'm betting that if the climate models' 'clouds' were made to behave the way we see these clouds behave in nature, it would substantially reduce the amount of climate change the models predict for the coming decades."

...

The new results raise questions about some current theories regarding precipitation, clouds and the efficiency with which weather systems convert water vapor into rainfall. These are significant issues in the global warming debate.

"Global warming theory says warming will generally be accompanied by more rainfall," Spencer said. "Everyone just assumed that more rainfall means more high altitude clouds. That would be your first guess and, since we didn't have any data to suggest otherwise ..."

There are significant gaps in the scientific understanding of precipitation systems and their interactions with the climate, he said. "At least 80 percent of the Earth's natural greenhouse effect is due to water vapor and clouds, and those are largely under the control of precipitation systems.

"Until we understand how precipitation systems ch

38

Guthrie,

10/08/2007 09:28:27

Woodentop- I see nothing circular in my seocnd sentence in #27, where I pointed out that the current warming is nothing to do with the fact that temperatures have broadly risen since the end of the last ice age. (As you would expect, really)

As for initial conditions, yes, they are important, however, that is what models are made to deal with, and checked against historical conditions to iron out flaws. With the wrong setup I'm sure you could demonstrate that Venusian conditions will occur on Earth, but that is not what is being predicted.

#38- thats what the science is saying. Learn to live with it.

39

Guthrie,

10/08/2007 09:31:06

woodentop, given Spencer and Christies track record, I'm sure you'll understand why I am not exactly overwhelmed by that paper. If you knew anything about science, you would know that one contrarian paper doesn't mean much.

40

Guthrie,

10/08/2007 09:32:32

And interestingly enough, the article itself does not cast any doubt on what I have already said regarding Co2, it merely claims to have found a mechanism by which the coming warming may not be as bad as people think.

41

Stu99,

edinburgh 10/08/2007 10:33:47

blah blah blade bla de blah bla de blah de blah de blah - turned out nice again!

42

Jethro's flute,

10/08/2007 11:10:07

This article proves that we should implemement Robert Mugabe's economic policy as that is what is always recommended to ward off' climate change'.

43

Jethro's flute,

10/08/2007 11:11:28

#12 "Rulesbutnotrulers, Erewhon / 7:41am 10 Aug 2007 The deniers are out in force once more.

'They're all out of step except our Jock'.

All climate scientists are liars; except those who are also deniers, of course.

Facts are chiels that winnae ding.
"

And the recycled commies are also out in force

44

Help Ma Boab,

10/08/2007 11:17:56

#9 - GugaII, absolutely! I have been spraying my deodorants like mad for years, and smashing up as many fridges as i could find, in the hope that by my 30s I would be living in an equatorial country. But nope, still in miserable peein doon Scotland.

On a more serious note, we must be doing something wrong to the planet with all these minerals and stuff we are using up, for the planet to live as it is just now the minerals are required. So, i reckon at some point there will have to be some corrective action taken by this evolution thing in order for the planet to continue to support life. Problem is i do not think we are anywhere near understanding what that will be or when. But, at least we are now thinking about it seriously. Start asking the questions and we will eventually get a right answer, although we will have to go through about 100 wrong ones first.

45

Media 1,

cape tiwn 10/08/2007 11:56:14

To those who think that humans are having an impact on global weather patterns, get a life for goodness sake.

I cant debate this topic anymore, the levels of intelligence by those who believe in this global warming nonsense is laughable. Pathetic

46

Help Ma Boab,

10/08/2007 12:23:29

#49 - what a silly wee man you can be.

47

Help Ma Boab,

10/08/2007 12:43:09

#51 - Good afternoon back. My take is not very scientific. I've been following this since i was 16 (won't say how long that has been....) and the scientific view changes year on year, decade on decade. I try (and try) to apply common sense, mixed in wi a wee bit of knowledge of ecology,. My constant opinion has always been that, given we are taking out so many minerals etc that a life-supporting planet needs to support that life, and it takes the planet a long time to replace these minerals, then i reckon at some point there has to be an effect. What that effect will be, who knows. When it will be, again who knows (if i was to guess i reckon we are talking at least 100 years, but that really is a wild guess). Something will happen unless we get a wee bit smarter about how we use the planet, so the fatc that the debate is at least a debate (even if it is wildly wrong and uninformed) is a postive thing. When i was 16, mentioning this sort of issue got you a wierd confused look, and nowt else. Progress of sorts.

48

MS,

Lounging in Limousin 10/08/2007 13:09:13

Re my comments about the last 10,000 years :

There is a great deal of evidence for large variations in climate in our present interglacial period: effectively the last 10,000 years. Pollen, varves, tree rings, ocean floor deposits, ice core analysis – it’s all out there to look up. What we do know is that the climate has been significantly hotter than it is just now eg the 'Atlantic' period of 6 - 7000 years ago where it was hotter and wetter than it is now. Minimum estimates are for about 2 -3 degrees more than at present ( 7 - 9 degrees regionally). If nothing else, that alone challenges the current orthodoxy quite seriously. From then on the pattern has been one of slow and gradual temperature decline ameliorated with occasional warmer periods. It was still warm enough for many vineyards in middle and southern England in the 1100s AD (at approx the latitude of Denmark).

At this point I believe we enter the period largely to blame for the gross over-reaction to global trends. From about 1250 AD temperatures started to plummet, giving us the Little Ice Age and the Frost Fairs with three temperature minima – the last was in 1850 AD. By this period of time we actually have some detailed written History which has a serious improvement in the quality of records available for analysis although, interestingly, historians tend to underplay the significance of the Little Ice Age. (And how, but that's another story for another blog and it's REALLY interesting) Let’s restate this – temperatures plummeted. There is a lot of debate about causes and how much of the world was affected but the basics are widely accepted.

Since about 1850 there has been a general warming with the occasional cooling blip caused by volcanic eruptions such as Krakatoa, Mt Agung, Hekla amongst others. Human activity may have played a part in raising global temperatures in the last 200 years but it is also quite possible that much of the warming may be a natural 'rebound' from the

49

MS,

Lounging in Limousin 10/08/2007 13:10:44

And one more thing :

STOP SAYING 'THE LAST ICE AGE" when you really mean the last glacial period of this Great Ice Age ! We are only in an interglacial which began about 10,000 years ago.

50

MS,

Lounging in Limousin 10/08/2007 13:14:49

Also, for those who cannot distinguish between weather and climate : climate figures are an average of, usually, 30 years of continuous data. There can be enormous variability year-on-year and it is impossible to identify climate trends from a sequence of annual weather data. Fact.

51

MS,

Lounging in Limousin 10/08/2007 13:15:22

Wish I was 56 again !

52

Media 1,

cape town 10/08/2007 13:23:47

You are not going to believe this...It was over cast up in Johannesburg this morning. I mean cmon, its August, almost Summer.

Man there is definately something going on. Maybe we need to find a new planet to live on! I mean with all this flooding, what can we do? (whats that I hear you say?) Oh yes, we could build cities and towns in higher areas, thus no flooding would be taking place! But then if we did that we wouldnt have a made up topic like global warming now would we?

53

Help Ma Boab,

Wandering the fields at midnight 10/08/2007 14:13:17

#55 - och, a'right then, i am 36 but firmly believe i am only 20 and i intend to stay that way for as long as the wife lets me. Whihc is why i aint ever going to be married.....

Confusion is good, it is only when you are certain that things go wrong.

54

Icebreaker,

Edinburgh 10/08/2007 14:46:49

Glaciers are retreating,great lumps of ice melting and crashing down on cruiseships,heatwaves in America yet the almost permanent snowfields on Ben Nevis that existed when I was a lad some fifty odd years ago are still there.Surely some mistake!

55

Help Ma Boab,

land of the rather foolish 10/08/2007 15:00:38

#62 - a lot of that could just be a naturally occuring process so i would not say it was conclusive proof. But at least it has focussed attention which at some point should provide benefits in terms of cleaner fuel (surely a good thing regardless of global warming/cooling), and other as yet unthought of innovations.

Just occurred to me - is "unthought" a word!?!?! Should be.

56

Carolyn 1,

Woods Hole, Massachusetts, US 10/08/2007 16:36:53

Methalions
You are right about NOAA- and keep in mind, NOAA is a government supported research facility.

I walk past the employee parking lot of NOAA on a regular basis which is filled with trucks. Across the street, in the MBL parking lot of marine biologists, there are no less than six silver Prius parked in the lot...
- over at NOAA- there is not even one Prius-
evidently the NOAA scientists are not that worried about climate change being caused by humans.

57

woodentop,

10/08/2007 17:25:10

Top stuff summarising the skeptical point of view...

http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2007/07/the-60-seco...

It boils down to: this whole hysteria is based pretty much on computer model predictions, which are no more than a pre-formed opinion dressed up as science.

The Emperor has no clothes.

58

Euan,

Edinburgh 10/08/2007 17:52:49

Next thing we know is that Kate Moss will be the next 'climate prediction model'

Whether 'Global Warming' is man-made or not(I don't believe it is)the fact of the matter is that this topic is now so engrained into the media around the World that they can't ever go back on all the bulls*** they continually pump into our brains via tv, newspapers and the internet.

This is nothing but a carefully calculated smokescreen from people who think they know best who are trying to disrupt ordinary peoples everyday lives to try and make money from an environmental issue.

There would simply be too much egg on too many individuals faces if this was all(and it would appear it has been)proved wrong.

Lets all make things more efficient for sure, but give us all a bleeding break with all the 'CO2' and 'Global Warming' crap.

What next?, will we in the west will be told to row over to Africa in boats to extinguish all the nomads camp fires with buckets of water to stop all the hazardous gases from escaping into the atmoshpere?

Who knows?

59

Media 1,

cape town 10/08/2007 18:40:23

I have a few SUV's. Its the only way to go. Besides, Earth is only going to be needed for another 150 years anyway, so whats all the fuss?

60

Carolyn 1,

Woods Hole, Massachusetts 10/08/2007 18:57:01

Methalions
I got in quite a dispute a month or so ago during the World Summit talks when I posted that the Woods Hole library distributes literature opposing Al Gore...
many scientists here, who work for NOAA and WHOI, have openly opposed global warming...
I also posted the magnetic poles have moved...
I've posted parts of the world should expect cold trends simultaneously to other areas experiencing warmer trends...

yawn...
however, it is bringing money to the nerdy scientists who were previously underfunded!! Now the coffers are full and they are not nerds.

61

Carolyn 1,

Woods Hole, Massachusetts 10/08/2007 19:06:42

Global warming is connected to the ocean's ability to absorb CO2, the shifting gulf stream etc...and so the circle of cause and effect circles, and circles and circles..

I personally believe the planet is going through a minor shift and realigning itself within the orbits of other planets....

Astronomy- the movement of planets and comets, has as much impact on our climate as does the factor of humans

If we're not here in 150 years, it will be astronomical

62

GalacticCannibal,

Murrieta CA. SHAT 10/08/2007 20:00:50

Dudes,

In the land of "Purple Haze" there is no warming.

And as the Chinese Historian said

"In the days that were to follow,
in the days that were to come,
Stop looking at my bum"

Happy SHAT Day

GC

63

Your Tourist Cousin Ed,

Michigan, USA 10/08/2007 20:46:42

Have y'all heard the latest theory on the Permian extinction 250 million years ago? You must remember that one: it was the really big one when 95% of everything on Earth died off?
The latest theory is that the planet was heated by greenhouse gasses released by a major volcano - which in turn heated the oceans - which caused them to retain less oxygen - which allowed a buildup of anaerobic bacteria - which subsequently belched out billions of tons of Hydrogen Sulfide into the air and water - killing almost everthing.
That sounds just lovely, if you like the smell of rotten eggs.
I don't know which side of the anthropogenic global warming debate is right, but maybe we should sort out the science before we continue this vast experiment on the atmosphere? We only have one, and I rather like breathing in it.

64

Goldie Boy,

Lincolnshire 10/08/2007 21:05:15

There are so many theories from so called experts, all of which suit their own agendas, particularly those of this wretched government in order to justify a raft of 'green' taxes. Whilst I've nothing against recycling - that's good - I believe the world is simply going through a period of change, evolution, call it what you will. If things warm up, things will undoubtedly change, but then we have to adapt accordingly, for in future things will, wihout doubt, cool off again. It's a big band wagon, hyped up by all the crackpot tree huggers who seemingly have brain washed a nation and dropped us right in the chancellor's lap. Does anyone really, seriously believe that me turning off my stand-by button at night, is going to make a blind bit of difference? Maybe they should first look at ways of halting the razing of the trees, they are after all the lungs of the earth. Green belt UK? Who cares? Build more houses for the Eastern European scroungers - whoops nearly on my soap box then...

65

Goldie Boy,

Lincolnshire 10/08/2007 21:21:38

Just had a look through the early stuff, I'm with Woodentop and 11+failed - Mr Guthrie? MrPompous!

66

Euan,

Edinburgh 10/08/2007 21:29:13

#72

Totally agree with everything you have to say.

The UK only has this massive 'housing shortage' as we have been ridiculously soft on immigration, and as a result we are now sacrificing beautiful areas of our country for pieces of crap new-build housing for the scroungers you mention.

Next thing we know there will be an 'Green Immigration Tax' forced upon British citizens in order to 'offset' the CO2 emissions immigrants have emitted while actually coming to the UK in the first place.

This whole thing is a bloody farce and is designed for no purpose other than to rob the people of this country of even more money.

67

,

10/08/2007 21:56:17
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason: Scotsman Import, Original comment id: 865249, Article id was mapped to record!
68

,

10/08/2007 21:58:43
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason: Scotsman Import, Original comment id: 865255, Article id was mapped to record!
69

Conan,

Here 10/08/2007 22:21:48

Ho hum - this century its warming, next will be cooling, then warming, then cooling, and so on - give it a rest - its the universe stupid - you expect everything to stay exactly the same forever? How dumb can you lemmings of the latest trendy notion be? Apparently a lot.

70

Monkey on yer shoulder,

11/08/2007 10:58:36

Carolyn1-----Woods Hole Ho------
Shill ----monkey on yer shoulder babe

71

fred bloggs,

11/08/2007 11:36:05

Rising temperatures; floods; melting ice-caps; shrinking glaciers; stronger hurricanes, typhoons, tropical storms; disappearing species; dying coral; rising air pollution; population explosion; drought; desertification; shrinking snow-fields; forest fires; .......

Business as usual then?

72

Lyn J,

Al Gore wrong on 'global warming' 11/08/2007 11:37:24

It's about time people woke up and realised that man made global warming is a blatant lie. Not content with trying to re-write history by ignoring the Earths climate history, the AGW lobby are now re-writing the laws of physics and thermodynamics.

The theory of CO2 induced greenhouse effect is contrary to the established laws of thermodynamics. In other words according to the laws of thermodynamics CO2 induced global warming is an impossibility.

This very basic fact appears to be ignored by many scientists, which is worrying because it suggests a level of corruption and deception which is detremental to us all.

The man made global warming issue has been turned in to a religion by the like's of AL Gore. The followers of this religion are prepared to tell any lie, slander any person and ignore any established facts which threaten thier faith.

With regard to Al Gore and misinformation, in his film " An inconvenient truth" he presents the following lies:-

· Gore, aiming to undermine the significance of previous warm periods such as that of the Middle Ages, promoted the flawed and debunked 1,000-year “hockey stick” temperature chart (McIntyre & McKitrick, 2005). Which the IPCC have removed from their report.

· Gore showed heart-rending pictures of the New Orleans floods and insisted on a link between increased hurricane frequency and global warming that has no basis in scientific fact (IPCC, 2001, 2007).

· Gore asserted that today’s Arctic is experiencing unprecedented warmth while ignoring that Arctic temperatures in the 1930s and 1940s were as warm or warmer (Briffa et al., 2004).

· Gore did not explain that Arctic temperature changes are more closely correlated with changes in solar activity than with changes in atmospheric CO2 concentrations (Soon, 2005).

· Gore did not explain that the Sun has been hotter, for longer, in the past 50 years than in any similar period in at least the past 11,400 yea

73

Lyn J,

Al Gore wrong on 'global warming' continued 11/08/2007 11:38:24

· Gore said global sea levels would swamp Manhattan, Bangladesh, Shanghai and other coastal cities, and would rise 20ft by 2100, but the UN estimate is just 8in to 1ft 5in. (IPCC, 2007; Morner, 1995, 2004).

· Gore implied that a Peruvian glacier's retreat is due to global warming, failing to state that the region has been cooling since the 1930s and other South American glaciers are advancing (Polissar et al., 2006).

· Gore blamed global warming for water loss in Africa's Lake Chad, though NASA scientists had concluded that local water-use and grazing patterns are probably to blame (Foley & Coe, 2001).

· Gore inaccurately said polar bears are drowning due to melting ice when in fact 11 of the 13 main groups in Canada are thriving, and polar bear populations have more than doubled since 1940 (Taylor, 2006).

· Gore said the ocean absorbs heat from the Sun, when in fact the ocean takes nearly all of its heat from the atmosphere, without which the ocean would freeze over (Houghton, 2002).

74

fred bloggs,

11/08/2007 15:43:35

80. Lyn J writes:

'The theory of CO2 induced greenhouse effect is contrary to the established laws of thermodynamics. In other words according to the laws of thermodynamics CO2 induced global warming is an impossibility.'

Please explain the science behind the above amazing statement. (The future of the earth depends on it).

75

Carolyn 1,

11/08/2007 17:40:04

#75
That drug is called education.

Please refer to Newtonian theories of gravity....

unless you have a better theory as to why the poles have moved???
Please post it and provide us with your wisdom

76

Monkey on yer shoulder,

11/08/2007 19:10:30

Carolyn1----Woods Hole Ho------
Education----you been too long under that apple tree-----the poles moved to get the money honey-----monkey on yer shoulder babe

77

Guthrie,

11/08/2007 21:26:53

#Methalions- the difference is that the newsweek article was speculative, and not actually supoprted by the facts, which are more fully explained here:

http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/

To put it in a nutshell- there were a couple of papers and a handful of researchers who were pretty sure that the earth was going to slowly cool, likley over the next 20,000 years. Some of them thought it might be sooner, add the media and hey presto, we have a headline story.
Then it all died down, because it was clear there was nothing to worry about for a few thousand years.

By contrast, we have many thousands of scientists with much data pointing out that global warming is caused by us, right now, and will make large changes the our planet over the next century.

78

Guthrie,

11/08/2007 21:27:43

Jethro's flute- good thing we're not taking you seriously, eh?

79

Shanìqua,

Detroit 13/12/2008 11:54:03
Ho hum

 

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.