Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Forth Ports warned of climate change flood threat to docks

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the Edinburgh Evening News site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Sign In
Register
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: 18 April 2009
By Andrew Picken
FORTH Ports has been warned to boost its flood defences amid fears its multi-million pound revamp of Leith Docks could end up being swamped by the sea.
City planners are currently assessing the port owner's plans for the first two of nine "urban villages" featuring new homes, hotels and visitor centres.

But the city's transport and engineering department has raised concerns about flooding and the impact that rising sea levels, caused by climate change, will have on the £700 million development.

Officials have warned that an area of the port just north of Ocean Terminal, where development is planned over the next 20 years, could be flooded in the event of a major storm. But Forth Ports today dismissed the council's concerns, claiming they were based on "material inaccuracies".

The council has now recommended a number of conditions are put on the application if it is approved, including ensuring that the finished ground levels are a minimum of 5.5m above the average sea level. Officials also want all buildings removed from any potential storm flooding plains and a new agreement on the management of water levels in the Water of Leith and docks.

Alvin Barber, one of the council's top flood prevention experts, said: "There is uncertainty about the predicted extreme water levels, both at present and as a result of climate change.

"The drawings submitted show flow paths in the event of a storm which exceeds the capacity of the drainage system, causing surcharge and overland flow.

"This is generally satisfactory, but shows an area where this flow could cause flooding of a proposed building. The proposed development should not increase the risk of flooding of any building, existing or proposed."

Mr Barber added that Forth Ports must take account of the extra pressure that increased water flow caused by climate change will have on the risk of discharge equipment in the docks failing.

But a Forth Ports spokesman said: "The transport, traffic and engineering department's letter contains material inaccuracies and Forth Ports does not agree with its conclusions.

"The environmental statement submitted with the application demonstrates that there is no increased flood risk as a result of the proposed development."

Forth Ports has applied for outline planning permission for developing the area around Ocean Terminal. Among the projects planned are a waterside esplanade and a new cruise liner terminal and visitor centre for The Royal Yacht Britannia.

Shaeron Averbuch, secretary of the Leith community regeneration group, Joined-Up Master Planning, said:

You can't ignore the issue of flooding and rising sea levels but I don't think it should be a barrier to development."


The full article contains 447 words and appears in Edinburgh Evening News newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 18 April 2009 11:45 AM
  • Source: Edinburgh Evening News
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Forth Ports
 
1

alfonsa pedrosa,

embra 18/04/2009 12:15:59
Did nobody look into this before any developement was undertaken,thought not.
2

Euan,

Edinburgh 18/04/2009 12:37:17
Here we go, yet MORE unsubstantiated global warming claptrap.

Not taking into account the current economic conditions, is it any wonder that dozens of perfectly good apartments are not selling down by the shore area when all we seem to hear is this ridiculous scaremongering about climate change?

This documentary is well worth watching:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=288952680655100870

3

Unimpressed one,

18/04/2009 12:40:35
But Forth Ports today dismissed the council's concerns, claiming they were based on "material inaccuracies".

Well there's an understatement if ever there was. More like based junk science and doomsters' fantasies. Despite all the pi*sh spouted by the eco-nutters, sea levels are still rising at the same rate they have been since measurements began, only 1.8mm per year, and nothing to do with 'climate change'. So in a century they can be expected to have risen by about 7 inches. Another non-story courtesy of Johnston Press.
4

,

18/04/2009 13:17:48
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
5

El Franko,

Dagenham 18/04/2009 13:29:39
Quote from the article: 'Mr Barber added that Forth Ports must take account of the extra pressure that increased water flow caused by climate change will have on the risk of discharge equipment in the docks failing.'
Why 'increased'? The big picture of our climate variations indicates a continuing cooling trend for the near future due to the quieter sun, and even a new glaciation before the next 2,000 years are up. I could just as easily argue that any coastal flood defences against other than say 20-year storm surges are extravagant 'because of climate change'. Truly this new mantra is a sign of a decoupled brain.
6

Euan,

Edinburgh 18/04/2009 13:41:45
#6

I would hardly call a three bedroomed duplex apartment at Platinum Point as an 'overpriced rabbit hutch'

Overpriced maybe, but not a rabbit hutch!

Trams aren't the best thing since sliced bread was invented by the way, Formula One motor racing is.
7

Mark Renton,

Edinburgh 18/04/2009 13:54:37
Global Warming greatest scam in history:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ft8LfE7AI2w&feature=related
8

traprain,

18/04/2009 14:29:59
Can't see the problem myself, we were told in 2003 by the global warming brigade that Scotland could become an icy wasteland, possibly within 7 years, due to the failure of the Gulf Stream.
OK they might have been a year or two out but instead of dictating minimum levels perhaps the Cooncil should be insisting on every flat having a kennel and storage for a sledge.
Curious how eleven years after global temperatures peaked that all these doom and gloom forecasts are being pushed farther into the future.
9

Euan,

Edinburgh 18/04/2009 14:42:38
#10

Interesting link there, thanks.

It just highlights the ridiculous heights to which the 'man-made global warming' scam has reached when scientists and weather experts with 40 odd years of personal experience can have their findings and opinions completely quashed in an instant by the greenwashed fools who think they know best.

The whole 'global warming' scandal is now so out of control and so engrained into society that to argue against it would mean tens of thousands of people out of a job, a falsely created 'industry' being threatened and far fewer news stories to report on.

Now we couldn't have that could we?
10

seanie,

18/04/2009 14:45:54
http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/07_1.cfm

“The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.”
11

seanie,

18/04/2009 14:46:10
http://royalsociety.org/page.asp?id=6229

"Our scientific understanding of climate change is sufficiently sound to make us highly confident that greenhouse gas emissions are causing global warming. Science moves forward by challenge and debate and this will continue. However, none of the current criticisms of climate science, nor the alternative explanations of global warming are well enough founded to make not taking any action the wise choice. The science clearly points to the need for nations to take urgent steps to cut greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere, as much and as fast as possible, to reduce the more severe aspects of climate change. We must also prepare for the impacts of climate change, some of which are already inevitable."
12

seanie,

18/04/2009 14:46:25
A Joint Science Academies’ statement;

http://www.icsu-africa.org/Resource_centre/Globalresponseclimatechange.pdf

"The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action. It is vital that all nations identify cost effective steps that they can take now, to contribute to substantial and long-term reduction in net global greenhouse gas emissions."
13

seanie,

18/04/2009 14:46:38
The American Association for the Advancement of Science;

http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/climate_change/mtg_200702/aaas_climate_statement.pdf

"The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society."
14

seanie,

18/04/2009 14:46:54
A statement from The Royal Meteorological Society;

http://www.rmets.org/news/detail.php?ID=332

"The Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) of the Inter Governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is unequivocal in its conclusion that climate change is happening and that humans are contributing significantly to these changes. The evidence, from not just one source but a number of different measurements, is now far greater and the tools we have to model climate change contain much more of our scientific knowledge within them. The world’s best climate scientists are telling us its time to do something about it."
15

seanie,

18/04/2009 14:47:13
Remember...

...the last five years have been warmer than the five before, which in turn were warmer than the five before them.

When average temperature goes up, that's called warming.
16

Euan,

Edinburgh 18/04/2009 14:52:37
#18

It would you are of of the great greenwashed old son.


17

Euan,

Edinburgh 18/04/2009 14:53:16
#18

That was you appear to be one of the great greenwashed old son!
18

seanie,

18/04/2009 14:54:18
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3gl.txt

The HADCRU anomalies averaged over five year periods.

1994-1998: + 0.296
1999-2003: + 0.382
2004-2008: + 0.416

So the most recent five year period is warmer than the previous five years, which itself is warmer than the period before that.
19

seanie,

18/04/2009 14:54:52
The GISS anomalies;

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

The anomalies averaged over five year periods.

1994-1998: + 0.38
1999-2003: + 0.45
2004-2008: + 0.53

Again the most recent five year period is warmer than the previous five years, which itself is warmer than the period before that.
20

seanie,

18/04/2009 14:55:02
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/gtc2008.csv

The last decade of the 20th century averaged 0.268°C above the 61-90 baseline.

So far this century is averaging at 0.428°C above the baseline.

It a very safe bet that the first decade of the 21st century will end up the warmest since records began.
21

seanie,

18/04/2009 14:56:14
The warming trend continues.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It's physical properties and role as such have been accepted science for over a century; since about 1860.

CO2 levels have risen signifcantly since the onset of industrialisation; from around 280ppm to around 385ppm. There is no scientific dispute on this.

That increase is due to human activity. We know this from the entirely uncontroversial fact that burning fossil fuels creates CO2, and the equally obvious fact that we've been burning a lot of fossil fuels since the onset of industrialisation.

The isotopic signature of CO2 in the atmosphere also confirms this.

That an increase in C02 should generally lead to an increase in temperature is not some wild and extravagant speculation. It's exactly what accepted scientific understanding tells us to expect.

It might be possible that there is some completely unknown and as yet to be discovered mechanism that is responsible for the warming trend. But that seems unlikely since we'd also have discover some hitherto completely unknown reason why the increase in CO2 isn't causing it.

Because basic physics tells us IT SHOULD BE.
22

The Ayrshire Bard,

18/04/2009 15:06:38
I'm a bit concerned about Arthur's Seat errupting and the whole of Niddrie being engulfed by lava.
23

Euan,

Edinburgh 18/04/2009 15:06:40
Seanie

You've fallen for this nonsense hook, line and sinker.

I'm all for making the world a more efficient place in which to live and reducing pollution wherever possible, but unfortunately, it is people like you, who after being conned on a grand scale, are contributing to this mass scaremongering even more.

In 30 years time you're going to feel incredibly silly when you realize you've been led down the primrose path by a group of scammers hell bent on making a quick buck at the expense of the general population.



24

me150,

18/04/2009 15:24:50
Seanie at it agian.

Look at the real evidence will you.

Burying your head in tha sand and beleiving these stats, which are proven to be flawed, is making you look foolish.

Your evidence points us to web sites with links to other sites many of which argue the faults in these stats and the organisations responsible for them.

Global warming is total nonsense, the facts prove otherwise.

Unfortunately none of us will be here to see this is the truth.
25

me150,

18/04/2009 15:26:13
Global warming is total nonsense, the facts prove otherwise.

Should read the facts prove this.
26

El Franko,

Dagenham 18/04/2009 15:28:35
seanie #21 - #24. You talk too much, and you don't get it. Global temperatures have been rising gently since the little ice age, with no correlation/impact of the human generation to the still tiny and climatically inconsequential CO2 in the atmosphere. Superimposed on this trend, there have been cooling and warming oscillations. Now we are in a cooling one, just about bang on cue. Try this piece of sanity: http://joannenova.com.au/2009/04/03/global-warming-a-classic-case-of-alarmism/
27

hoblar,

18/04/2009 16:26:37
If the dock is built, it won't flood, at least not because of global warming. Perhaps a tsunami may occur, but that's about it.

Since we are being told that a millimeter a year of rising will occur, and that this will flood the docks, I have a solution.

Build it a bit higher up by having the dock on a platform with a giant winch attached, and then, as the sea levels rise by ten foot a year (aye) we can simply winch Leith up by say, 11 feet!

Problem solved.
28

seanie,

18/04/2009 16:51:53
There's a big problem looming for you denialists.

1998 was exceptionally warm in comparison to the preceeding years due to an exceptionally strong El Nino. However the temperature of 1998 isn't so exceptional in comparison to the last few years. The continuing upwards trend in average temperature means that some years have been close to (and possibly hotter than) 1998 in the absence of a strong El Nino.

A strong La Nina developed in 2007 into 2008, resulting in 2008 being relatively cold in comparison to recent years, although still one of the warmest years on record.

The thing is, at some point within the next few years an El Nino event is pretty likely. And given that we're starting from a higher average even a moderate El Nino could decisively surpass the 1998 temperature.

At which point you'll have to abandon your 'global warming stopped in 1998' mantra and pick this new year as the point global warming stopped.

Up until the next peak.

And so on and so forth.

It'll take an increasingly bizarre denial of reality for you to ignore the ongoing upwards trend in average temperature.
29

Ellen Campbell,

18/04/2009 16:56:06
Why do so many ignorant twits still think it's clever do deny the existence of climate change? There is hardly an independent scientist left on earth who doesn't recognise the seriousness and urgency of the facts. The only people still denying it are vested interests funded by the oil industry etc. And yes, that includes the makers of these ludicrous disinformation videos quoted above, whose 'facts' are so distorted as to be laughable if it wasn't such a desperately important situation.

You may think you're being clever and cool by refusing to believe the evidence, and claiming it's all a myth and a conspiracy. But it's not. It's ignorant. It's unbelievably stupid. And it's incredibly dangerous.

Far from being overstated, even the most serious warnings by scientists and politicians are probably far too cautious. Just because the worst effects aren't being felt here yet too obviously, doesn't mean it's not happening now. And getting worse, fast. The measurements are there for anyone willing to read them. The science is clear. The evidence is piling up.

Wise up, and drop the juvenile cool act.

It's scary folks. Really really scary.

We all need to push for big big changes. Now. Not later. Not soon. Now.

Then pray.
30

woodentop,

Behind you. 18/04/2009 17:20:49
#34: Appeal to consensus, tar sceptics as shills of the oil industry, make unfounded alarmist statements... well done.

All without the necessity of proving anything.

There's nothing alarming about increasing CO2 unless you invoke mysterious positive feedbacks.

The attraction to Governments in peddling this nonsense is much clearer.

Oh - and before the strawman "conspiracy" argument is wheeled out and knocked down, check out "groupthink".

This whole farrago is religion, not science.
31

Euan,

Edinburgh 18/04/2009 17:24:39
#33

How strange then that since 2001 records show that the earth has cooled every year since..

This trend, which is expected to continue until about 2030, whereafter there will (once again) be a gradual rise in temperature followed by a fall in the late 21st century.

Oh dear, looks like your argument is completely unsubstantiated - again.




32

woodentop,

Behind you. 18/04/2009 17:25:33
Here's an article exposing the mendacity of the press in reporting this rubbish:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/17/the-antarctic-wilkins-ice-shelf-collapse-media-recycles-photos-and-storylines-from-previous-years/#more-7139
33

Yok Finney,

Ross-shire 18/04/2009 18:56:32
-- I'm a bit concerned about Arthur's Seat errupting and the whole of Niddrie being engulfed by lava.

It can't be ruled out, hence your concern, but us graduates in castastrophy theory examining the electrodynamics (round the Seat) have looked at the possibility and we have enough to worry about.

"Plasma was first identified in a discharge tube (Crookes tube), and described by Sir William Crookes in 1879 as "radiant matter". The nature of the Crookes tube "cathode ray" stuff was subsequently identified by British physicist Sir J.J. Thomson in 1897 which was named "plasma" by Irving Langmuir in 1928 because it reminded him of a blood plasma. (from its cellular organisation)"

"Radial convection of isolated filamentary structures due to interchange motions in magnetized plasmas is investigated. Following a basic discussion of vorticity generation, ballooning, and the role of sheaths, a two-field interchange model is studied by means of numerical simulations on a biperiodic domain perpendicular to the magnetic field."

We talk about this all the time on the bus to Niddrie. But it's not going to blow.
34

Zemi,

EDINBURGH 18/04/2009 20:22:26
As far as this is concerned, it doesn't matter if global warming is real or not. Climate change is inevitable in either case and the historical pattern shows the only way average sea levels are going to go from this point in time is up.
35

Mallard,

Borders 18/04/2009 21:19:33
Alvin Barber, "one of the council's top flood prevention experts" must have come on leaps and bounds since he was a useless technician and Luddite Unison man in East of Scotland Water.
36

scottishcoffindodgerno1,

Tram City 19/04/2009 00:18:11
hwat global warming,its flogging freezing today in Embra
37

scottishcoffindodgerno1,

Tram City 19/04/2009 00:19:10
flogging is the new fr****ging
38

Serious,

19/04/2009 00:21:18
seanie, what's a "denialist"?

Please explain.
39

seanie,

19/04/2009 01:36:42
#36

"How strange then that since 2001 records show that the earth has cooled every year since.."

How strange that you should make a claim unsupported by any evidence.

40

seanie,

19/04/2009 01:49:52
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3gl.txt

The HADCRU data, showing the average global temperature for 2001 being exceeded by 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006.

Looks like you're talking nonsense.

Care to engage with evidence or would you prefer to cling to the comfort of your profound ignorance?
41

fermat,

19/04/2009 08:46:40
Eleven years since global temperatures peaked and still we have Seanie trotting out his selective statistics proving that as temperatures fail to rise we are really heading for "accelerated" global warming.
Perhaps he should take note of comments by Dr Vicky Pope, Met Office Head of Climate Change, calling on scientists and the media to ‘rein in’ some of their assertions about climate change.
She says: “News headlines vie for attention and it is easy for scientists to grab this attention by linking climate change to the latest extreme weather event or apocalyptic prediction. The reality is that extreme events arise.Scientists and journalists need to find ways to help to make this clear without the wider audience switching off.
“Recent headlines have proclaimed that Arctic summer sea ice has decreased so much in the past few years that it has reached a tipping point and will disappear very quickly. The truth is that there is little evidence to support this. Indeed, the record-breaking losses in the past couple of years could easily be due to natural fluctuations in the weather, with summer sea ice increasing again over the next few years.
“This is just one example where scientific evidence has been selectively chosen to support a cause. In the 1990s, global temperatures increased more quickly than in earlier decades, leading to claims that global warming had accelerated.
“Again, natural variability has been ignored in order to support a particular point of view”
“For climate scientists, having to continually rein in extraordinary claims that the latest extreme is all due to climate change is, at best, hugely frustrating and, at worst, enormously distracting"
42

Dileas,

19/04/2009 09:01:30
Hmmm - 97% of the Earth's water is in the oceans, 2% is in ice and snow and the other 1% is in everything else - clouds, lakes, rivers, etc. So just how much could sea level rise even if all the glaciers melted?

Not a lot!
43

seanie,

19/04/2009 10:32:42
#49

Dr Vicky Pope eh?


Would that be the same Dr Vicky Pope who says "if we carry on increasing emissions at present rates then global average temperature rise will be 2 °C by the middle of this century."

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/science/explained/explained1.html
44

seanie,

19/04/2009 10:33:07
The same Dr Vick Pope who said;

"Essentially, there is a certain amount of climate change that is inevitable. Even if we stopped all emissions now, the carbon dioxide that we've already put in the atmosphere takes quite a long time to recover - up to 100 years. So we're already committed to some change which obviously we will have to adapt to. So further change over what we've had already. But it will make a difference if we reduce our emissions. The rate of rise will start to decrease. And clearly, the more that we can do and the sooner that we can do it, the greater the impact will be. But there may be points in the future where certain changes become irreversible. For example, when the temperature gets above a certain level, the Greenland ice sheets may start to melt and may not recover. Say all the Greenland ice had melted, the ice sheet is actually 3,000m thick, if all that disappears, the land surface is much lower down and much warmer. So you need to cool things down much more in order to be able to get the snow to accumulate again. That would take thousands of years before all that ice would melt, but it may even be a few hundred metres of ice melting may be enough for that to start to become an irreversible process which, of course, would lead to a large sea level rise."

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2005/s1466597.htm
45

seanie,

19/04/2009 10:33:33
The same Dr Vicky Pope who was saying, only last December;

"Latest climate projections from the Met Office Hadley Centre show the possible range of temperature rises, depending on what action is taken to reduce Greenhouse gas emissions. Even with large and early cuts in emissions, the indications are that temperatures are likely to rise to around 2 °C above pre-industrial levels by the end of the century. If action is delayed or not quick enough, there is a large risk of much bigger increases in temperature, with some severe impacts."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article5371682.eceReport Unsuitable
46

seanie,

19/04/2009 10:33:53
The same Dr Vicky Pope who, on 11 February, said;

"When climate scientists like me explain to people what we do for a living we are increasingly asked whether we "believe in climate change". Quite simply it is not a matter of belief. Our concerns about climate change arise from the scientific evidence that humanity's activities are leading to changes in our climate. The scientific evidence is overwhelming."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/feb/11/climate-change-science-pope

Wise words indeed.
47

seanie,

19/04/2009 10:36:09
Remember...

The last five years have been warmer than the five before them, which in turn were warmer than the five before that, which themselves were warmer than the five before.

When average temperatures go up, that's called warming.
48

fermat,

19/04/2009 18:49:28
58 seanie
"The same Dr Vicky Pope who, on 11 February, said;"

Yes Seanie the same Dr Vicky Pope who said on 4th Jan 2007
"Global temperature for 2007 is expected to be 0.54 °C above the long-term (1961-1990) average of 14.0 °C;"
She failed to apologise for that nonsense when 2007 turned out as the TENTH warmest year. However she did realise how foolish she had been and started rapidly back-pedalling and making hypocritical statements like "News headlines vie for attention and it is easy for scientists to grab this attention by linking climate change to the latest extreme weather event or apocalyptic prediction."
Now ELEVEN years since global temperatures peaked and Dr Pope realises that the wheels are coming off the global warming juggernaut. Of course, dyed in the wool disciples of the global warming secular cult, like yourself, seem determined to cling to the broken hockey stick and computer generated forecasts rather than read the actual temperatures recorded on the thermometer.
Eleven years and counting since temperature peaked, how many years to convince the actual temperature deniers like yourself?
49

seanie,

19/04/2009 19:15:22
The last five years have been warmer than the five before them, which in turn were warmer than the five before that, which themselves were warmer than the five before.

When average temperatures go up, that's called warming.
50

seanie,

19/04/2009 19:19:15
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

The anomalies averaged over five year periods.

1994-1998: + 0.38
1999-2003: + 0.45
2004-2008: + 0.53
51

seanie,

19/04/2009 19:19:49
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3gl.txt

The HADCRU anomalies averaged over five year periods.

1994-1998: + 0.296
1999-2003: + 0.382
2004-2008: + 0.416
52

seanie,

19/04/2009 19:20:17
Oh look.

Average temperatures are rising.
53

Mallard,

Borders 19/04/2009 19:33:29
I am afraid that you are talking mathematical guff when you refer to average global temperature - there is no such thing. You can average the temperature at one location and it will mean something. If you look at the actual temperature figures for individual sites, some may be rising and others may be falling. you would probably find that for any site in the UK that there is little if any difference from the long term.

You cannot meaningfully add temperatures from all over the world to create a "global average".
54

seanie,

19/04/2009 20:56:03
To the extent that any trend is discernible, of course you can.
55

Ian down under,

Musselburgh 19/04/2009 22:14:33
I thought we had a geological tilt going on where the northern half of Britain is rising while the southern half is slipping towards the ocean, all due to continental drift and tectonic plates apparently. So maybe we could sell land to rich Londoners who are going to get washed away.
If you go to Musselburgh you will see the phenomenon known as the raised beach where the ground above the River Esk rises sharply from river level and geologist have shown theat this higher level used to be the foreshore. This happened over a few thousand years and is still happening. It's apparently the same process that flooded the land bridge across the English Channel as their end tipped downwards.
56

Mallard,

Borders 19/04/2009 22:23:36
There may or may not be a trend in "average global temperature. It is still pauchling the figures to suit the argument. "Average global temperature" is still mathematical nonsense.
57

seanie,

19/04/2009 22:28:04
Drivel. It may in effect be a statistical sample, but deriving figures for average global temperature is perfectly valid. Certainly for the purpose of determining any trend.
58

Euan,

Edinburgh 19/04/2009 22:58:06
#58

'The last five years have been warmer than the five before them, which in turn were warmer than the five before that, which themselves were warmer than the five before'

Funny statement that, considering that since 2001, average world temperatures have actually decreased year on year...
59

seanie,

19/04/2009 23:27:31
Nope.

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3gl.txt

The HADCRU data, showing the average global temperature for 2001 being exceeded by 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006.

You're telling porkies again.

60

seanie,

19/04/2009 23:30:32
The GISS record;

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

The average global temperature for 2001 being exceeded by 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006 and 2007.

61

daveserviceman,

edinburgh 20/04/2009 02:29:11
The answer is to build these flats and buildings on floting pontoons then the rise in sea levels will not effect them because as the sea rises so will the buildings
Also the trams were running around this city before sliced bread, and to solve the problems with trams and Flooding make the trams like DUKW vehicles then there wont be a problem with them either

 

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
 
  

 
 


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.