Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Saturday, 17th May 2008

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 The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

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

Sign In
Register

Blowing hot and cold over world's changing climate



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

Courtney Peyton's focus comment (8 May) reminds us how little science really knows about climate change.
First we were told it was global warming, but then, inconveniently for climatologists' funding purposes, the earth stopped heating up ten years ago so they decided to call it climate change. As a result such articles can get away with saying rising temperatures may dry out our peat bogs but then have a picture that suggests flooding may become more common.

Meanwhile, the media got very excited about the opening of the North-west passage last summer but Antarctica had one of its most extensive sea ice coverages last year and the northern hemisphere also had significantly more snow coverage than in recent years.

We cannot say there is not climate change but we must always remember that scientists are human and can get things wrong. It would also not be the first time in the history of science that facts have been selected to suit the theory.

ALAN BLACK

Camus Avenue

Edinburgh





The full article contains 177 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 09 May 2008 8:43 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
 
1

seanie,

10/05/2008 00:12:51
"...the earth stopped heating up ten years ago..."

Oh really?
2

seanie,

10/05/2008 00:13:08
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/

"The year 2007 was eighth warmest on record, exceeded by 1998, 2005, 2003, 2002, 2004, 2006 and 2001."

"The 1990s were the warmest complete decade in the series. The warmest year of the entire series has been 1998, with a temperature of 0.546°C above the 1961-90 mean. Twelve of the thirteen warmest years in the series have now occurred in the past thirteen years (1995-2007). The only year in the last thirteen not among the warmest twelve is 1996 (replaced in the warm list by 1990). The period 2001-2007 is 0.21°C warmer than the 1991-2000 decade."
3

seanie,

10/05/2008 00:13:48
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/myths/2.html

"A simple mathematical calculation of the temperature change over the latest decade (1998-2007) alone shows a continued warming of 0.1 °C per decade."
4

seanie,

10/05/2008 00:14:06
http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/dept/0108_globaltemp.htm

"To determine if warming has recently stopped, consider the data from the past eight years, from 2000 to 2007. This is a more meaningful comparison than 1998 to 2007, as 1998 temperatures were anomalously high as a result of the "El Niño of the century" (pdf), a natural cyclical event that produced an enormous temperature spike relative to surrounding years. Choosing an El Niño year as that start of the dataset would amount to rather egregious cherry picking (though both GISS temp and HadCRU would still show a warming trend over the decade)."

"Over the past eight years, Earth has warmed 0.025 degrees C per year according to GISS, and 0.014 degrees C per year according to HadCRU, so GISS shows slightly faster warming than over the long-term trend of 0.018 degrees C per year, and HadCRU shows warming slightly slower."
5

seanie,

10/05/2008 00:14:28
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/

"It is apparent that there is no letup in the steep global warming trend of the past 30 years (see 5-year mean curve in Figure 1a).

"Global warming stopped in 1998," has become a recent mantra of those who wish to deny the reality of human-caused global warming. The continued rapid increase of the five-year running mean temperature exposes this assertion as nonsense. In reality, global temperature jumped two standard deviations above the trend line in 1998 because the "El Niño of the century" coincided with the calendar year, but there has been no lessening of the underlying warming trend."
6

seanie,

10/05/2008 00:14:41
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/Fig1_2007annual.gif
7

seanie,

10/05/2008 00:14:55
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/

"The period 2001-2007 is 0.21°C warmer than the 1991-2000 decade."
8

seanie,

10/05/2008 00:15:05
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2007/images/pr20070104.gif

Look at the blue line. That's the running mean.

Did it continue to rise after 1998?

Why yes. Yes it did.
9

seanie,

10/05/2008 00:15:25
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/gtc2007.csv

That's the HadCRU temperature data. It shows 1998 as the peak individual year. But look at the second column - the running mean. Since 1998 the average global temperature has risen significantly.
10

seanie,

10/05/2008 00:17:56
The NASA/GISS data for global temperatures;

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

The ten hottest years worldwide since 1880 were:

2005, 2007, 1998, 2002, 2003, 2006, 2004, 2001, 1997, 1995.
11

seanie,

10/05/2008 00:18:54
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif

Watch that red line climb.
12

seanie,

10/05/2008 00:19:34
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/myths/2.html

"1998 saw an exceptional El Niño event which contributed strongly to that record-breaking year. Research shows that an exceptional El Niño can warm global temperatures by about 0.2 °C in a single year, affecting both the ocean surface and air temperatures over land. Had any recent years experienced such an El Niño, it is very likely that this record would have been broken. 2005 was also an unusually warm year, the second highest in the global record, but was not associated with El Niño conditions that boosted the warmth of 1998.

Another way of looking at the warming trend is that 1999 was a similar year to 2007 as far the cooling effects of La Niña are concerned. The 1999 global temperature was 0.26 °C above the 1961-90 average, whereas 2007 was 0.37 °C above this average, 0.11 °C warmer than 1999."
13

seanie,

10/05/2008 00:20:31
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2008/TargetCO2_20080407.pdf

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

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

"The most difficult task, phase-out over the next 20-25 years of coal use that does not capture CO2, is herculean, yet feasible when compared with the efforts that went into World War II. The stakes, for all life on the planet, surpass those of any previous crisis. The greatest danger is continued ignorance and denial, which could make tragic consequences unavoidable."
14

seanie,

10/05/2008 00:28:20
"The greatest danger is continued ignorance and denial, which could make tragic consequences unavoidable."
15

seanie,

10/05/2008 00:44:19
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2008/mar/mar08.html

"The average global temperature (land and ocean surface combined) for last month was the 2nd warmest on record for March."

The global average temperature for March this year is higher than that for March last year.

Not that that's in itself significant. It's just that a couple of months ago "the nail in the coffin of global warming" was being announced because January 2008 was a good bit colder than January 2007.

Funny that.
16

Sierra Foothills Scot,

Diamond Springs 10/05/2008 02:09:17
Does it strike anyone else that Seanie is suffering from acute paranoia?
17

Guga II,

Rockall 10/05/2008 04:24:01
#16. Either that or he/she is one of Al Gore's paid for propaganda agents.

A good lesson on how to manipulate temperature statistics can be had from:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/02/a_tale_of_two_thermometers/
18

Martinh,

10/05/2008 08:25:56
Well done Seanie. You've given Slioch a well deserved rest. I can't quote reams of statistics, but recent satellite data of the ever diminishing summer Arctic ice mass, the shrinking of the Greenland ice cap, yes the unprecendented (in recent geological time) of the NW passage, the rapidly shrinking glaciers from all of the major mountain ranges cannot be due to anything else other than the climate is getting warmer overall. Unless some denialist can explain that the ice melt is a symptom of the world getting cooler since 1998. I won't hold my breath. Oh and it's the Wilkins ice sheet that is breaking up in Antarctica which is regarded by scientists as a significant portent of global warming. A good account of the recent event that due world attention is on http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,341428,00.html
19

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 10/05/2008 08:44:29
#16 Sierra Foothills Scot

"Does it strike anyone else that Seanie is suffering from acute paranoia?"

No. He/she is merely providing accurate information that shows how ill-informed letter writer ALAN BLACK is. I suspect Mr Black is wilfully misinformed - he shows not the slightest sign of any real interest in the subject.

Or perhaps Mr Black reads the sort of article by Steven Goddard to which Guga links in #17 that compares and confuses annual with monthly temperature figures in order to make the grossly inaccurate and misleading statement - frankly it is just a lie - that "According to Hadley's data, the earth is not much warmer now than it was in 1878 or 1941"

Actually, according to Hadley's data, the figures for 1878, 1941 and 2007 (the latest year for which temperature data is complete) are as follows (the second figure gives the smoothed value -ie including the weighted mean of surrounding years so as to iron out annual fluctuations), Figures are in degrees Celsius above the average for the years 1961-1990:

1878 = +0.023C -0.25C

1941 = +0.077C -0.02C

2007 = +0.403C +0.423C

Clearly, present temperatures are significantly higher than in 1878 or 1941.

see:

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/
and
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/gtc2007.csv

Even if by "now" one takes the latest month for which data is available (March 2008) Steven Goddard is still wrong: (besides, there is little point in comparing annual with monthly figures)

March 2008 = +0.430C

There seems to be no end to the mendacity of those trying to deny anthropogenic global warming. The reason of course is that there are large numbers of people like Guga who want to be told this rubbish, because it tells him what he wants to believe, and he really doesn't care whether it is accurate or not - and certainly never checks it. Where there is a market for garbage, garbage will be produced, and Steven Goddard seems happy to supply his bit of the action
20

Rudi Hucker,

Uddingston 10/05/2008 09:02:30
A simple question for those who dispute global warming:

As the population of the world has increased rapidly over the last few decades, and each human produces a certain amount of heat, where does all the free heat go?
21

Unimpressed one,

10/05/2008 09:35:32
He's a typical denialist. The earth is not warming but he has total faith that it will in order for him/her to castigate western development. Idiot.
22

Isonomia,

Lenzie 10/05/2008 09:40:46
I wouldn't put much faith in the Met Office's statistics, every single one of their global warming forecasts have been high which is about as improbable as flipping a coin and everytime getting heads.

The simple scientific fact is that the theory of global warming does not fit in with the facts of what the world's climate is doing and this century it has been cooling.

Or to put it another way, the Met Office have proven that the theory of global warming is invalid because it does not fit the real data!
23

ianH,

Balerno 10/05/2008 09:44:34
Silioch "There seems to be no end to the mendacity of those trying to deny anthropogenic global warming", Well some one is lying, quite who will resolve in time, but reeling out statistics and insults wont help your case, try looking at the raw data you should have access to it
24

seanie,

10/05/2008 09:59:31
This century's benn cooling has it?

What data set are you looking at?

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/gtc2007.csv


Year Anomaly Smoothed

2000 0.270 0.371
2001 0.409 0.390
2002 0.464 0.405
2003 0.473 0.416
2004 0.447 0.423
2005 0.482 0.426
2006 0.422 0.426
2007 0.403 0.423
25

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 10/05/2008 10:26:00
#23 ianH

I don't know how much clearer you want me to make it ianH, for you to understand.

Steven Goddard stated that the Hadley data showed that "the earth is not much warmer now than it was in 1878 or 1941."

I provided the Hadley data for 1878 and 1941 and compared them with the Hadley data for "now" - either the annual figure for 2007 or the monthly figure for March 2008. Either way Goddard's statement is shown to be false.

Goddard was not using the raw data, that I have provided, and which is the only basis upon which a proper judgement can be made. Instead he used a graph that combined the annual figures from 1850 to 2007 plus the monthly figure for Jan 2008 (and possibly Feb 2008 as well). In other words, he was comparing a monthly figure with an annual figures, whilst pretending the former was the annual figure for 2007. That is either monumentally incompetent and scientifically meaningless, or it is deliberate deception.

I might add the I have looked at dozens - hundreds - of similar articles to Goddard's that people have linked to, claiming that they disproved AGW or showed the IPCC are a load of thieves, or some such crackpot claim. Almost without exception I have found similar deception and dishonest use of data in these denialist articles, but they are churned out at such a rate it is impossible to keep up with and expose them.
26

Geomac 1,

Scotland 10/05/2008 16:39:10
#1 to #15 seanie! Tell us just how YOU are going to control world temperatures????
Those who believe that they can control the weather are both arrogant and ignorant. Do you have access to (and the ability to control) weather systems such a El Nino, La Nina and the sun?? Or are you one of the fantasists who believe that Scotland can control the world's weather by building a few windmills.
The theories used to predict specific levels of anthropogenic global warming have NEVER been shown to be correct by real and measured future results. Post 1998, did you not notice that GW had morphed into climate change when is was measured that average earth temperatures were not increasing as the models predicted? Now, the so called climate experts have agreed that there will be a 10 year moratorium on warming (could this herald an ice age??).
27

seanie,

10/05/2008 18:15:01
The warming trend has continued since 1998. The running average has increased since then. Look at the data. Look at the graphs.

And no, the climate experts have not agreed that there will be a 10 year moratorium on warming.


28

seanie,

10/05/2008 18:20:48
Year Anomaly Smoothed

1990 0.254 0.149
1991 0.212 0.162
1992 0.061 0.177
1993 0.105 0.194
1994 0.171 0.215
1995 0.275 0.24
1996 0.137 0.267
1997 0.351 0.295
1998 0.546 0.323
1999 0.296 0.348
2000 0.27 0.371
2001 0.409 0.39
2002 0.464 0.405
2003 0.473 0.416
2004 0.447 0.423
2005 0.482 0.426
2006 0.422 0.426
2007 0.403 0.423
29

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 10/05/2008 19:55:33
#26 Geomac 1

You misstate the proposal: there is no suggestion of "controlling the weather".

The most radical proposal for changes in CO2 emissions calls for an 80% reduction in 1990 levels by 2050.

1990 global CO2 emissions were 6196 gigatonnes of carbon equivalent ( = 22,720 gtns CO2). 20% of that (1239 gts) is equal to the total global emissions for the year 1946.
See:
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/ndp030/global.1751_2004.ems

No-one pretends that is an easy target - it will require far better levels of insulation, more efficient machines, re-using waste heat for example, as well as low carbon methods of energy generation, along with, probably, incentives for reducing human population.

But it most definitely is NOT controlling world temperatures, or the weather.
It is NOT arrogant.
It will NOT stop (natural) climate change.
It will NOT control or stop El Nino or La Nina.

We just need to return to the same level of CO2 emissions that were being produced in 1946. That's all. That, it is considered, will reduce to a safe level the amount of anthropogenic forcing we impose upon the world climate system.

Or, using the analogy of the climate as a wild beast that we are currently poking with sticks with our greenhouse gas emissions, it simply means that we will cease poking it with sticks and allow the climate to change and evolve without human forcing.

 

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.