Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Climate fears as Arctic ice sheet thins to record low

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.

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: 24 April 2008
POLAR ice is melting faster than previously believed and could have reached a "tipping point" beyond which it may not be able to recover, a report warns today.
The warning from environmental pressure group WWF came as 21,000 responded to the draft Scottish Climate Change Bill, the largest number of replies to a public consultation since the Scottish Government asked for public views on the smoking ban.

The report, Arctic Climate Impact Science – An Update Since ACIA, reveals that in September 2007 the amount of Arctic sea ice shrank to 39 per cent below its average for 1979-2000, leaving the lowest amount since satellite monitoring began in 1979.

The report also found the Greenland ice sheet was shrinking at a faster rate than predicted by scientific models. If the entire ice sheet were to melt, sea levels would rise by a devastating 7.3 metres.

The report findings came as the consultation process into the draft Scottish Climate Change Bill finished yesterday.

Dr Dan Barlow, WWF Scotland's acting director, said the report into Arctic melting showed urgent action was needed.

"These findings underline the need for action from governments across the globe to tackle climate change," he said.

"Here in Scotland, we have an opportunity to lead the way with the Scottish Climate Change Bill, perhaps the most important piece of legislation this country will see in a generation."

Stop Climate Chaos Scotland, a coalition of groups including WWF, Friends of the Earth Scotland and RSPB Scotland, is campaigning for the Scottish Government not to stop at its commitment in the Climate Change Bill to cut emissions by 80 per cent.

The group also wants the law to include annual emission reduction targets of at least 3 per cent, and for the legislation to include emissions from aviation and shipping.

More than half of the consultation responses came from abroad, which Mike Robinson, chairman on Stop Climate Chaos Scotland, said showed "the eyes of the international community are on us, looking for us to take a lead on the world stage".

He added: "It is time for the government to respond to that by showing genuine political leadership and making the tough decisions necessary."

Dr Martin Sommerkorn, one of the authors of the WWF report, said: "The magnitude of the physical and ecological changes in the Arctic creates an unprecedented challenge for governments, the corporate sector, community leaders and conservationists to create the conditions under which Arctic natural systems have the best chance to adapt."

He added: "It is now in the hands of the Arctic nations to act upon this evidence for climate impacts. They can make a difference if they act strongly, and fast. It is not too late to throw the wheel around. It is just way too late for business as usual."

Richard Lochhead, Scotland's environment minister, said: "Government, business and all of the people of Scotland must be ready to rise to the challenge of climate change. I was delighted to see such a huge public response to the consultation."


The full article contains 517 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 23 April 2008 9:21 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Climate change
 
1

,

24/04/2008 00:02:41
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
2

,

24/04/2008 00:08:43
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
3

57Nomad,

california 24/04/2008 00:38:21
Now just wait a doggone minute. Today i read an article in the Scotsman that said the the Afghan opium crop was hurting this year because of record FREEZING in the opium growing region. Reminds me of the scene in Raising Arizona where nicholas cage bursts into a bank brandishing a gun and tells everybody to "freeze, hit the floor." a few confused seconds follow until an old geezer says, "well, what's it gonna be young fella, if'n i freeze, i can't hit the floor, and if'n i hit the floor, i can't freeze."

Maybe the glaciers were just bored with the arctic and decided to move to afghanistan.
4

,

24/04/2008 00:56:51
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
5

,

24/04/2008 01:19:48
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
6

Guga II,

Rockall 24/04/2008 01:40:35
#4 If you really believe all this garbage, I presume that you now drive around in a horse and cart, and never, never fly anywhere.

This is just the usual doomsday propaganda from the junk science brigade. For the last decade it's been getting colder, not warmer. Normal climate changes occur with regular intervals; and the sea ice in the Arctic usually starts to melt as we move towards the nothern hemisphere summer.
7

Edward,

24/04/2008 02:02:38
More 'global warming' garbage
Watched a program at the weekend, which explained a few things
One was about the thinning of the ice cap in antartica and how the media covered the breaking of some ice shelves. Turned out that this was only on the western side of antartica, meanwhile on the eastern side of the continent the ice was actually thickening!
Still no answer form environmentalists to the point about climate warming in Roman and medieval times and a mini ice age later in the 17th to 19th century when there were no 4x4's about!
8

Edward,

24/04/2008 02:04:11
"Mike Robinson, chairman on Stop Climate Chaos Scotland, said showed "the eyes of the international community are on us, looking for us to take a lead on the world stage"
eh I dont think so, think he should get a job and stop wasting time on garbage
9

,

24/04/2008 02:26:28
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
10

Graeme,

Guangzhou 24/04/2008 05:18:54
#9. Same here! Odd feeling when you finally find yourself agreeing with what Gaga has to say!

The ice caps have been retreating for the past 15,000 years. Get over it.


11

Pilrig.,

Livingston 24/04/2008 06:06:44
4 change my lifestyle ? Well the wealthy and powerful can change theirs first !
12

Pilrig.,

Livingston 24/04/2008 06:07:58
Global warming ? I think it's passed West Lothian by !
13

James F. Blake,

Oshawa 24/04/2008 06:28:40
1) Polar bears can swim for miles. 2) Humans exhale carbon dioxide. It is not a pollutant. 3) No carbon dioxide, no plants. No plants, no people. It's April 23. Have they cleared away the recent snowfall in western Canada yet? Oh, forget it. I'm wasting my tiime. Those "climate change" wackos are too stupid to understand.
14

,

24/04/2008 07:51:01
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
15

11+failed,

the pans 24/04/2008 07:53:31
"Mike Robinson, chairman on Stop Climate Chaos Scotland, said showed "the eyes of the international community are on us, looking for us to take a lead on the world stage".
Where did we find this idiot? I have worked in a number of countries in Africa, Asia and the Middle East. Half the people I met had never heard of Scotland and a majority of the rest thought it was "somewhere in England"
16

michael@michaeldarby.net,

Sydney Australia 24/04/2008 08:00:48
WWF and Greenpeace have no credibility on "climate change".
Here is an article by Australia-born Dr Phil Chapman, a graduate of Parramatta High School.


http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23583376-7583,00.html

Phil Chapman | April 23, 2008

THE scariest photo I have seen on the internet is www.spaceweather.com, where you will find a real-time image of the sun from the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory, located in deep space at the equilibrium point between solar and terrestrial gravity.

What is scary about the picture is that there is only one tiny sunspot.

Disconcerting as it may be to true believers in global warming, the average temperature on Earth has remained steady or slowly declined during the past decade, despite the continued increase in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide, and now the global temperature is falling precipitously.

All four agencies that track Earth's temperature (the Hadley Climate Research Unit in Britain, the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, the Christy group at the University of Alabama, and Remote Sensing Systems Inc in California) report that it cooled by about 0.7C in 2007. This is the fastest temperature change in the instrumental record and it puts us back where we were in 1930. If the temperature does not soon recover, we will have to conclude that global warming is over.

There is also plenty of anecdotal evidence that 2007 was exceptionally cold. It snowed in Baghdad for the first time in centuries, the winter in China was simply terrible and the extent of Antarctic sea ice in the austral winter was the greatest on record since James Cook discovered the place in 1770.

It is generally not possible to draw conclusions about climatic trends from events in a single year, so I would normally dismiss this cold snap as transient, pending what happens in the next few years.

This is where SOHO comes in. The sunspot number follows a cycle of somewhat variabl
17

Unimpressed one,

24/04/2008 08:03:40
#4, "Accelerated Climate Change is more and more becoming a fact."

According to WWF? This organisation lies through its teeth just to get the attention of mugs like you and then, once you're roped in, plead with you to make a donation to them because they alone "will save the planet". Truthsleuth, you are a gullible fool.
18

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 24/04/2008 08:31:49
17 michael@michaeldarby.net

"it cooled by about 0.7C in 2007"

Nonsense.
You are referring to the difference in temperature between Jan 2007, which had the highest temperature anomaly ever recorded (higher than Feb 1998), and Jan 2008, which was at the lowest point of the (mainly) La Nina induced dip in temperature. The figures from NASA GISS are as follows:

Jan 2007 +1.08 deg C above average for 1951-1980
Jan 2008 +0.31 deg.C ditto

2007 was NOT globally a cool year - it was the second warmest on record ( after 2005) in the NASA GISS series:

2007 +0.73 deg C above 1951-1980
2005 +0.76 deg C ditto

"now the global temperature is falling precipitously"
More nonsense. The average global temperature is now increasing rapidly and is now above the average for the last several years (not that one should give much significance to monthly variations, but if you do at least get your facts right). The data is:

Jan 2008 +0.31C
Feb 2008 +0.33C
Mar 2008 +0.81C

See:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts.txt
19

drew 33,

24/04/2008 08:33:29
"could have reached a "tipping point"
Is that the same "tipping point" that we were terrorised with 3 years ago which was going to make Scotland an icy wasteland "within possibly 7 years" due to the imminent failure of the Gulf Stream. I guess we can sensibly ignore the latest mythical "tipping point"
20

,

24/04/2008 08:41:53
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
21

Unimpressed one,

24/04/2008 08:42:18
Slioch, please try to accept these facts:

1. CO2 emissions have increased linearly since 1998.
2. Global average temperatures have decreased since then.

Ergo, there is no discernable link between increasing CO2 and the planets climate. The theory is dead in the water.
22

Tweedmouth,

Coldstream 24/04/2008 08:56:07
http://www.warwickhughes.com/cool/cool13.htm

Take a look at Warwick Hughe's Satellite images of the ice caps from Cryosphere Today: ABSTRACT:

A sobering dose of reality. Note that from 1935-1945, arctic temperatures were much higher than today, and dropped from that peak until about 1960. This is why all of the scare stories on the arctic including last year's much heralded "Arctic Climate Impact Assessment" (ACIA) start their temperature records in 1960 -- it makes the current situation look catastrophic. Yes, things have gotten warmer since 1960 ... but what the fearful scientists somehow forget to tell you is that temperatures were even warmer before that.

You want radical change, radical warming? From 1920 to 1940, the Arctic temps skyrocketed, warming by +/- 4°C in two decades ... about twice as much as the current rise since 1960, and in less time, and all without the benefit of CO2 increase. If Greenpeace had been around then, they'd have had to blame it on ... heck, I don't know what they'd blame it on, but they'd be sure it's the fault of humans.

The question is not whether the world is warming. It is whether the warming is natural. I see nothing in the temperature graph of the recent Arctic warming that looks unnatural. From 1880 to 1940, the overall rise in Arctic temperature was steeper, larger, and longer than the current (1965-2004) rise.

To recap thus far, during the period of record 1880-present, Arctic temperatures generally:

* Rose for 60 years, to 1940.
* Fell for 25 years, to 1965.
* Rose for 40 years, to the present.
* Were higher in the 30's and 40's than they are today.


We know that the change in CO2 from 1880 to 1940 was far too small to be the cause of that first prolonged rise, so it must be a natural event. Thus we know for a fact that large, long-duration temperature increases in the Arctic occur naturally. In fact, there is nothing in the current record of Arctic temperatures that we haven't se
23

Indie Rep Kid,

24/04/2008 08:57:52
bit parky this morning, innit?
24

Tweedmouth,

Coldstream 24/04/2008 08:58:55
CONTINUED:
We know that the change in CO2 from 1880 to 1940 was far too small to be the cause of that first prolonged rise, so it must be a natural event. Thus we know for a fact that large, long-duration temperature increases in the Arctic occur naturally. In fact, there is nothing in the current record of Arctic temperatures that we haven't seen even in our pitifully short instrumental record. We've seen longer, warmer, and steeper in just the last century and a half. (I say pitifully short because the climate has cycles that are thousands of years in length.)

In this regard, an interesting study has just been published showing one of the longest continuous series of measured temperatures, taken at Armagh Observatory in Northern Ireland. Here is the data:
(go to site to see graph)

Armagh is of interest because it has maintained one of the longest continuous records of temperature available, and also because it is only about twelve degrees south of the Arctic Circle.

First, look at the overall record. If anomalous, human caused, hockey-stick shaped warming has come to the northern reaches of the earth, somebody forgot to tell the astronomers at Armagh about it. There is absolutely no sign of it in this two-century record. No evidence of unnatural change, no odd variations, just a 0.6 degree per century rise which has been sustained for two centuries.

Note the warm period (red line above linear trend) in the 1940's. This is the same period of world-wide warmth shown in the Arctic data, although it was more pronounced in the Arctic. Like in the Arctic, this was followed by a cooling period (red line below linear trend). The cooling lasted longer in Armagh, until the late 1970's. Since then, it has warmed again, but only at the historical rate.

As I said above, the question is not whether the earth is warming. The question is, is the warming natural or CO2 induced? If it were CO2 induced, we should see signs of increasing warming starting perhaps as e
25

thinking,

Scotland 24/04/2008 08:59:03
Satellite checking only began in 1979. Less than 30 years and that is supposed to tell them how the climate works?
Have they never heard of the seven year cycle, or the much stronger 50 year cycle?
Ask anyone old enough and they will tell you of the variations in climate in just their life time.
26

A Crofter,

Western Isles 24/04/2008 09:03:09
Let's get back to the real media story of the moment - oil junkies queuing at the pumps to get their daily fix. Can the Hootsmon offer us any cheap flights today?
27

MacKenzie,

Edinburgh 24/04/2008 09:11:51
I have noticed changes in the weather over recent years, but if so much of the sea ice has melted should we not all be wearing wellies already?
28

Nellie,

Liverpool 24/04/2008 09:29:08
#4 and #14. A wiser man than me said I should not waste my breath arguing with people more stupid than me. Don't waste yours on the "denyers". They refuse to accept what the majority of the scientific world tells them, yet they have no qualifications to do so, and they are too often so full of the conspiracy theory manure they probably believe John F Kennedy and Elvis are still alive and running a chip shop in Glasgow.
29

commonsense,

Near Water 24/04/2008 09:37:17
#30
It doesn't matter how much sea ice melts,because an iceberg displaces the same amount of water when it melts that it does at present.However if all the ice that is presently on land melts,that weill be a different story.
My take on climate change is that if you live in a fish bowl, like we do ,and continually pump waste into it,I cannot imagine it being good.
30

drew 33,

24/04/2008 09:37:21
If we have AGW caused by burning oil and coal we had better get used to it. World consumption of both has, for decades, been rising c.3%-5%/A and continues to do so. Every major oil and mining company expects demand to continue rising and has plans to meet the increased demand. Instead of all these negative scare stories, to which we are subjected, by the prattling classes, should we not be thinking positively on how to benefit from climate change?
31

PJ,

Edinburgh 24/04/2008 09:43:34
#4

What a blinkered view of life you lead!

Sure I will give up my life style, as soon as Al Gore, with his global warming religion the elite of the scientific community and the well-to-do of the social set give up theirs!

Do as we say, not say as we do!

Sure I will give up my one flight abroad for holiday, as soon as Al Gore and the rest of his hangers on, stop constantly flying round the world in their private jets telling everyone else how to live their lives and not to do it.

I found it laughable the UN’s climate change conference (Christmas shopping trip) which took place on the paradise island of Bali became a major contributor to global warming. Calculations suggested flying the 15,000 politicians, civil servants, green campaigners and television crews into Indonesia generated the equivalent of 100,000 tonnes of extra CO2. That is supposed to be similar to the entire annual emissions of the African state of Chad.

But you go ahead live in cloud cuckoo with your bio-fuels and your rat milk drinking friends!
32

11+failed,

the pans 24/04/2008 09:49:21
drew 33
Yep, with a bit of warming I should be eating my home grown lettuce by now. I bought a house clear of any flood plains and 60m above sea level!
33

Unimpressed one,

24/04/2008 10:06:32
#31, Nellie, you will soon discover that you and your ilk will be classed as 'deniers'. Denial that there is no proven link between CO2 emissions and climate, denial that we are heading for the end of the world. Keep up the faith while it lasts.
34

Draconion,

Musselburgh 24/04/2008 10:12:38
A lot of unbelievers out there!

Obviously the polar ice thinning is just a figment of environmentalists' imaginations and the local variations across the world (warmer or colder)are minor blips.

Nothing to worry about and we can all just ignore the problem.

Thank God I live more than 24ft above sea level. Obviously the flooding of anything lower than that will have no effect on me whatsoever.
35

TheFife,

Beverly Hills 24/04/2008 10:19:22
Check out this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Antarctic_Ice_Sheet

Particularly the last section called "Satellite Record":

In contrast to work done since the last period where cooling was topical, the 1970's, satellite imagery has not conclusively verified the cryosphere is warming. On the contrary, the slow accumulation of ice around the Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station appears indicative, at least for Antarctica, about what is generally occurring. The global satellite record since 1979 shows a constant area of ice until the mid 90's where a slow decline starts until a sharp drop in 2006 and 2007, but then a sharp correction above the average area in late 2007 and 2008. Further examination shows most of this variation is in the Arctic for global ice area and the Antarctic ice area has been trending up slowly since the satellite record starts.[12] This has been confirmed in recent observations of the Earth's rotation speeding up which can only be explained by a growing concentration of mass at the poles.[13]

Primarily, what the satellite record shows is Antarctica, given its size and being surrounded by oceans is relatively stable while the Arctic ice area varies wildly. Prior to 1910, anecdotal evidence from ships logs showed the minimum ice pack in the Arctic in 2007 was a more common occurance.
36

nabodican,

Rural Scotland 24/04/2008 11:14:24
Jenny Haworth & The World Wildlife Fund !!!!!
Experts on arctic ice and climate change !!!!!!
The trouble is that there are some people out there who actually believe this alarmist drivel !!!
37

Media 1,

Cape Town 24/04/2008 11:17:38
The ice sheets have melted before and they will melt again. Whether we are here or not is irrelivant, the effect we are experiencing will continue to take place because nature says they must.

So sit back and watch them melt, its a free show! Things like this need to happen, and we are to insignificant to stop it....Although we are surrounded by some who actually believe we have a say! hahaha, plonkers
38

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 24/04/2008 11:19:29
Tipping points are the result of positive feedback.

In the case of melting ice, the positive feedback is the change in reflectivity of the surface which generally decreases with the change from white snow covered ice to dark rock or water.

The rapidly increasing rate of melt and shrinkage of most of the earth's glaciers, the Greenland ice cap and the arctic sea ice is evidence of this feedback. Satellite photos and on-the-spot observations confirm it.
39

Boab,

Glasgow 24/04/2008 11:56:39
I'm going to miss London, New York and LA. After we lose these cultural centres under the sea, all we're going to be left with are compounds full of heavily-armed religious nutters muttering about how they had it coming for being gay / smart.
40

Big Eddie,

Edinburgh 24/04/2008 12:02:41
Crikey! The deniers are really out in force this morning, aren't they? Busily cherry-picking minuscule crumbs of evidence that support their boneheaded assertions that everything is fine, no need for us to change anything, and resolutely ignoring the mountains of data pointing to us as the guilty ones.

Witness the litany of crass ignorance:

"But the climate has always changed, so there's nothing that we can possibly do to change it any more, no matter how hard we try"

"There's a bit of Antarctica that's getting colder, so everything must be alright"

"I once saw a programme on telly that said it was sunspots"

"It was warmer yesterday than it is today, so the earth must be cooling down"

"I enjoy my high carbon lifestyle, so I'm determined to ignore any evidence that might provide a moral imperative for me to change my behaviour"

Perhaps some of you will be interested in checking out this link:

http://royalsociety.org/displaypagedoc.asp?id=20742

It's a joint statement of all the scientific academies of the G8 nations, plus those of Brazil, China and India. They seem fairly certain that climate change is down to us. But what do they know? Maybe the Scotsman climate deniers self-help group knows best?

Who would you rather believe?
41

Hmm ...,

24/04/2008 12:05:57
... I really do wish that people with no grasp of the issue would stop repeating this "consensus of scientists" myth. There is no consensus, much as they would like there to be. The very fact that they try to present it as a "consensus" is evidence that their argument is too weak to stand debate.

See http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2007/globalwarming/SkepticalScientists.asp

It lists 400 prominent scientists who question man’s impact on climate change.

These are names of SOME OF THE scientists who are questioning the global warming hysteria.

Report released December 20, 2007: U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee’s list of more than 400 prominent scientists who question man’s impact on climate change. This list includes detailed information about each scientist and his objections.

Yes, yes, I know the stock answer is that they have all been bought off by the oil companies - sheer defamatory LIES!

Think about it. The IPCC myth of 2500 scientists comprised not only civil servants who were not scientists but actual scientists who did NOT agree with the "consensus". Talk about "doublespeak"!
42

Skull&Crossbones,

No idea 24/04/2008 12:10:52
Young polar bear approaches mother and asks 'mammy am i a real polar bear?"
Mother says, " of course, i'm a polar bear so's your daddy and your grandparents, why do you ask?
Young polar bear says"cos i'm f***ing freezing"!
43

Alternative (High Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 24/04/2008 12:12:59
"If the entire ice sheet were to melt, sea levels would rise by a devastating 7.3 metres. "

When I read statements like that, I KNOW they are talking rubbish.

Greenland is quite a big place, with some pretty thick ice on it, however, compared to the combined volumes of the oceans of the world, the volume of ice on Greenland is insignificant. How then, would the melting of the ice cause the sea levels to rise by 7m?

As a rough guide, the area of the Pacific Ocean is about 170 million Km^2 and the Atlantic is about 106 million Km^2. That makes a total of 276 million Km^2 to start with. The area of Greenland is about 2.2 million Km^2 and 81% of it is covered in ice, giving 1.8 million Km^2.

Assuming that the average depth of the ice is about the same as the average depth of the oceans---which is probably reasonable (and also quite generous) then even if the entire ice-sheet melted, the rise in sea level would be minimal.

Going by the same flawed reasoning, the ice sheet has been contracting since about 1978. Where is the corresponding rise in sea level? It hasn't happened has it?
44

scully,

Colchester 24/04/2008 12:14:01
What is happening in the World today is!! Mans relentless march in to the future. To boldly go where no man has ever gone before,taking every known decease with him, wipeing out rare speices, cutting down all the forests. All so lovenly created by God, everything in its place to make everything work, for man to enjoy,

Now along comes man , and STATES . AH!!! I have a better ideal. Try this.. I am afraid it is now a case of. Curiosity Killed The Cat, and Satisfaction Aint going to bring it bach. Splitting the Atom was a big mistake. its to late now. we will just have to get on with it.I just hope everyone can swim.

This Is What Man Calls PROGRESS
45

57Nomad,

california 24/04/2008 12:23:31
Pretty frightening stuff. What would we do with out that polar ice cap. Now it's true that if the entire north polar ice cap melted tomorrow morning it wouldn't raise sea level one inch, but what would happen to all the ice birds and ice bunnies and ice kittens that live there? Then I noticed that this frightening study was published by the WWF.

At first I was shocked the the World Wrestling Federation had weighed in on this issue and was prepared to throw a headlock and a flying hammerhold on carbon. But then I learned that it was another WWF altogether. This WWF gets its money from people that are concerned about global warming, consequently it lacks the credibility of the World Wrestling Federation and should be ignored.
46

Saoghal Beag,

24/04/2008 12:24:43
13 James, just for your info a pollutant is; In general,a substance or energy introduced into the environment that has undesired effects, or adversely affects the usefulness of a resource. A pollutant may cause long- or short-term damage by changing the growth rate of plant or animal species, or by interfering with human amenities, comfort, health, or property values.

Heat, noise and light are all pollutants. Go stand at the bottom of a 20m high tank which contains a 20% CO2 air mix and tells us how it feels when you get back.
47

Skull&Crossbones,

Still no idea 24/04/2008 12:26:58
But it's good for business.Everything from cars to chips will be sold with a climate change/global warming/save the planet,buy one today tag.
48

PJ,

Edinburgh 24/04/2008 12:27:48
#44

A typical comment from someone who has been sucked into the Al Gore world, with his global warming religion the elite of the scientific community and the well-to-do of the social set. Where the sceptics are ridiculed, denounced, and pointed at as they were the idiots.

The only interest seems to be to discredit the people they call "deniers" and to pressure government into adopting the policies that will ultimately prevent the use of fossil fuels. Al Gore himself used tons of fossil fuel to jet his entourage to Singapore as part of his global tour, where he scoffs at the "deniers" who had the audacity to disagree with the in-crowd even though their disagreement is based on a mountain of scientific evidence.

But I am sure while eco-warrior Al Gore champion is tucking into endangered fish, as he did at his daughter's wedding rehearsal dinner and flying around the world telling other people not to do it he will be thinking of us all and laughing all the way to the bank.

Do as we say, not say as we do!
49

11+failed,

the pans 24/04/2008 12:53:43
44 Big Eddie
Our very own ex-chief scientist Mr King in action.

Top of the politicians’ global warming agenda at that time was the need to win ratification of the Kyoto Protocol by Russia, which would at last bring the treaty into force. On behalf of the EU, King led a team to a key international conference in Moscow, where their behaviour astonished those present. They demanded that scientists critical of Kyoto should not be allowed to speak. They frequently interrupted other speakers, or overran their own time at the rostrum. When King was floored by evidence from the tropical disease expert Professor Paul Reiter that the melting of the ice on Kilimanjaro was not caused by global warming, he stormed out.

1 |
50

Arrow,

edinburgh 24/04/2008 12:58:53
#16 just returned from a trip out east and yes the general public there does not have a clue about what is going on in Scotland or indeed Europe. even the politician are more concerned about food shortage problems and other weighty matters. even to suggest that the eyes of the world are on Scotland is arrogant mince. the UK is a pimple on the edge of a continent that is becoming increasingly irrelevant to the growing populations of India, China and the Pacific Rim countries.
51

nottoobrite,

Italy 24/04/2008 13:00:36
I have thought in the past that the EDITORS of the Scotsman had some form of intelligence, but the printing of this garbage proves to all that the IQ results for the 'Editor' of this article are minus zero.
52

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 24/04/2008 13:11:05
#44 Big Eddie

Well said. You just about sum it up!

#47 Alternative (High Octane) Fuel Head

The total surface area of the oceans is 361,600,000 sq.km.

The total volume of ice on Greenland is 2,900,000 cubic km.

Thus if ALL of Greenland's ice melted it would appear to raise sea levels by 2,900,00/361,600,000 = 0.00802km
Which is about 8 metres.
This calculation, however, does NOT take into account the fact that some of the increased water would spread onto land presently close to sea level, hence the actual rise is slightly less than 8 metres, though it is not easy to calculate how much less. The figure of 7.3 metres is well established, is consistent with the above rough calculation, and there is no rational basis for not accepting it.

Greenland is currently losing about 150 cubic km net per year, measured by pared Grace satellites.
53

A Scot in America,

24/04/2008 13:11:35
You flat earth types are once again sticking your heads in the sand. Yes climate has changed in the geologic past....but the big difference is that in the past there wasn't 6 billion of us on this chunk of rock called earth. No one disputes past climate change. But the evidence is all in. Human activity has accelerated or induced climate change this time around. And like I said, it "ain't" just the dinosaurs that may be inconvinenced this time.
54

Skull&Crossbones,

don't know,don,tcare. 24/04/2008 13:20:18
#34 Hate to find myself agreeing with anybody from Embra but this is the best today.Hit the nail right on the head.It's the cause celebre and every polly and b list celebrity will jump on the bandwagon,the junkets to faraway places in the sun will continue and nothing of any substance will ever be done.I actually believe something is going on here and it's not good ,but the evidence is so conflicting and the chances are I won't live to find out the truth of the matter, I can, hand on heart say I no longer give a monkey's. i work odd hours,goodnight.
55

someone with a brain,

24/04/2008 13:24:22
how many idiots are there commenting on this article? i wonder if any of you 'climate change is a myth' types have the slightest bit of scientific training, or even a little common sense! The climate IS warming, FACT. Man IS responsible for the massively increased rate, FACT. The governments plans for a decent climate change bill are vital to preserving the world as best we can, granted it will require a global effort but it has to start somewhere and Scotlands as good a place as any, a rich developed country with the resources and power to start doing something and a moral obligation for the emissions we're already responsible for.
56

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 24/04/2008 13:38:45
#25 Tweedmouth

Warwick Hughes is telling lies about Arctic temperatures by cherry picking data. His data on Armagh are also irrelevant cherry picking when considering GLOBAL temperature changes. The climate in Armagh is maritime, strongly influenced by the Atlantic Ocean (and therefore not susceptible to rapid warming because of the huge thermal inertia of the Atlantic), and already strongly positively anomalous due to the Gulf stream.

A graph of Arctic temperatures can be found here:

http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/trends-in-arctic-temperature-1880-2006

As you can see, although there was an increase in temperature during from 1920 to 1940 but it did not get as warm as at present.

57

thatscottishwoman§,

The Kirkyard 24/04/2008 13:44:36
51. 57Nonads

You lack of humour has not changed.
58

Resolutions,

24/04/2008 13:49:50
#61 It seems very few of the comments early on and later - I skipped the middle it was too much - have any commonsense, never mind knowledge of any kind let alone scientific!

I wonder if these morons would like to explain why the ice is melting at an accelerating rate and where the water as a result is going? Facts

Can they explain what effect this water can have(and has had in the past) on ocean currents? Of course they are ignorant of the effect these currents have on climate. Also facts

Can they explain the shifting jetstream and its effect on climate? Fact

Can they understand the difference between climate and weather? (Weather is the day to day condition of the atmosphere as a very basic description and climate is the pattern of those days over a long period of time! In this way trends are determined and the trend is warmer!)Explanation

Those are FACTS not beliefs and yes Scotland can set an example by using our tiny zone of this world in a responsible manner and showing how it can be done.

A lot of folk need to grow up very fast and start to behave in a responsible way and that means finding out some facts for a start
59

Niadh,

Edinburgh 24/04/2008 13:54:22
Will everyone stop lambasting this!?!
It is just one small piece in the puzzle for which we cannot see or understand the whole picture.
The question , as i have stated before here, is not are they right or wrong about global warming but whether or not we as a species can afford to ignore the possibility that global warming is real and that we are accelerating the process?
Yes I agree that there is plenty of evidence to support the position that the planet goes through natural changes but none of that has ever given details of how long such changes took.

#6 The melting ice (which is fresh water by the way) is probably causing the gulf currents to turn further south than we are familiar with. As the warmth from this water what keeps the Northern Hemisphere around the Atlantic warm any reduction will lead to cooling up here.
Secondly I don't think it is junk science just very new and immature. in addition to that there are so many different disciplines involved that aren't fully communicating that half the facts may be missed.

#13 CO2 emissions.
Yes we do breath out CO2 but the vegetation, particularly trees 'breath' this in and 'breath' out Oxygen there by keeping CO2 levels in equilibrium.
Or are they. With a rapidly increasing human population breathing out more CO2 than the dwiddling forestry (cleared for farming to feed the growing population) and other vegetation can cope with are CO2 level really rising.

Fortunately the Antarctic ice cap seems to be growing in places but can it counter all the ice being melted in the Northern Hemisphere?

I am not convinced either way but do what I can reasonably do to reduce my impact in case these kind of forecasts are right. Every little thing can help delay such events.
60

A Scot in America,

24/04/2008 13:54:23
Greenland's ice cap melts, massive infusion of fresh water into North Atlantic, thermohaline circulation of the Gulf Stream is interrupted or ceases altogther and the British Isles become a great deal colder. So I guess the "global warming is bunk" gang is right, at least for the countries warmed by the Gulf Stream.
61

PJ,

Edinburgh 24/04/2008 14:14:39
Climate does indeed change, and has done, over the life of Earth. Many scientists dispute the causes of climate change - ( remember, climate has always changed, witness the growing of vines all over England pre 12th Century, in Roman times and before),yet the UN and those scientists paid by the Global Warming industry will not heed any argument, to the extent that some people are called "deniers" by those of feeble mind.

In the relatively recent geological history of England, vines grew all over England, and only very recently, in the same terms, we suffered a mini ice age. To believe that Man can alter this fact, whether negatively or positively, suggests extreme naivety or incredible pomposity.

Many scientists, not on the payroll requiring Global warming (Man-made) evidence, do not support the "evidence" provided by such "employees".

"First, new research indicates that our climate may be only one third as sensitive to C02 as has been assumed.

"Secondly, corrected temperature figures for America from Nasa indicate that the hottest year in the 20th century was 1934, not in the 1990s.

"Thirdly, recent satellite figures from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration demonstrate no mean global warming since 1998. Indeed, the curve has flattened to below 1998 levels.

"The political significance of all this, of course, is that our leaders are committing us to a range of measures whose economic effects will be without precedent, from their astronomically costly "carbon trading" schemes to their determination to spend hundreds of billions of pounds on wind turbines.

The most respected economist in this field, Yale's Professor William Nordhaus, estimates that the cost of the measures proposed by Al Gore would £17 trillion all resting on the belief that, unless we spend such sums, world temperatures are doomed to rise. The events of the first two months of 2008 may lead us to wonder whether these people really know what they are doing."
62

PJ,

24/04/2008 14:16:41
contin...

doom-mongers seem to revel in the possibility of MMGW. The global warming alarmists, the UN and the IPCC, and many politicians have wallowed in the possibility of MMGW, and, like Lemmings have all been quick to blame virtually any "weather" on climate change.

"Green" taxes and the IPCC could have a far greater impact on the current economic "climate" than the much maligned CO2 (which is far less of a pollutant than Methane, released into the atmosphere by the World's cows causing six times as much pollution as cars do).
63

cgrant,

tyler 24/04/2008 14:29:53
A recent expose showed that the National Weather service had neglected to pay attention to the positioning of many of their weather stations.
Instead of being the prerequesit distance from structures, concrete slabs or asphalt, many of them had fallen victim to development and were on top of parking garages, next to buildings and in the middle of asphalt parking lots. Yet the global warming zealots were still using their anonalmous readings to back up their ridiculous claims.
64

Vivas,

Edinburgh 24/04/2008 14:31:55
This polar-bear nonsense...they undoubtedly survived the vastly warmer medieval period and will undoubtedly survive this current period. It must have been a pain in the ass for the Viking farmers in Greenland to find these lumbering predators mooching about near their farms looking for scraps.
65

Banana Heid,

Ayrshire 24/04/2008 14:36:22
If global warming was a reality surely it began about 100 years ago and not in the last 10 years or so. In which case surely we would all be living in boats by now? When I walk to my local beach it's sitting exactly as it was hundreds of years ago. And I'm quite sure fossil fuels have been burning for a helluva long time before that. Where's the evidence to support all these theories cos I aint seein much difference between now and 30 years ago and beyond. This whole scenario reminds me of a story about an emperor and some invisible clothes.
66

Resolutions,

24/04/2008 14:37:24
#70 Not enough stations in this position to negate figures out of hand as you suggest.

#66 Antarctica had a massive calving of an ice shelf late last year or earlier this. It was massive. Although this concentrates on our nearest ice - the Arctic - the southern areas are not immune, by any means with the subsequent effects on ocean currents etc.
67

Resolutions,

24/04/2008 14:40:29
#73 Well ask the farmers in Norway and the Alps as where the glaciers in their neck of the woods were 30 years ago!

You could be in for a shock.
68

Guthrie,

Edinburgh 24/04/2008 15:03:57
#72 Vivas- there is no evidence the Medieval warm period was warmer than now on a global scale, and I do not recall any evidence that it was any warmer in the northern hemisphere than now. Unfortunately for the polar bears, it is projected to get much warmer, which will cause problems. Right now they don't have any problems that a healthy non-hunted population can't deal with, but population ecologists are getting very worried about the next 50 years.

#75 red Etin- unfortunately, we have no time machines to go back and fix the old stations, and we have plenty other evidence for warming. Watts website is a waste of time.
69

Guthrie,

Edinburgh 24/04/2008 15:06:36
Red Etin #71- unfortunately bacteria are not the only source of CO2- huamsn are pumping billions of tons into the atmosphere, and we can tell because of the isotope ratio that its ours, as well as the fact we burnt it in the first place. Do you have any figures on the actual increase in CO2 output by bacteria?
70

mike - across the pond,

slioch.... you had me there for a second... 24/04/2008 15:10:05
you were going.... it was great...

then your breathless math lesson lost it towards the end.... (lets just hope you didnt see the rhino head in the middle of the table and decided to ignore it on the basis that it makes your support of this "idea" rather nebulous)....

lets finish your math lesson.... OK?

2.9M Km2/150 Km2/year = 19,333 years... at the alarmist rates even if it was TEN TIMES that rate... we are STILL talking TWO THOUSAND YEARS.... and that is going on the assumption that not another snowflake drops on the continent... over the next 2 (to TWENTY) millenia...

they are taking 29 years of observations which doesnt even cover THREE sunspot cycles... much less any of the other longer term cycles.... and extrapolating out doomsday scenarios utilizing less than 1% of the data....

yeah dont you think they NEED to take their "sky is falling" theories back to the drawing table???
71

mike - across the pond,

ah guthrie 24/04/2008 15:36:22
you missed it pal....

brit history classes MUST have been utter and total snoozers....

Eric the Reds son... that vagabond scandinavian chap who populated GREENLAND (pssst they didnt call it greenland because of the ice shelf).... and Iceland... they werent growing their veggies in hot houses pal.... they migrated during a WARMER period... then the weather went south on them... quite literally - no pun intended.... their settlements and villiages were frozen out... its called ARCHAEOLOGY....

heck I even think there was an Irish guy... St. Brendan(?) who wrote about these kinds of excursions... up that way... you dont go bobbing in little boats amongst the icebergs and frozen shores for fun & recreation... I dont care HOW bad the landlord is...

and you brits give we yanks a hard time about our knowledge of history.... ROFLMAO....
72

Guthrie,

Edinburgh 24/04/2008 15:44:12
Mike- you don't seem to have a cogent argument there. You are aware that they are growing cabbages and everything else they need, and have been xporting sheep from Greenland? Hey, I've even read a book called "Collape" by Jared Diamond. He goes into quite a bit of detail about Greenland and the colony there. Life was in fact right on the very edge, and in some ways it is amazing they didn't die out sooner.
73

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 24/04/2008 16:05:51
81. Your calculation assumes no change in the rate of melt. Unfortunately the rate seems to be accelerating:

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/MediaAlerts/2007/2007121126008.html

The acceleration is likely due to the positive feedbacks of reflectivity change and lubrication of the base of the ice sheet by meltwater moulins.
74

James F. Blake,

Oshawa 24/04/2008 16:12:57
#72 Vivas, Have you ever seen the polar bears at the San Diego Zoo? Canada supports global warming.
75

Sambo,

The deep south 24/04/2008 16:14:40
I can definitely see a difference where I live, in this month alone temperatures have risen 10 degrees and they are expecting even hotter temperatures in the next three months.
76

motherload,

mountains clear skies 24/04/2008 16:32:44
...movie rights to remake of 'Dangerous Liasons' staring Al Gore in the leading roll. Ends on high note with the common people finally realising he is a complete nutter and booing him off and out of their prescence. The deaths of millions plus their depravation of pleasure Al Gore secured! His lifestyle and indeed his own pleasure secured! Raging of his own goodness, his own family wellfair secured! How long will the media, the social elite, his own family give him audience??? Dangerous Liasons' life is what he and his ilk are living as we speak.
...and i'll take a large extra serving of 'what for' please!
77

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 24/04/2008 16:37:04
Meanwhile the warming continues apace downunder:

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/MediaAlerts/2007/2007121126008.html

- Antarctic warming claims another ice shelf.
78

Resolutions,

24/04/2008 16:43:27
#77 and #78 You come across as a self-appointed expert.
I did not say or have NEVER said no calving would take place, but I do recollect the worries expressed by the size of that ice shelf - larger than France and Germany I seem to remember and they were monitoring its progress very carefully. There was also a great deal of talk about the implications as it melted from people who were taking a global view. The size of that calving was unprecented in known Antarctic history and that worried them. A slight collywobble is not unknown in climatic history, but that does not say climate change has been reversed.

Why should you be so off-taking about the Norwegian and Alpine farmers? Because that's what you are!
If you are living with a glacier at the end of your valley, you know only too well where the terminal snout was a few years back. You do not need to be an expert to measure that. Your implication that 'experts' are essential to give any credence to observations is extremely arrogant and dangerous, particularly if you know a lot about very little. If a farmer says it was a kilometer farther down the valley when grandad was farming that field, - I believe them. Especially as glaciers have a habit of leaving pretty good evidence of their presence!
79

motherload,

living on a mountain glacier 24/04/2008 17:11:08
...the more i learn,the more i know i don't know! and mankind with great diliberation is leaving good evidence of his presence. i observe this being a woman who needs not to go forth and conquer, but to nurture. the earth is in greater threat by edgy, button busting dictators of late who are busy, very busy, building nuclear 'red-buttons' to obliterate those who they feel are egocentric pleasure seekers! i see a big red target in the very middle of the greater north american continent. if all goes well in the freaky mind of which ever 'dick' tator pulls that one off, won't matter much 'bout the extra water lapping at the mountains edge. tata
80

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 24/04/2008 17:41:53
#81 mike - across the pond

The figure of 150cubic km per year for ice loss from Greenland is, as I said, the NET figure, ie the difference between the (mainly winter) gain from snowfall and the (mainly summer) loss from melting and calving. So, that figure is not based on the "assumption that not another snowflake drops on the continent" as you suggest.

You are, of course, correct to show that the Greenland ice cap is not going to disappear rapidly at that rate of melting, but as #84 Fred points out the rate of melting is increasing.

It is important to realise that the Greenland ice cap is a relict of the last ice age: it would not grow today (even in the absence of any human global warming). It it is the high altitude and high albedo of the ice surface that has helped to allow it to survive thus far. In a sense it is already out of equilibrium with the rest of the planet, and in that sense, fragile.

As for the Viking settlements in Greenland: they were based on just two sheltered fiords in the south west of the island. The more northerly was always marginal and they required frequent shipments from Europe to keep them going. As Guthrie points out, Jared Diamond writes well of this history, though you will need to add an 's' to his title. I'll leave you to work out where.

Oh, and as far as "they didnt call it greenland because of the ice shelf". No they didn't. Eric the Red called it that because he'd been sent into exile and knew he needed to take folk with him there if he was to survive. It's called spin this side of the pond. I reckon you folks just call it Fox News.
81

Nellie,

Liverpool 24/04/2008 17:53:27
#45 There is nothing wrong with saying there is a "consensus". There IS a consensus. Not all agree on this subject but most of them do. This is because there is loads of circumstantial evidence that backs up their theory that global warming is caused by Mankind, not by the Sun. There are those who support a contrary theory (and it seems their fan club are readers of the Hootsman!) But there is much LESS circumstantial evidence to support THEIR theory. They may be right and I hope they are. But until they show more circumstantial evidence that outweighs the majority position, or (better still) proof, then I'd rather not trust my luck with them.
82

Euan,

Edinburgh 24/04/2008 17:54:05
Here we go again...more 'global warming' cobblers.

The next thing we know there will be legislation passed here in the UK forcing farmers to stick corks up every cow's ass in the land to prevent the methane they emit from destroying the ice caps etc, etc

I'm off to fill up my car with BP Ultimate Diesel costing £1.25.9 per litre.

83

Nellie,

Liverpool 24/04/2008 18:17:15
#44 Spot on Big Eddie.

#67 Science is frequently about testing theories in different ways, to build a body of circumstantial evidence that may point to the theory being PROBABLY True or PROBABLY False.

But this is a long long way from the "faith" some lay people express in minority reports on the reasons for climate change. They (and most of the rest of us) do not personally have the evidence to draw our own conclusions - we must rely on the advice of the experts who DO have evidence. The weight of evidence is against the deniers because there are more scientists who have tested the theory of man-made globaal warming and conclude that, in all probability, the theory is right. They have also tested the minority report theory of Sun spots and concluded that, in all probability, these do not explain global warming.

So, on the one hand we have a majority view that Humans are causing global warming that, therefore, we have some control over the issue and - if it's not too late - may prevent it from causing our extinction. On the other hand, we have a minority view that the warming is not due to human activity, and therefore, we may as well "watch the free show" and do nothing.

Given there is a majority view, and it supports the idea that we might be able to reverse the trends which may annihilate our race, it would seem prudent, to say the least, to follow their advice even though they may have no conclusive proof! Don't you think?
84

Unimpressed one,

24/04/2008 19:44:25
"Given there is a majority view". As there was in Galileo's time and after Einstein announced relativity. The consensus was they were wrong, however reality proved them right. Their is NO scientific consensus and as for the greens, they have never been right about anything in the past. Why would they be right on this one?
85

hertscot,

24/04/2008 19:49:55
No 102, there is no great scientific disagreement, the controversy has been stage managed by those who will lose money, seems strange check out this link.

http://www.scienceprogress.org/2008/04/manufactroversy/
86

Guthrie,

Edinburgh 24/04/2008 20:20:22
Red Etin #91- the simple fact is that Watts has not answered the scientific question, which is, What problems can be found in the instrumental record due to the siting issues?

Interestingly enough, John V over at Climate Audit did an analysis of the results from CRN1 and CRN5 stations, and found little difference.
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2061#comment-137949

Unimpressed one- have you any evidence for anyone saying Einstein was wrong?

As for global problems, I wonder what Etins take on Lomborg is...
87

westview,

Under the weather 24/04/2008 20:24:40
"Tipping point beyond which it cannot recover". A fair description of Labour in Scotland. If things do go wrong with our climate, do you trust London to sort things out?
88

John Blackley,

Florida 24/04/2008 20:25:04
October 2006, the National Geographic Society says the Greenland ice cap is melting slower than had been thought. April 2008, the WWF says the Greenland ice cap is melting faster than had been thought.

Will someone please make up my mind for me?

I really don't have any difficulty with changing forecasts (the foregoing is what passes for mild humour in my brain) and I really don't have any disagreement with people who are concerned that the human race may be doing irreversible damage to the planet. (For myself, I don't care. I'll be dead in a very few decades and I don't care what happens after I'm gone.)

I do have a problem with people who use others' concerns to rob me and limit what I'm allowed to do with my money and my leisure time - all for their own ends and with no true concern for the climate whatsoever. (Step forward, Gordon Brown and your like.)
89

Guthrie,

Edinburgh 24/04/2008 21:24:49
John- you'll probably find that the articles don't contradict each other, rather that the "more than thought" or "less than thought" is not a proper scientific way of putting it. Plus in the meantime more data will have come up.
90

57Nomad,

california 24/04/2008 21:33:25
Oh yeah, hey, I got your tipping point right here, pal.
91

Trond,

Home of trolls 24/04/2008 21:45:37
42 Fred Bloggs: You slept in class!
The arctic is freezing because little heat is radiated to it. Thus, if the ice melts it will have little effect on incoming heat absorption. The OUTGOING radiation will however INCREASE, in the same relation when the surface changes from "white" to "black". Thus the feedback will be negative, We'll be back at square one, having to burn petrol to find a warm beach.
92

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 24/04/2008 22:09:39
#109 Trond

Not so. It is, of course, true that high latitudes receive less incoming radiation than equatorial regions, but in the summer the Earth is tilted towards the sun so even at the north pole the sun appears to be c.23 degrees above the horizon at midday and does not set, resulting in significant heat absorption. (It's easy enough to do the calculation.)
As far as heat radiated away from either ice or water: the point is that very, very little will be lost from either, because they are both at low temperature, therefore the difference between the heat radiated away from water and from ice is not significant.
The total feedback when ice melts in the Arctic is as Fred said: the heat absorption significantly increases, which a positive feedback.
93

yoric,

24/04/2008 22:39:17
This article is typical of the mis- information put out by environmentalists.
1000 years ago the polar ice cap shrank back to levels where grass grew and ducks played, on land currently hundreds of feet below the ice.
Then 200 years later it all froze back, why? nobody knows.
94

Em,

25/04/2008 00:15:11
This climate fearmongering agenda has been on the cards for quite some time.

It is the club of Rome, an elite think tank specialising in crisis creation that is responsible for the birth of the modern day environmental movement in the late 60's

In 1972 the club of Rome published the alarmist "Limits to Growth" warning of worldwide overpopulation and the need for sustainable development (ie. population reduction.) Then in 1991 they published "The first Global Revolution" which contains the following statement

"In searching for a new enemy to unite us we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill...The real enemy then is humanity itself"

Painting humanity as a parasite that threatens the survival of our planet allows governments to take control of every aspect of human life imposing drastic measures coupled with high taxation under the pretence that it is for the greater good.
95

Guthrie,

Edinburgh 25/04/2008 00:26:52
Yoric #111- you will of course have evidence for your grandiose assertion?

Oh, you didn't give any. Why should we believe you then?


Em #112- you are paranoid. get over it.
96

Trond,

Home of Trolls 25/04/2008 07:24:45
110: Relative to space at 3 degrees Kelvin(!), the polar basin is hot and radiating, whether frozen or not.
97

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 25/04/2008 09:25:07
#114 Trond

That is true, but the useful comparison is with the surface of the sun, which is at c.6000K and which is the source of the incoming radiation, and where the absorption ability between a dark and light surface is more significant.

If you doubt this, find yourself a friendly black and white collie dog. Get him to lie down in the sun and after a while feel his coat. You will find that the black areas are warm and the white areas remain cool. Then take him indoors and after a while, when he is no longer influenced by lying in the sun, take a photo of him with an infra red camera - you will find that the warm/cool areas in the photo bear little/no relation to his black/white areas, (rather to areas with exposed skin etc.). For the same reason, houses/cars/tents etc on hot countries are white/silvery.

My understanding is that the DIFFERENCE in ability of light versus dark surfaces to absorb/radiate energy increases as the temperature of the absorber/emitter increases. The source of the incoming radiation is at c.6000K, whereas the outgoing is at c.273K, and that is why replacing a light surface with a dark increases net heat absorption.
98

euan_gray,

25/04/2008 10:12:54
It seems that the growing concern is that we have ventured 'beyond tipping point', yet we are still preoccupied with tenuous scientific models of doom and contradictory predictions, not to mention the feeble attempts at reduction. It becomes hard to convince the public of the effectiveness of recycling jam jars when we're bombarded with media predictions of demise and futility on a daily basis. Surely this is a prime example of shutting the stable door once the horse has bolted?

I do not mean this gives us license to use, waste and consume at this continued phenomenal rate under the ruse that 'we are doomed anyway', but simply that the efforts of science now must be better spent on future SOLUTIONS, rather than statistical scaremongering.

If we really have ventured beyond 'tipping point' its high time more emphasis was put upon CO2 reversal methods, not merely reduction (although this too is important).
Plants use photosynthesis and solar energy to convert CO2 to chemical energy and oxygen - my question is can science find a sythetic method of doing the same thing? Are solar powered, C02 comsuming, oxygen releasing 'powerplants' really that elusive a dream? Finding the solution seems more valuable than producing another lazy, statistical theory....

Scientists, its time to pick up the pace; Media types, its time to push this issue of problem solving over fear-building; public, its time to consume and waste less. Everyone has their role.
99

Guthrie,

Edinburgh 25/04/2008 11:35:07
Euan- the scientists already know what htey can do to help with this. The problem is the funding. Guess who has it? Governments and corporations. The problem is persuading enough people about global warming, and then the governments. Our current UK one has done nothing worth talking about, not even improved house insulation standards for new builds.

As for solar powered CO2 consuming systems, yes, they really are a pipe dream. Its a matter of basic physics, the energy required is rather high- you are reversing the reaction which people got from burning the fuel in the first place.

The IPCC has a report on climate change mitigation:
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg3.htm
100

PJ,

Edinburgh 25/04/2008 12:10:29
#117

Sure we will just expect someone to make out a cheque for £17 trillion, the most respected economist in this field, Yale's Professor William Nordhaus, estimates that the cost of the measures proposed by the Holier than thou Global Warming Cathedral that are Maurice Strong and Al Gore, we are not worthy. (aye right!)

So this £17 trillion would be forked out all resting on the belief that, unless we spend such sums, world temperatures are doomed to rise. I am sure that sort of money would be well spent on the starving of the world than some solar panels.

In fact why doesn’t Al Gore put his money where his mouth is, he isn’t short of a dollar or two!
101

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 25/04/2008 12:14:02
116. euan:

The answer may be algae fuel:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algae_fuel
102

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 25/04/2008 12:18:51
118. Right wing bullsh*t.

Mitigation, recycling and pollution reduction can save companies money and allow bigger profits as well as fighting climate change.
103

Guthrie,

Edinburgh 25/04/2008 14:27:15
#118- as Fred said. Reducing energy use also saves money, and building say, wave power devices gives you a nice new area of industry.

p.s.- world temperatures will keep on rising for quite a while, even if we do all the right things in mitigation.
104

PJ,

Edinburgh 25/04/2008 14:35:06
#120 Hmm "Right wing bullsh*t!" Very original, much better the usual drivel like "deniers"

Algae fuel, what a brilliant idea! Oh wait… One challenge is removing the water. It's not uncommon to have 1 gram of usable algae in every litre of water. That works out to 1,000 parts of water for every part of algae.

Three Hundred and Twenty-Five BILLION dollars to construct the algae ponds. This does not include the cost of constructing the many distributed bio-refineries that will be needed to process the algae and make the biodiesel (and to make the 10% methanol ingredient, etc.) Several adjacent algae farms could co-op a bio-refinery, and/or the bio-refinery could be the industrial centre that defines an algae farming community.

So how many algae farms or refineries, could we pencil your area for? Oh wait it’s a good idea, but not in your back garden.

Hey, we have plenty of fresh seawater, lots of sunshine and unlimited enthusiasm, so we will assume the algae ponds average 15,000 gallons per (pond surface area) acre, per year - if not, we will hire the best plant geneticists money can buy, and breed those little algae until they reach super algae status!

Or as Homer Simpson would say! “Oh, look at me! I'm making people happy! I'm the Magical Man, from Happy Land, in a gumdrop house on Lollipop Lane!”

It was also interesting to watch Sky news last week, in a study it mentioned that any benefits from the use of Bio-fuels won’t be felt for over 800 years. It was also mentioned buying bio-fuel for your car could be more devastating to the planet than traditional fossil fuels, filling up with bio diesel containing palm oil is helping to destroy the Borneo's rainforests - one of the greenest places on Earth. The UN says the entire rainforest will be gone in 15 years, and the native wild orang-utan extinct in just 10 years so all this saving the planet tree-hugging is doing more harm than good.
105

airmick,

tanning in Delaware 25/04/2008 15:50:22
#17 Well said Michael!!!

If the doubters care to have a look please go to www.spaceweather.com for images of current solar activity reguarding sun spots and their meaning to weather here on the biosphere.

Mr Chapman provided a fine correlation between the little ice-age and Napolean's retreat from Russia Circa
1790. Solar minimuns, how the earths weather is really controlled.
106

Em,

25/04/2008 16:54:15
What I have said is not theory, people are too busy arguying about the specific details of climate that they cannot see the bigger picture.

Don't you find it strange that governments and leaders throughout the world are all singing from the same hymnsheet regarding climate change and the need for global government to tackle it.

Just last week Gordon Brown giving a speech in Boston was stating the need for global government in the fight against climate change.

Other members of the club of Rome have been saying the same thing.
"We are on the verge of a global transformation, all we need is the right major crisis" - David Rockefeller

"The emerging 'environmentilization' of our civilization and the need for vigorous action in the interest of the entire global community will inevitably have multiple political consequences. Perhaps the most important of them will be a gradual change in the status of the United Nations. Inevitably it must assume some aspects of world government."
- Mikhail Gorbachev

Call me paranoid if you must but the evidence is there for anyone with eyes to see it. as I said before the idea of using catastrophic environmental scenarios in order to forward global governance and impose global taxation has been in the planning for quite some time as the theory is, a global problem requires a global body to deal with it.

http://green-agenda.com/globalrevolution.html
107

Em,

25/04/2008 16:55:31
last post for Guthrie #113
108

Guthrie,

Edinburgh 25/04/2008 18:42:23
#123- solar activity is well known to affect the climate, its just that it isn't responsible for most of the warming of the last 30 to 40 years.

Em- the world government will come about whether you like it or not, the question is who controls it. You? The corporations? The military? The point is that any old excuse will do for the power hungry to grab power, BUT, that is independent of the reality of the issues at hand.
109

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 25/04/2008 18:59:22
122. pj - Rather a negative comment I feel. Why be so negative on a research stage fuel that might replace all that foreign oil, whether you believe in AGW or not?
110

Guthrie,

Edinburgh 25/04/2008 19:02:22
Fred- he has a point- the engineering involved is quite stupendous. Whereas with current technology we can insulate our houses properly, change transport modes and greatly reduce our CO2 emmissions over the next few years, no long R&D phase required.

I recall tommorrows world back in the late 80's had something about biodiesel made from algae. Of course they didn't go into the small fact you had to dry the stuff...
111

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 25/04/2008 19:06:34
Guthrie, maybe you're right; I'll read up on it further...

by the way, Gore's film is on Sky Movies Premiere tonight at 8pm.
112

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 25/04/2008 19:23:54
This company makes algae fuel from smokestack CO2. How cool is that?

http://www.greenfuelonline.com/contact_faq.html
113

Trond,

Home of trolls 25/04/2008 21:24:12
110, 115 Slioch: Claims of "tipping point" are fake:

At this page:

http://eosweb.larc.nasa.gov/guide/erbe/net8507.html

you'll find that that (in winter, see Antarctica) the highest net outbound radiation is not in Antarctica were it is coldest, but in the open sea around Antarctica. Similarly, replacing the Arctic ice with open sea will add more than 100W of outbound radiation from the earth, around the clock, for each square yard.
114

Gordon lying traitor scum,

25/04/2008 22:04:00
BBC Anchor Who Reported on WTC7 Collapse Early Agrees There May Be a 'Conspiracy'

YouTube
115

Resolutions,

25/04/2008 23:06:46
Before this sinks into the mire once again, I was wondering if anyone saw the programme on Bangladesh this evening on Ch4?

The place devastated by cyclones and flooded? The levels rising year on year.

A place where children used to walk to school and now go by boat? A place where the school has one useable classroom left as all the rest are flooded?

The place where because of the extra water in the rivers, because of the melting of the Himalayan glaciers, is losing land, peoples's homes and livelihoods?

And some of you refuse to believe that the climate is NOT changing and affecting people!

Some of you so immersed in statistics that you forget people are affected by what is happening.

and #90 Norwegian farmers and Swiss pointed out what was happening to us on some travels(overland and sea) and had photos, so that is a FACT. These are people affected by things in the real world.

There was talk in programmes by academics who get out of ivory towers but I cannot recollect names now, re the Antarctic calving and a lot of it. These were people who were interested in what was actually happening and not using statistics to theorise about what may or may not happen. There was considerable mapping and tracking of the shelf's progress too.

As said you are an self appointed expert on very limited range and not asking the questions of how this affects the people/ animals/plants - in other words the earth's resources.
116

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 25/04/2008 23:46:11
#131 Trond

Yes, I think I can see what you are getting at, and that my explanations thus far have not been adequate, particularly in #110 when I incorrectly stated that "very, very little will be lost from either" ice or water, which was not correct. However, your belief that replacing ice with water will lower temperature (because "the feedback is negative") is not correct either. Let's try and look at it again.

Firstly, your nice map of net radiation across the globe in July (ie the southern hemisphere winter) indeed shows a net loss of heat in the south, as one would expect: land and sea cool in the winter because incoming radiation is lower than the average for the year as a whole. (This ignores the complicating factor of ocean current that may bring warmer surface waters from low latitudes). Also, one would expect a greater loss of heat in the winter from the seas surrounding Antarctica than from the ice of the mainland itself (it is this to which you refer) because the sea is much warmer than the high cold ice of the continent, and also the turbulence of the sea causes mixing, allowing heat to be lost from a greater volume of mixed water than from solid ice.

However, your map does NOT show the net loss/gain averaged over the year, which is what is necessary, and therefore it doesn't help you. Your map does NOT tell you that water loses more net heat than ice when averaged over the year.

So, let's look at the problem afresh.
You will surely agree the following two points:
1. If the heat content of the total atmosphere/oceans/land surface is to remain constant, then total average heat gained must = total average heat lost. If heat gained exceeds heat lost, then the system gains heat.
2. The amount of heat lost from a radiating body is a positive function of its temperature. The warmer it is the more heat it will lose. Also a dark body will lose more heat than a light body of the same temperature. So a body may lose more heat either by becoming war
117

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 25/04/2008 23:49:19
Contd.

Also a dark body will lose more heat than a light body of the same temperature. So a body may lose more heat either by becoming warmer, or by changing its surface from light to dark.

Thus, if the amount of heat absorbed by the Earth system increases by a particular amount then the amount of heat emitted will increase, (either because the temperature of the system increases or because it melts ice and thus changes its surface from light to dark) until equilibrium is re-established. (If there is a continuous increase in heat absorbed then equilibrium is never established - the system chaises its tail).

Replacing light ice with dark open water indubitably increases heat absorption. That must cause a rise in temperature and/or an increased melting of ice. The latter is a positive feedback, since the increase in melting ice creates more open water, thus increasing heat absorption, and so on.
118

truthsleuth,

26/04/2008 01:42:26
The fact that my 'polite' epistle to the deniers was removed seems to indicate the deniers lack real moral fibre as i recall there was little in it that was anymore offensive than the liquid manure some of those with their heads in the sand trot out.

They are so frightened they will have to walk catch a bus train or buy a smaller car or reduce the use they make of their car ie to just THINK.
Oh I forgot THINK requires the ability to semble ideas and to formulate a considered response an impossibility in their addicted condition.
119

reasonmclucus,

Kansas 26/04/2008 06:02:10
As the younger generation might say: Arctic melting is so last year. The Arctic ocean had a record refreeze. The northern hemisphere had a record snow/ice cover even though Western Europe had a warm winter. Alaska had a brief warming trend last week with temperatures above freezing, but subfreezing air is moving back in.

In southern Peru over a dozen people have died because freezing temperatures arrived 3 months earlier than usual.

http://www.peruviantimes.com/climate-change-hail-and-freezing-temperatures-forecast-for-puno-and-southern-highlands/


120

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 26/04/2008 09:40:39
#136 truthsleuth

I agree with you. There was no good reason, as far as I can remember, for your previous post to be removed.

#137 reasonmclucus

The climate appears to be becoming more extreme as the heat gained to the Earth is exceeding the heat lost, disrupting normal patterns of heat distribution via ocean currents and winds. Pointing to examples of extreme weather is hardly a counter to AGW. Look instead to the long term trends in average global temperatures (eg. see #20), which have increased at an average of c.0.019degC per year since 1975.
121

,

26/04/2008 20:36:20
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
122

PJ,

Edinburgh 28/04/2008 10:30:39
People seem to forget that the likes of Shell did preliminary research into algae as an alternative fuel way back in the 70’s not because of some tree-hugging flight of fancy and long before carbon footprint became a pacifier for Al Gore.

Recent history serves as a cautionary tale to rapid commercialisation of algae-based bio-fuel on a large scale. The 1970s’ oil crises prompted several government-funded studies into algae fuel in France, Germany, Japan and the US, in addition to other countries in a bid to increase energy security.

But the technology was expensive and development costs were too high. The US DOE’ s Aquatic Species Programme, for example, built two 1,000-square-metre open pond systems and found that algae were only economically viable as a bio-fuel at oil prices of more than $60 a barrel. The Clinton administration ended the programme 11 years ago after spending about $25 million as low oil prices of the day made it unattractive economically.

In Japan the Research for Innovative Technology of the Earth programme extensively studied uses for microalgae. The programme concentrated on closed systems to grow algae but it was stopped after an investment of more than $100 million as the technology was seen as unfeasible.
123

Fairfax,

28/04/2008 13:34:13
Alternative Fuel Head (47): `"If the entire ice sheet were to melt, sea levels would rise by a devastating 7.3 metres. "

When I read statements like that, I KNOW they are talking rubbish.'

It's roughly correct; here are the details:

Volume of oceans = 1.3 x 10^9 km^3
[see http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2001/SyedQadri.shtml],

volume of Greenland ice sheet = 2.85 x 10^6 km^3
[see http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/412.htm#tab113],

which imply a 0.2% increase in ocean volume if the entire Greenland ice sheet melted (i.e. 2.85/1300). If we take an average depth of the oceans to be 4000m (roughly the figure for the Pacific and Atlantic), then 0.2% of 4000m is 8m. I don't see much point in trying for more precision here (and 7.3m is probably spurious precision), but it's the right order.
124

mike - across the pond,

nellie you are SOOOO WRONG 28/04/2008 16:44:44
"Science is frequently about testing theories in different ways, to build a body of circumstantial evidence that may point to the theory being "

science should NEVER "build a body of circumstantial evidence"...

by definition, if science builds a body of evidence they are tainting the process by polluting the data...

the purpose of science is to observe the data and postulate a "most likely cause"...

the PROBLEM with theories is that rarely in the "theory" stage does REAL science have a comprehensive definition of all the variables.... and this results FREQUENTLY in ERRONEOUS CONCLUSIONS...

be VERY AWARE that when the doom-sayers (alBoron crowd) start going off on "global warming"... they are IGNORING the FACT that their theory has a very narrowly defined "given"...

simply stated, based on their extremely limited scope, their "theory" may indeed be true, however, the factors they are ignoring in their "given" may indeed dwarf their conclusion.
125

truthsleuth,

29/04/2008 01:36:06
Deniers Mantra

It snowed on Ben Nevis today
Last year the sun shone on Ben Nevis

This proves that Global Warming is a lie.

126

PJ,

Edinburgh 29/04/2008 09:57:11
#143

I have climbed Ben Nevis eight times and have been up there in June with snow! So what's your point?

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 

Featured Advertising



Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.