Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Wednesday, 9th July 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

Effects of global warming on nature 'already significant'



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: 15 May 2008
By Jenny Haworth
MAN-MADE climate change is causing significant changes to the Earth's natural systems, a study has concluded.
Researchers found 90 per cent of changes in biological and physical systems – from shrinking glaciers to increasingly early springs – can be attributed to a warming climate.

Last year, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said it was "ver
y likely" that global warming was man-made. This research, published in the journal Nature, goes further to say human-induced climate change is having a "significant" impact on natural systems.

The lead author, Cynthia Rosenzweig, said: "Humans are influencing climate through increasing greenhouse gas emissions and the warming world is causing impacts on physical and biological systems attributable at the global scale and in North America, Asia and Europe."

The study analysed other research covering more than 29,500 sets of data stretching back to 1970.

It looked at 829 documented physical changes, such as melting permafrost and increasing coastal erosion, and found that 95 per cent were what would be expected from warming.

It also found that 90 per cent of about 28,800 changes in plants and animals were consistent with responses to temperature changes, such as plants flowering earlier.

Dr Roger Jones, from the Centre for Australian Weather and Climate Research, said: "This paper outlines an extremely robust case for linking a range of observed physical and biological changes to human-induced climate change."





The full article contains 240 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 14 May 2008 9:34 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Climate change
 
1

Padraig,

15/05/2008 01:07:11
My understanding is that there is a dramatic difference between a natural warming period and "Man-made warming" which has NOT been established, despite the claims that `it was "very likely" that global warming was man-made'. There is not much conceret evidence in this article as in so many such similar scare stories.

I frankly don't think that we can place much confidence in the IPCC, a political rather than scientific animal, which produced an executive summary of a recent report BEFORE the report itself was completed, claiming that the report would be amended only to bring it into line with the summary. In other words, they knew what they wanted to find; they still had to massage the report to produce that result.

It appears that the main culprit as a "greenhouse gas emission", appropriately enough, is CO2, which plants use to manufacture the oxygen on which we all depend to maintain life. There is a strong case to be made for planitng many more plants!

This article forgets to mention some of the
things we already do know:
- there has been no increase in global temperature since 1998.
- the volume of ice at the poles has increased.
- CO2 is not "pollution" but a natural trace gas that is essential for life.
- more food can be grown in a warmer, CO2 rich environment.
- there have been numerous periods much warmer than today in the last 650,000 years.
- an 80 percent reduction in CO2 will cut our lifestyles to unacceptable levels unless all transportation is powered by electricity generated by nuclear power stations. Meanwhile China will replace that CO2 in just over a year.

Let's give up scaremongering and get back to good old-fashioned science. Too many "scientists" rely on "Green" propaganda to make their names. And build their careers.
2

truthsleuth,

15/05/2008 01:11:30
NO doubt we will hear the usual cries of lies etc etc from the deniers.
When will they wake up from under their petro diesel fumes induced trance and realise the purpose of these 'warnings' is not to deprive them of their fix but just to try and 'wean' them off their habit gradually.
Failure for them to shake the habit will (could) be disastrous for us all.
3

Brad Arnold,

St Louis Park 15/05/2008 06:47:58
It gets worse, not only have ecosystems been affected by the past rise in temperature, but "if the rate should exceed 0.4 C per decade, all ecosystems will be quickly destroyed, opportunistic species will dominate, and the breakdown of biological material will lead to even greater emissions of CO2." (Leemans and Eickhout 2004 "Another reason for concern: reguional and global impacts on ecosystems for different levels of climate change")

The extra heat from greenhouse gas already in the air is 3 watts per square meter. Three watts means about a two degree Centigrade rise in temperature by mid-century. If we go up in temperature 2C over 5 decades, that averages out to 0.4 C per decade-we already have a warming committment that will probably cause all ecosystems to be quickly destroyed!

On the other hand, there is a very inexpensive and simple method to cool down the Earth immediately: just put a small amount of sun dimming aerosol into the upper atmosphere. In my opinion, we won't be able to stop rapid ecosystem collapse without geoengineering.
4

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 15/05/2008 07:45:02
Post #1 is obviously fossil-fuel industry propaganda from across the pond (note time of posting).

Ignore it.
5

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 15/05/2008 08:14:33

#1 even states "There is not much conceret evidence in this article as in so many such similar scare stories."

Whereas the study about which the above article was written "analysed ... research covering more than 29,500 sets of data stretching back to 1970." and "looked at 829 documented physical changes"

As an exemplar of head-in-the-sand refusal to even look at evidence, #1 takes some beating.
6

Unimpressed one,

15/05/2008 08:26:16
'Dr Roger Jones, from the Centre for Australian Weather and Climate Research, said: "This paper outlines an extremely robust case for linking a range of observed physical and biological changes to human-induced climate change."'

Slack-mouthed junk science speak for: we were given a grant to look for this link and right on the money, here it is. Note the use of words such as "expected", "very likely" and "significant". This is not science but tripe dressed up as science. And #3, keep taking the tablets and follow the advice of your therapist to the letter.
7

eyeswider,

0--0 15/05/2008 08:27:51
Post #2 is obviously a anti-human green from across the pond pond (note time of posting).

Ignore it. Post #1 is much closer to the truth.

Post #3 - Geoengineering is as insane as believing in MMGW. Arrogant, puny humans.

Check the temp graphs on this oil funded site- (oh no! they are a respected UK publication with no affiliation to ... whatever)

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

"The UK Meteorological Office's Hadley Center for Climate Studies Had-Crut data shows worldwide temperatures declining since 1998. According to Hadley's data, the earth is not much warmer now than it was in 1878 or 1941."

"The other two widely used global temperature data sources are from earth-orbiting satellites UAH (University of Alabama at Huntsville) and RSS (Remote Sensing Systems.) Both show decreasing temperatures over the last decade, with present temperatures barely above the 30 year average."

Of course the data torturers will deny this. Their religion depends on temps rising with CO2 which just isn't happening.

Also anyone saying this: "fossil-fuel industry propaganda" has not checked the news recently. The major oil companies have also jumped onto the band wagon (or were pushed) and anyway their "massive funding" never produced much in the way of refutation did it. The Gorons are still getting rich claiming the sky is falling and everyone should return to the caves while passing the collection plate. Idiots.
8

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 15/05/2008 08:35:44
#7: Lies.
9

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 15/05/2008 09:17:25
#7 eyeswider

The article by Steven Goddard to which Eyeswider links in #7 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"

It's just the sort of rubbish the Eyeswider always drinks down without understanding or any degree of critical analysis because it tells him what he craves to hear. And yet it takes just a few seconds to check whether the HADCRU data actually do tell what Steven Goddard claims they do: they don't, but Eyeswider still believes this nonsense, because he can't even manage to check a few simple figures.

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 Eyeswider 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
10

eyeswider,

on tha bus. 15/05/2008 09:21:11
Some more lies (nothing like being specific):

"Global warming statistically may not be real":
http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/reference/bibliography/2004/djs0402.pdf

"satellite-based temperature measurements... show little if any global warming since 1979":
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,21920043-27197,00.html

http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Widescale+Global+Cooling/article10866.htm

More NASA fraud:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/08/09/did-media-or-nasa-withhold-climate-history-data-changes-public

A "global" temperature cannot exist:
http://www.climatepolice.com/GlobalTemp.pdf

Earth is still recovering from an ice age:
http://www.iarc.uaf.edu/highlights/2007/akasofu_3_07/Earth_recovering_from_LIA.pdf

"Greenland is anything but a shining example of what anthropogenic CO2 emissions might do to earth's climate":
http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/2005-09-15/trends.htm
the rate of warming in 1920-1930 was about 50% higher than that in 1995 - 2005
"Greenland .... the rate of warming in 1920-1930 was about 50% higher than that in 1995 - 2005"
http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Chylek/greenland_warming.html

This is entirely political. Malthusian population control while taxing the rest of us is a cited aim of the UN and other "organisations".
11

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 15/05/2008 09:27:03
#7 Eyeswider

As for "The UK Meteorological Office's Hadley Center for Climate Studies Had-Crut data shows worldwide temperatures declining since 1998."

More lies. Here is the data:(all figures in degrees Celsius above the average for 1961-1990)

Year Anomaly Smoothed

1998 0.546 0.323
1999 0.296 0.348
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

From:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/gtc2007.csv
12

eyeswider,

15/05/2008 09:33:34
#11 Slioch

Just keep living the dream
13

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 15/05/2008 09:49:08
Eyeswider, you simply put up a list of garbage denialist sites in which you are unable and unwilling to see the glaring errors. You are then not able to defend them when the errors are pointed out to you, but just put up another list, or make some idiotic comment like "Just keep living the dream."
14

Guga II,

Rockall 15/05/2008 09:51:47
What early spring? The grass only started growing here about a week ago.

More junk science, with Slioch trying his best to get himself on one of the government handout bandwaggons, if he isn't already on one.
15

Dave from Barra ©,

Western Isles 15/05/2008 10:00:37
One of the latest springs I've know for a while. Night time temps are barely above 3 degree and day time temps barely hitting 12 to 14 degrees.

Little to no evidence of anything untoward just now.
16

eyeswider,

hahaha 15/05/2008 10:01:24
#13 Slioch - one from NASA and one from NOAA for you:


Talk around the satellite data and Argo findings all you like - it doesn't dissolve them.

http://oceans.pmel.noaa.gov/Pdf/heat_2006.pdf
"A new estimate of sampling error in the heat content record suggests that both the recent and previous global cooling events are significant and unlikely to be artifacts of inadequate ocean sampling."

But I suppose there is a "real" argument as to why the buoy's data - and NOAA's own site - is "lies".


http://science.nasa.gov/NEWHOME/headlines/essd06oct97_1.htm
"Unlike the surface-based temperatures, global temperature measurements of the Earth's lower atmosphere obtained from satellites reveal no definitive warming trend over the past two decades."

Add those decades to the '97 '07 one here:
"The other two widely used global temperature data sources are from earth-orbiting satellites UAH (University of Alabama at Huntsville) and RSS (Remote Sensing Systems.) Both show decreasing temperatures over the last decade, with present temperatures barely above the 30 year average."

But I suppose there is a "real" argument as to why the satellite data - and NASA's own site - is "lies".

When one gets to my age you know a rat when you smell one and you have a lot of summers and winters in memory to draw upon.

AGW is LIES. Vested interests are trying continuously to prove these lies but the Sun is going to bite them.

It is going to get cold.

17

GlenB,

Skye 15/05/2008 10:40:38
#1 is correct the IPCC is political and was set up to help bring about the one world government agenda of the UN.
18

Vlad Tepes,

Snagov 15/05/2008 10:49:41
16. Eyeswideshut
Every year thousands of climate experts analyse ALL of the data; every year they become MORE certain than GW is anthropogenically driven, and at a faster rate than anticipated in previous reports. Furthermore all sceptic myths such as sunspots, cosmic rays, martian death-rays etc. were debunked years ago. However I'm sure your personal analysis has it's own value...
19

Dave from Barra ©,

Western Isles 15/05/2008 11:38:01
According to Slioch yesterday, there is only an accurate record of CO2 measurements going back to 1958. Hardly a suitable reference period, is it?
20

Guthrie,

Edinburgh 15/05/2008 11:43:02
Guga #14- does Rocakll have much grass? Here near Falkirk, the grass outside my flat has been growing since February.

Dave- you do know about the ice core's dont you?

GlenB #17- DOn't be silly. THe warming is happening, and it smostly our fault. That some people like to try and make money out of that is entirely to be expected.
21

Guthrie,

Edinburgh 15/05/2008 11:47:36
Eyeswider #16- you are an idiot.
Your first nasa link, is from 1997, before they corrected the satellite record properly.

You don't give a source for your second quote, but the facts of the matter are that you are wrong, again.
Have a look at the actual RSS website:
http://www.remss.com/msu/msu_data_description.html

Oh look, the bit dealing with the lower troposphere shows warming over the past 30 years! What a surprise!
22

eyeswider,

15/05/2008 11:52:05
#13 Slioch

Some "garbage denialist sites" from my list above.

http://www.iarc.uaf.edu/

http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/

http://meteo.lcd.lu/

Here's another:
http://climate.uah.edu/maps/0408big.jpg


23

Dave from Barra ©,

Western Isles 15/05/2008 11:57:33
Guthriue

Good for you about your grass. Unfortunately for you, Scotland extends much much further out than the narrow band of the central belt where you live.

Ice cores? The same cores that Slioch thinks are not an accurate method of collating information?
24

Guthrie,

Edinburgh 15/05/2008 11:58:47
The point, Eyeswider, is that you are incapable of correctly understanding the sites you cherry pick, because of your unscientific understanding and lack of knowledge, and probably of a desire not to actually learn anything. When you actually comprehend stuff well enough to defend it in your own words, that will be a good sign, but in the meantime, any idiot can throw mud at a wall, claiming they are making an argument.
25

Guthrie,

Edinburgh 15/05/2008 11:59:43
Really DAve? You do perhaps have an understanding of the limitations of ice cores for different purposes? Possibly you will even be able to provide the exact quote and its context, so we can examine which ice cores Slioch was talking about?
26

Dave from Barra ©,

Western Isles 15/05/2008 12:05:39
Yes Guthrie, really. You expect to trawl old comments to prove your infantile point? Nah son, do it yourself.

I have a good understanding of ice core analysis. Basically, it will never be as accurate as taking a live measurement as is restricted to the Poles and cannot factor Boreal, Tropical and Sub Tropical CO2 fluctuations.
27

techpunk,

15/05/2008 12:07:59
Slioch/ Guthrie


your pomposity is, as ever, cringe-worthy.

28

Guthrie,

Edinburgh 15/05/2008 12:11:33
Hahaha, Dave, you coward. You were the one making the claim, but now you don't want to back it up?
Also, how much difference do you think there is today between polar CO2 measurements, and those from the tropics? Lots, or very little? THen, does your answer materially affect the paleoclimate record and models? I doubt it.

Techpunk- have you got anything useful to add to the discussion?
29

GlenB,

15/05/2008 12:13:29
#20

Did I say that warming wasn't happening? Whether it is our fault is still unconfirmed.

Models based on incomplete knowledge of the worlds climate only indicate a correlation with human activity.

There are many good unbiased climate scientists that do not subcribe to the hysteria presently attached to the recent warming trends or to the purported cause.

Unfortunately these scientists are decried by the advocates of AGW and called denialists and various other derogatory things for no good scientific reason but largely political, philosophical or other reasons.

When people say that the scientific debate is over it means that they have ceased to be scientists but followers of a dogma.
30

techpunk,

15/05/2008 12:18:17
yeh,

just a question.

are you aware of just how you both come across?

it would be "useful" for you to think about that.
31

Guthrie,

Edinburgh 15/05/2008 12:23:40
Yup. It is the result of many months and years of arguing with the same goons on this website. I'm sure Slioch can be even cattier, and also nicer. Same here.
Would you like to offer some communication tips to us?
32

eyeswider,

droolville 15/05/2008 12:25:37
#21 Guthrie

It enlightens me to see you squirm and wriggle around the Argo buoy data.

I cannot be bothered with the rest of your asinine "analysis" of my links and their contents, or my intelligence.

Can't you read?

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

The HadCRU graph shows exactly what everyone (except the true believers) is saying.

The satellite graphs are there also and show cooling for the last decade.

And you have the front to claim that I am cherry picking. Yeah, right.

What you pick on and what you ignore truly is an education to this particular idiot.

I do not expect you to recant your blind faith. I do not call you names.
I do challenge your bullying and your warming religion because I cannot abide either.

33

Guthrie,

Edinburgh 15/05/2008 12:27:10
Glen B- #29,
Good, so you agree warming is happening.
That it is our fault is clear, due to several things. The models predict a number of things that have been confirmed by observation, starting with a cooler stratosphere, and warmer night time temperatures. If the warming was due to the sun we would see a warming stratosphere.

There are, to the best of my knowledge, no unbiased climate scientists who claim anything other than the current warming is human caused. Perhaps you know of some?

I assume you still debate with people over quauntum mechanics, evolutionary biology, relativity, and the germ theory of disease?
34

eyeswider,

15/05/2008 12:27:44
The leading climate alarmists-

James Hansen, B.A. Physics and Mathematics, M.S. Astronomy, Ph.D. Physics
Gavin Schmidt, Ph.D. Applied Mathematics
Michael Mann, Ph.D. Geology & Geophysics
Lonnie Thompson, Ph.D. Geological Sciences
Michael Oppenheimer, S.B. Chemistry, Ph.D. Chemical Physics
Steven Schneider, Ph.D. Mechanical Engineering and Plasma Physics
Albert Gore, All round dumb kcuf.

Funny. They don't have a climatology degree between them! Not even a "related" one.

Yet....

John R. Christy Ph.D. Atmospheric Sciences, M.S., Atmospheric Sciences, B.A., Mathematics, Professor of Atmospheric Science and Director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville. NASA’s Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement, Contributor (1992, 1994 and 1996) and Lead Author (2001) for the U.N. reports by the IPCC.
science.nasa.gov/ssl/pad/sppb/NSSTC-CSPAR_Colloquia/FAL-01/christy_bio.html

Richard S Lindzen, Ph.D. Harvard trained atmospheric physicist and the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, published over 200 books and scientific papers, lead author of Chapter 7 of the Third Assessment Report of the IPCC.
www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen.htm

S. Fred Singer, B.E.E. Electrical Engineering, A.M. Ph.D. Physics; Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia.
www.sepp.org/about%20sepp/bios/singer/cvsfs.html

Roy Spencer, Ph.D. Meteorology, Principal research scientist for University of Alabama in Huntsville, American Meteorological Society’s Special Award, NASA’s Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement.
www.weatherquestions.com/Roy-Spencer-on-global-warming.htm#bio

Reid Bryson, Ph.D.Meteorology from University of Chicago in 1948, joined the faculty of the University of Wisconsin-Madison, and in 1948 he became the first chairman of the Department of Meteorology. He became the first director of the Institute for Environmental Studies in 19
35

eyeswider,

15/05/2008 12:28:06

Cont;

Reid Bryson, Ph.D.Meteorology from University of Chicago in 1948, joined the faculty of the University of Wisconsin-Madison, and in 1948 he became the first chairman of the Department of Meteorology. He became the first director of the Institute for Environmental Studies in 1970.
http://ccr.meteor.wisc.edu/bryson/bryson.html

have ALL said AGW is BS.

Who is believable? Who do the public hear from? Who do the "scientists" who regularly comment in here vilify, or deify?
36

GlenB,

15/05/2008 12:29:11
#31 Stop thinking that you are the only ones who know what's right.
37

Guthrie,

Edinburgh 15/05/2008 12:29:18
Eyeswider, it is interesting to see you have no comeback to Sliochs explanation of the data which you continue to studiously ignore.
Indeed, you persist in claiming that the satellites show cooling, when I have in fact given you the url to the very page which shows the opposite!
You are a disturbed fantasist.
38

Guthrie,

Edinburgh 15/05/2008 12:29:47
GlenB- sure, just as soon as you provide actual evidence to back up your claims.
39

GlenB,

15/05/2008 12:39:34
#33 "I assume you still debate with people over quauntum mechanics, evolutionary biology, relativity, and the germ theory of disease?"

Yes I would on those matters of theory where the conclusion based on the evidence and the uncertainty of the preceeding presuppositions are unconvincing or not adequately proven.
40

Saoghal Beag,

15/05/2008 12:47:50
All getting very catty as usual. i do however find it incredible that there are die hard denialists who do not even accept climate change whether anthropgenic or not. Their's is a strange religion.
41

eyeswider,

15/05/2008 13:24:10
#37 Guthrie

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

Note the drop in temperatures in the last 10 years. Also note that the angle of the slope we are living with now has never lead to anything but a further drop for as far back as the record goes - want to bet that this will do the same? It also shows how believers can claim for many years to come that "this is one of the top 20 years on record" but that that is utterly meaningless.

Of course the paid flunkies cannot let this just speak for itself they have to add their caveat about the IPCC/CO2 drivel.

The benign warming that has occurred in our very recent past is waning. You will miss it when it is gone. No amount of CO2 will bring it back. The Sun did it.
42

eyeswider,

15/05/2008 13:25:15
One I didn't write:


quote

The earth hasn't warmed any in the last decade, a trend that is likely to continue:

When the United Nations World Meteorological Organization recently reported that global temperatures had not risen since 1998, the explanation given by WMO Secretary-General Michel Jarraud was that the cool spell was the effect of the Pacific Ocean's La Nina current, "part of what we call 'variability.' "

Well, oops, the Earth will do it again. According to a report by German researchers published in Thursday's issue of the journal Nature, shifting Atlantic ocean currents will cool parts of North America and Europe over the next decade as well.

Climate science is in its infancy, and pretty much every proposition is controversial. The earth's climate is hugely complicated, and important aspects of it are poorly understood. In the last few years, our ability to study ocean temperatures has greatly improved:

Understanding the ocean's effect on climate took a quantum leap forward in 2003 when the first of 3,000 new automated ocean buoys were deployed, a significant improvement over earlier buoys that took their measurements mostly at the ocean's surface.

The new buoys, known as Argos, drift along the world's oceans at a depth of about 6,000 feet constantly monitoring the temperature, salinity, and speed of ocean currents. Every 10 days or so a bladder inflates, bringing them to the surface as they take their readings at various depths.

Once on the surface, they transmit their readings to satellites that retransmit them to land-based computers.

The Argos buoys have disappointed global warming alarmists in that they have failed to detect any signs of imminent climate change. As Dr. Josh Willis noted in an interview with National Public Radio, "there has been a very slight cooling" over the buoy's five years of observation.

The computer models that predict global warming are ridiculously primitive. They still
43

eyeswider,

15/05/2008 13:25:36
Cont;

The computer models that predict global warming are ridiculously primitive. They still can't recreate the past accurately, let alone predict the future. As Howard Hayden, professor of physics at the University of Connecticut, says, they take "garbage in" and spit "gospel out."

44

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 15/05/2008 13:28:11
Let me address some of the points that have arisen in my absence:

#23 Dave from Barra - "Ice cores? The same cores that Slioch thinks are not an accurate method of collating information?"

I said no such thing. I said just the opposite, "Accurate measurements of CO2 were begun in 1958 by Charles Keeling on Mauna Loa when it was realised how much measurements taken in populated and vegetated areas ... were influenced by local sources and sinks of CO2. ...

How do we know the Mauna Loa series (which shows a fairly steady (but increasing) increase in CO2, with annual wriggles) is accurate? ... because the results tie up with the CO2 concentrations derived from several later ice cores, which show CO2 concentrations going back 800,000 years." (edited for brevity)

In other words the Mauna Loa and ice core CO2 evidence correlate and support one another.

Eyeswider: Satellite temperature measurements. I answered this point yesterday. Satellite measurements started in 1979 and the series you should look at are those for the lowest layer of the troposphere, ie. closest to the land/sea surface that HadCRU and GISS measure. With these there is a close correlation.The very good agreement is shown here:

http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/global2.jpg

The NASA GISS series gives a warming of 0.017degC/year.

The satellite series gives a warming of 0.018degC/year

See:

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2007/08/12/before-and-after/
45

Alternative (High Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 15/05/2008 13:32:28
"Researchers found 90 per cent of changes in biological and physical systems – from shrinking glaciers to increasingly early springs – can be attributed to a warming climate."

I take it that they would consider the melting of the Antarctic Penninsular to be a major part of this 90%.

However, that is caused by geothermal activity and has nothing to do with air or sea temperature.

As usual, the psuedo-scientists are talking rubbish.
46

TimW1234,

Ottawa, Canada 15/05/2008 13:47:32
Slioch and Guthrie are deniers of an alarming degree. They must belong to the Flat Earth Society and still believe the sun revolves around the earth.

Such appalling and arrogant refusal to face the facts is truly amazing.

So, spring started late in Scotland - in Canada, after a particularly tiresome winter here in Ottawa - over 440 cms of snow - spring came EARLY.

These climatological scientists are looking at the bigger picture and extrapolating data to see if there is a trend towards global warming.

I will leave any conclusions to the specialists/scientists/epimdemiologists (look it up!) and trust that their data has been analysed according to accepted scientific methods.

As for Slioch/Guthrie let them wallow in their ignorance.
47

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 15/05/2008 13:49:58
#41 eyeswide

"http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/

Note the drop in temperatures in the last 10 years."

I provided the raw data upon which that graph is based in #11 above.

If you take either the annual anomaly or the smoothed data and fit a straight line best curve to them (by the method of least squares) both sets give a positive slope. That means they show a warming. Kick against the pricks of mathematics all you like, it will not change the truth.

Ocean temperatures: I spent much of the early months of this year trying to convince you that the dip in temperatures at that time was caused by the La Nina event in the Pacific bringing huge quantities of cold water to the surface. You refused to believe it, but now you mention the Argos system - but still apparently have not made the connection.

The oceans have a HUGE thermal capacity and changes in oceanic currents can have dramatic effects on land/sea surface temperatures. Changes in them are difficult to predict: the German study you mention is just one study that suggests an oceanic cooling effect for a few years, but other climatologists are not convinced. Either way, as the authors of the German study were at pains to point out, their study has NO implications whatsoever concerning the heating effect of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions.
48

eyeswider,

moor 15/05/2008 13:50:39

NASA/GISS is corrupt. And I do not mean the data.

http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/03/08/3-of-4-global-metrics-show-nearly-flat-temperature-anomaly-in-the-last-decade/

"And finally we have the NASA GISS land-ocean anomaly data showing a ten year trend of 0.151°C, which is about 5 times larger than the largest of the three metrics above, which is UAH at 0.028°C /ten years."




No wonder us idiots are confused.

49

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 15/05/2008 13:57:51
Meanwhile, elsewhere in the news today:

The US has declared polar bears a threatened species because of the loss of Arctic sea ice.

However the new protection under the US Endangered Species Act was not accompanied by any new proposals to combat climate change or address controversial Arctic drilling for oil and gas.

They acknowledged that greenhouse gas emissions from human activities were contributing to the global warming damaging the polar bears’ habitat.

So even the US administration is convinced that AGW is real.

50

Guthrie,

Edinburgh 15/05/2008 15:35:44
Glen B- I look forwards to your amazing presentation of the facts showing that the warming has stopped/ is not our fault/ etc etc.
Oh, wait a minute...

Eyeswider- taking a 10 year average, starting at the warmest year in the record (Unless you go with the surface stations, in which case its 2005) is dishonest, as has been explained to you many, many times before.

Techpunk- do you have advice for what can be done with dishonest people?
51

Guthrie,

Edinburgh 15/05/2008 15:38:59
eyeswider #43- stop parroting other people without attribution. It makes you look even more silly.
As for models not predicting the past, ummm, thats one of the ways they test them- set it up, start it in the past, see what it tells you for now. Eg start it running with known 1950 conditions, and see what results it gives for the 1990's. If it varies much from the actual measurements, then obviously something is wrong.
52

GlenB,

15/05/2008 15:58:52
#51

I presume that if the model does not fit the data then the model is modified until it replicates the past climate behaviour.

However with incomplete knowledge of the system the model is not replicating the actual behaviour of the system but is just a model that replicates the past measurements. Is that any guarantee that its predictive qualities are correct or even remotely close?
53

techpunk,

15/05/2008 16:16:40
#50

what?

like al gore with his oscar winning hockey stick drivel?

string them up?...i dont know?

now going back to your earlier request for communication tips, the best i can offer is, when you enter debate, do not

1) goad
2) gloat
3) show repeated aggression towards your oponent(s).


this will do nothing to support your opinions, and will likely serve to not only belittle your own argument, but make you look desparate to force opinion, which degenerates the likelihood of your listeners trusting you, and agreeing with your opinion.

hope this helps.

thanks in advance.
54

Guthrie,

Edinburgh 15/05/2008 16:28:19
#50- ahh, good to see you reveal your true colours.
55

techpunk,

15/05/2008 16:33:28
what on earth are you on about? true colours?

(i am sooooooo bored of this....away and pick on someone else who gives a sh@t).
56

Guthrie,

Edinburgh 15/05/2008 16:33:34
Glen B #52-
Not exactly. THe point is that the GCM's etc used are based upon known physics of radiation transfer, energy etc etc. But they also depend upon some variables which are not entirely clear, eg cloud levels, and the unpredictable events such as the PDO foul up comparisons with the actual data.
Therefore, the modern ones fit the data well enough in the long term, but working out shorter term eg 10 years or less, and more regional predictions, is difficult.

However you are wrong in saying that the model merely replicates the past measurements, because as I said they rely upon known physical quantities. The guarantee that its projections (not predictions) are accurate is provided by comparison with the historical data. The only way we could get the level of absolute certainty many people seem to want is to wait another 30 or 40 years and compare the current models to the observations. This would be a bit silly, given the current and expected effects of the warming.
57

Guthrie,

Edinburgh 15/05/2008 16:34:41
#55- anyone whose first comment regarding the climate is about Gore's drivel is clearly not interested in the science.
58

Guthrie,

Edinburgh 15/05/2008 16:38:31
Ah ha, wikipedia has a nice summary on GCM's:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_model

As I said, they rely upon known physics for most of their ability, however the error margins are expected given consideration of the more poorly known areas that can affect their accuracy, eg clouds.
59

PJ,

Edinburgh 15/05/2008 17:08:50
Dr. Jim Renwick, a top UN IPCC scientist, admitted that climate models do not account for half the variability in nature and thus are not reliable. "Half of the variability in the climate system is not predictable, so we don’t expect to do terrifically well," Renwick conceded.

“All [UN IPCC does] is make ‘projections’ and ‘estimates’. No climate model has ever been properly tested, which is what ‘validation’ means, and their ‘projections’ are nothing more than the opinions of ‘experts’ with a conflict of interest, because they are paid to produce the models. There is no actual scientific evidence for all these ‘projections’ and ‘estimates,'” IPCC reviewer and climate researcher Dr Vincent Gray, of New Zealand noted.

And by the way you do know that the polar bear diverged from the brown bear, roughly 200 thousand years ago!
60

Neil,

Glasgow 15/05/2008 17:11:24
it has been cooling since 1998 & probably since 1934. Everything the alarmists say must be taken as representing the standard of honesty expected from the "Green" movement but this does not mean that it is in any way truthful.

These fanatics have got themsleves stuck on defending a scare story which has quite obviously fallen apart in their hands because that this is accepted as a lie implies everything else they say is too.

Fred's remark about polar bears being put on the endangered list does not show that warming is taking [place. It shows the opposite. Polar bear numbers have gone UP over the last century from 5,000 to 25,000. Hence the listing is merely proof of how the authorities are faking their results.
61

eyeswider,

back on tha bus 15/05/2008 17:43:27
To be fair the PBs were being hunted and that stopped but even so they have shown impressive ...mating powers.. - but where (f)redherring is erring is that this will allow a moratorium in the Arctic as there is down below in Antarctica (the richest source, known to us, of _everything_ we need including anthracite fields the size of Wales and half a mile thick - funny they stopped mentioning this round about - oh say 1982 when they found utterly huge reserves of oil of a certain island down there.

The elite are stashing their wealth. They always cap their closest finds. This serves several purposes, one of which is to make it seem like peak oil is a reality.

It is not.


BTW - I just love the use of certain sites to "verify" information - like wikipedia (anonymous editing and all - the owner says "it's broken beyond repair")

tamino - an anonymous lover of Al Gore (probably in the biblical sense judging from his inquisitorial data torturing.

And don't let's go to "real" climate - run by the auditor general (who happens to be both accountant and head buyer and guardian of the algorithm - even the Hells Angels have got more sense than that)

Ah well, I have had my giggles for now - oh but I forgot - Guthrie asks for evidence yet if we do the same then, somehow, scientists would laugh us out of the room if _we_ asked....


62

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 15/05/2008 18:22:09
Eyeswider.

In #41 above you referred to, http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/

And said, "Note the drop in temperatures in the last 10 years."

I pointed out that was mathematically incorrect in #47, that the slope of the best fit curve since 1998 was positive.

Then, in #48 you refer us to the

http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/03/08/3-of-4-global-metrics-show-nearly-flat-temperature-anomaly-in-the-last-decade/

Which correctly states, "The HadCRUT land-ocean global anomaly data shows a slight trend of 0.017°C for the last ten years." That is a positive trend, ie it shows temperature increasing, not decreasing.

Which is what I have been telling you, and you have been denying, for months. (#60 Neil also denies it, and still hasn't understood about 1934 either). Tamino also provides this graph showing the positive slope of the best fit curve from 1998 to the present, but you can't even bring yourself to look at Tamino's work and instead resort to ugly and puerile comments about him, and Neil impugns the honesty of those who attempt to disabuse him of his error.



63

John Blackley,

Florida 15/05/2008 18:22:51
Could we please have some more creative insults in these 'debates' about AGW?

All this listing of websites and bandying-about of "facts" is really tedious and so the only reason to read this thread is the insults. Frankly, they're childish and pretty unimaginative.

Please try harder.
64

Guthrie,

Edinburgh 15/05/2008 20:18:42
John- what do you mean by "facts"?

PJ #59- you will of course have the precise context for that quote handy, won't you?

Neil- Hahahahahaaa.
Take a look at any graph of global or hemispheric temperature. Do any of them show cooling since 1934 in any way? No, of course not. Do they show cooling since 1998? Only if you take a year at a time. The long term trend is still upwards.
65

Kipling,

15/05/2008 23:59:57
#59 PJ. "And by the way you do know that the polar bear diverged from the brown bear, roughly 200 thousand years ago!"

Have you smelt a brown bear's breath? Grounds for a divorce at any time.
66

Endangeredscot,

17/05/2008 19:29:08
Thanks to a friend who helped produce this, found another take!

http://www.chuffers.co.uk/item_10015.html
67

truthsleuth,

20/05/2008 01:16:09
Itv is absolutely pointless arguing with deniers.
The VAST majority of them think with their wallet, decide with their mouth over their exhaust pipe.

i.e. they fear knowledge that may require them to change their lifestyle especially if that means reducing the use of their cars.

PS
#7 eyeswider,0--0 15/05/2008 08:27:51

'Post #2 is obviously a anti-human green from across the pond pond (note time of posting).'

No doubt you will deny this fact but just like all your other postings YOU ARE WRONG
aBOUT 3000 MILES WRONG
I should change your spectacles, or see an eye or brain surgeon.

 

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
 
  

 
 

More Sci-Tech

More Sci-Tech >>

More Climate change

More Climate change >>

Features

Supplements
Scotsman Digital Archive
Scotsman Hotels Scotsman Hotels

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