Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Sunday, 6th 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.

World cooling – but scientists insist that warming is real



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: 05 April 2008
CLIMATOLOGISTS may insist the world is getting warmer and that climate change is here to stay.
But the meteorological phenomenon called La Niña, in which the central and eastern Pacific Ocean is getting cooler, means global temperatures will drop slightly this year.

But this year's temperatures would still be way above the average - and we
would soon exceed the record year of 1998 because of global warming induced by greenhouse gases.

The phenomenon is sister to the better known El Niño, or the Little Boy, which appears when too little cold water rises to the ocean's surface, causing the planet's temperature to rise and bringing major disruption to weather systems.

La Niña has caused floods in Mozambique, and freezing temperatures in China.

David Parker, research scientist at the Met Office's Hadley Centre, which studies climate change and variation, said La Niña was part of the natural cycle of the world's seas.

"It happens of its own accord, and eventually, when it finishes, the effect wears off and the world's temperature will rise again," he said.

"While it is in effect, the world temperature will cool by a quarter of a degree, which isn't a lot, given that we've had a half to three-quarters of a degree warming already, but it's quite a chunk relative to the global warming we've had so far."

He added that though Britain had not felt the full force of La Niña's influence, it would affect the country's weather.

"It means that the climate will be colder, but it has different effects across the world," he said. "We had a mild winter this year, which to some extent goes along with La Niña.

There's also a greater than average chance of a damper summer – which I think the Met Office has already forecast – but not to the same extent as last summer. In fact, last summer's damp weather was probably connected with La Niña."

However, Mr Parker said that it was wrong to believe the drop in temperatures meant global warming was not a reality.

"You have to be very careful how you look at these figures; 1998 was an El Niño year. The current temperature was unusually warm for then. Now we have a La Niña and it's unusually cool compared with trends nowadays. If you take a trend over ten years, you don't get a warming, but that's too short a period in which to get a trend."

"In a proper long-term sense we are on a warming trend.

"The expectation is that the temperature of the world is going up and up. There's no evidence that global warming isn't happening."

The World Meteorological Organisation has pointed out that the decade from 1998 to 2007 was the warmest on record. Since the beginning of the 20th century the global average surface temperature has risen by 0.74C.

Dr Neil Wells, senior lecturer in oceanography at the National Oceanography Centre at Southampton University, said: "It is a major event because it is so vast – it is one of the major causes of weather variation. It redistributes heavy rain where you wouldn't expect it. Northern Australia tends to be affected by it. The evidence that climate change has affected it just isn't strong.

"We know this has happened for thousands of years – the flow of the Nile has been recorded as being affected by it – and that it has gone through various long period cycles, but we cannot say that climate change has been affected."





The full article contains 599 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 08 April 2008 9:55 AM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Climate change
 
1

,

05/04/2008 00:10:12
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
2

eyeswider,

ole 05/04/2008 01:21:31
There is no evidence. Do you honestly think we are willfully ignorant?

Budget is everything.

3

eyeswider,

hmmm 05/04/2008 01:30:53
IPCC reviewer and climate researcher and scientist Dr. Vincent Gray of New Zealand, an expert reviewer on every single draft of the IPCC reports going back to 1990, in an April 10, 2007 article. "Global temperatures have not been rising for eight years." In a July 3, 2007 blog post, "I have written many pages of comments on the various IPCC Reports and most of them have been ignored." "The very few comments made by most of the reviewers suggest that there may be very few actual people who ever read the report itself all the way through except those who write it," he added. "The [IPCC] ‘Summary for Policymakers' might get a few readers, but the main purpose of the report is to provide a spurious scientific backup for the absurd claims of the worldwide environmentalist lobby that it has been established scientifically that increases in carbon dioxide are harmful to the climate. It just does not matter that this ain't so,"

4

nabodican,

Rural Scotland 05/04/2008 01:32:07
Spot on #2, cooling warming cooling warming - They will say anything to justify their budget.
Even if it is warming or cooling it is sod all to do with man, so better get used to it !
5

nabodican,

Rural Scotland 05/04/2008 01:34:31
#3 What is even worse is that they issued the summary for policy makers first and then adjusted the full report to match the summary.
6

rlm,

planet earth 05/04/2008 01:50:57
I am old enough to remember reading about how the earth's temperature was cooling and we were heading toward another ice age in the distant future. This was in the early to mid seventies.
7

,

05/04/2008 02:03:46
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
8

A Better Way,

Edinburgh 05/04/2008 02:37:30
For years now, the effect of El Nino and La Nina is openly part of the weather reporting in Australia. Yes even on the nightly news. The reason is obviously the Pacific tempature movements. Vice versa the people of California do exactly the same thing because the people of pacific rim countries, know what the effects of either one means. When California is experiences higher than normal tempatures, massive fires engulf the enviroment. In Australia, the opposite effect happens as regular as a fine tuned watch. Australia has this year received record rainfalls, while California has had massive bush fires, to which Australia sent experienced firefighters to assist the locals.

Australia is the oldest continent of all, and because large parts of it have been dry for thousands of years, erosion opens up rock and soil history which tells a succinct history of tempatures and enviromental disasters. Most of the Australian Scientests have come out,and openly criticised the SO CALLED EXPERTS around the World as no more than people who are misinforming and promoting Scientific Bunkum, because the Enviromental Industry is a very lucrative Industry for them and the Governments, who have created a new income source for both. As for that very well known failed candidate for the American Presidential Ticket, well what is the best way to actually be successful in future campaigns than. Thats right win a Nobel Prize and get himself a better reputation as a caring person, who would make the best person to take over from Obama.

Dont get me wrong, I am all for recycling our waste, and definately think it is time for us to stop Shoiting in our own nest. We may not be responsable for Global Warming, but thats no reason to be dirty sods, who choose to live in pigsty rather than tidying up after ourselves.

We have to stop cutting down trees, because the tree can hold the enviroment together. Australia has now got a major problem with Saline rising to the earths surface and contamina
9

A Better Way,

05/04/2008 02:40:30
continued:

We have to stop cutting down trees, because the tree can hold the enviroment together. Australia has now got a major problem with Saline rising to the earths surface and contaminating both plant life and other living creatures that keep their rivers healthy. At least now they are planting millions upon millions of trees, but it got nothing to do with the warming of the earth.

Believe what you like, I wouldnt wish it any other way, but stop listening to some local councillor who wants to slap you with a rates rise based on Crrrraaaappp.
10

Conan,

Chile 05/04/2008 03:33:09
I'm still waiting for the much-threatened coming ice Age. Its been more than 30 years since that was the left's mantra - when's it going to get here, or was 'ice age' removed from the left's script and 'global warming' substituted when too many people started doubting (aka 'deniers')?
11

GalacticCannibal,

Murrieta;. .....a place in the Sun in California 05/04/2008 04:43:32
World cooling – but scientists insist that warming is real
--------------------------------------------
Dudes,
Of course the Planet is cooling , and it will continue to cool down for hundreds of millions of years into the future.

Its the planet's Molten Iron Core stupid.
Any school girl or boy can tell U that...

As to the atmosphere on its surface, the combination of 6 billion homosapiens farting,and driving ICE vehicles.

The billions of four legged animals farting ,plus regular volcanoes erupting, and sea creatures multiplying (unless they are killed by the homosapeins.) .

What do we expect dudes, but a slow rise in temperature of the surface of the planet .

Solution cull the homosapiens from 6 billion to under 3 billion and keep the population at that level. The same goes of all the farting animals.

Get a grip dudes , its not rocket science.

Capitalism as we know in 2008 is doomed, since its based on the premise of supply and demand, and an infinite supply of people and products . Cannot be maintained , Our planet has finite resources.

Capitalism is a worse fairy tale, than The KORAN, The Bible, or The Tanakh.

So take a chill pill Dudes and relax.

And keep breathing that oxygen, there is no conscious alternative.

GC

12

Guga II,

Rockall 05/04/2008 06:19:23
Obviously the Earth's climate will change, it has been changing since the Earth began, and will continue changing till the Earth is a small ball of ash.

However, the Earth's temperature has been dropping for the last 65 million years (junk scientists can easily check this). There may have been some minor variations in the past few decades which have seen the temperature rise slightly; and, by coincidence, the same amount of rise as the planet Mars. This does not, however, justify the junk scientists coming out with their global warming garbage, nor for politicians to try and jump on the bandwagon to try and raise even more taxes; or the scams on "carbon trading".

The variations in our climate are a direct result of variations in the output of the sun, nothing else. This is why Mars suffers similar variations. Either that, or these Martians have one helluva lot of 4x4's.
13

Rulesbutnotrulers,

Federation, not separation 05/04/2008 06:56:21
#12 Guga II

Not much is learned by studying Mars since Mars has no oceans, its atmospheric gases are different, it has little or no ice caps, etc. All of these, and gravity too, make for differences that render a like for like comparison value-less. Chalk and cheese, really.
14

PacificGatePost,

N.A. 05/04/2008 07:57:11
While Al Gore's efforts to clean up the air and water should be applauded, his argument as well as that of others on Global Warming is rooted in information now appearing to be incorrect.......

http://pacificgatepost.blogspot.com/2008/03/argo-4900781s-letter-to-bickering.html

It seems we're not really warming, we're cooling.

15

corran,

hebrides 05/04/2008 08:09:08
In 1996 the UN`s IPCC reported that they had found a "human Fingerprint" in the current global warming. That statement was inserted in the executive summary of the IPCC`s 1996 report for political not scientific, reasons. Then the "science volume" was edited to take out five different statements- all of which had been approved by the panels scientific consultants- specifically saying no such "human footprint" had been found. The author of the IPCC science chapter, a US government employee ,publicly admitted making the scientifically indefensible "back room" changes.He was under pressure from top US government officials to do so.
This extract is from the Wall Street Journal of 12th June 1996 and taken from the excellent book by S.Fred Singer and Dennis T. Avery
16

Reckless,

Global warming tax 05/04/2008 08:22:09
The eco-mentalists' 2 mins' of hate continues.

The truth is that global warming is a huge lie. How can we trust a government that imposes taxes based on a lie?

No Global Warming Since 1998 As Planet Cools Off
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/april2008/040408_cools_off.htm
17

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 05/04/2008 08:29:30
The following series of temperature anomaly maps of the Pacific Ocean (produced by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) shows the development of the La Nina very clearly.

The greeny/blue colours show areas where the sea surface temperature is lower than 1971-2000 average, and the yellow/orange/red colours show where it is warmer. The dates in the following list refer to the ends of the week in question.

Look particularly at the difference between Jan 2007 (which was 1.08C above the average global temperature for 1951-1980, NASA GISS figure) and Jan 2008 (which was only 0.31C above) The dramatic fall in global average temperature (0.75C between Jan 2007 and Jan 2008) corresponds with a dramatic cooling of the surface of much of the Pacific. This latter is caused by an overturning of the waters of the Pacific bringing up cold waters from the depths. The oceans have enormous thermal capacity - far greater than the atmosphere or land surface - and variations in sea surface temperatures thus can have dramatic effects. That is what we have experienced recently.
Here are the maps:

1st July 2006: http://www.emc.ncep.noaa.gov/research/cmb/sst_analysis/images/archive/weekly_anomaly/wkanomv2_20060628.png

6th Jan 2007:
http://www.emc.ncep.noaa.gov/research/cmb/sst_analysis/images/archive/weekly_anomaly/wkanomv2_20070103.png

9th June 2007:
http://www.emc.ncep.noaa.gov/research/cmb/sst_analysis/images/archive/weekly_anomaly/wkanomv2_20070606.png

12th Jan 2008:
http://www.emc.ncep.noaa.gov/research/cmb/sst_analysis/images/archive/weekly_anomaly/wkanomv2_20080109.png

9th Feb 2008:
http://www.emc.ncep.noaa.gov/research/cmb/sst_analysis/images/archive/weekly_anomaly/wkanomv2_20080206.png

8th Mar 2008:
http://www.emc.ncep.noaa.gov/research/cmb/sst_analysis/images/archive/weekly_anomaly/wkanomv2_20080305.png

29th Mar 2008:
http://www.emc.ncep.noaa.gov/research/cmb/sst_analysis/images/archive/weekly_anomaly/wkanomv2_20080326.png

T
18

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 05/04/2008 08:30:24
Contd:
The menu for the maps is here:
http://www.emc.ncep.noaa.gov/research/cmb/sst_analysis/images/archive/weekly_anomaly/
19

11+failed,

05/04/2008 08:31:16
"If you take a trend over ten years, you don't get a warming, but that's too short a period in which to get a trend."
Whatever happened to all those fairy tales about three of the hottest years on record occurring in the past five years and the like?
20

11+failed,

the pans 05/04/2008 08:46:20
Curiously I don't recall all these headlines ten years ago proclaiming 1998 as exceptionally warm year caused by a juxtaposition of some perfectly normal events. Equally I don't recall any predictions of a fall in global temperature of 0.6C to 0.75C for 2006-7. Now we have "While it is in effect, the world temperature will cool by a quarter of a degree" Where did that come from? Does Mr Parker mean there will be an addition quarter of a degree fall this year?
Perhaps some of these global cooling deniers can provide some links to help my recall and understanding?
21

eyeswider,

straight from the beeb 05/04/2008 09:10:16
"The World Meteorological Organisation's secretary-general, Michel Jarraud, told the BBC it was likely that La Nina would continue into the summer.

This would mean global temperatures have not risen since 1998, prompting some to question climate change theory."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7329799.stm
22

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 05/04/2008 09:11:04
#20 11+failed

It has been pointed out ad nauseum for years that 1998 was an El Nino year, and that was the cause of the unusual warmth in that year. Meanwhile, global warming deniers were falsely proclaiming that, because the peak of temperature in 1998 had not been exceeded, that meant that "global warming stopped in 1998". It was nonsense then, and it is nonsense still.

It is really fairly simple:

1.The increased CO2 in the atmosphere causes an increase in the amount of heat captured from the sun. This results in a LONG TERM trend. The long term trend since 1975 is (and remains) +0.019deg Celsius per year.

2. Events like El Nino (when the ocean surface becomes abnormally warm) cause an abnormal reduction of heat transfer into the Pacific, causing global temperatures to rise by a global average of about 0.02C. That is what happened in 1998.

3. Events like La Nina (when the ocean surface becomes abnormally cold) cause an abnormal increase in of heat transfer into the Pacific, causing global temperatures to fall. That is what is happening at present.

Both El Nino and La Nina are powerful enough to cause significant temperature divergences from the long term trend: that is what we are observing. These divergences provide NO information about whether global warming has stopped: at present there is NO evidence that that is the case.
23

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 05/04/2008 09:13:57
Sorry, in 2. above (#22) that should be, "causing global temperatures to rise by a global average of about 0.2C"
24

Tweedmouth,

Coldstream 05/04/2008 09:25:02
Global Warming is a conspiracy enacted by the UN to bring about a global carbon tax - which will raise more money for governments than ANY other source of tax. The central myth is that carbon dioxide causes global warming, which is physically impossible. Carbon dioxide is a TRACE GAS that is found at just 400 parts per million in any volume of atmosphere. That means that in any unit of air, 999,600 parts are NOT carbon dioxide.
Here's a thought experiment. 400 parts per million equates to 4 parts in 10,000.

OK, take 10,000 white ping pong balls and put them in an empty swimmig pool. Now add FOUR red ping pong balls and mix well. Now go and try to find the 4 red balls among 10,000 white ones. You will be looking a long time. How can four molecules of non reactive, stable, non catalytic gas possibly affect the massively larger bulk of the other 10,000 molecules around them. Answer - they can't. Carbon dioxide cannot possibly CAUSE warming of the planet. All the evidence shows that this trace gas increases AFTER warming occurs - as more plants grow, more material rots in a warmer climate and more trace CO2 is produced. Of course the UN and Gordon Brown don't want to hear that - because trillions of dollars of CARBON TAX are all that they can see. Power, money, control, the first global tax - a step towards global control. These people want to tax you for the breath you exhale - that is full of CO2.
25

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 05/04/2008 09:26:48
The third sentence in this report is misleading and does not appear in the WMO press release.

It is clear from the Met Office charts that the warming trend remains in place:

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/obsdata/HadCRUT3.html
26

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 05/04/2008 09:28:24
24. Go away and learn some infrared spectroscopy.
27

Alexander,

Edinburgh 05/04/2008 09:29:35
We get some real stupid people on here.
Everyone knows that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere, caused by human activity, is causing the planet to warm. Pre-industrial CO2 was 280ppv that has been increasing rapidly and we are told that it may well be reaching a tipping point where we shall have "runaway" global warming.
Curiously 20% if the increase in atmospheric CO2 since the pre-industrial period has occurred in the past ten years alone, accompanied to a near one degree fall in global temperatures. However, I am not stupid, this fall in global temperature is caused by -- global warming!
28

eyeswider,

05/04/2008 09:34:48
Climate Scientist Dr. S. Fred Singer, former director the US Weather Satellite Service, "Good evidence confirms that current warming is mostly part of a natural climate cycle, most likely driven by the sun. The available data show that the human contribution from greenhouse gases is not detectable and must be insignificant. It is a non-problem. Trying to mitigate a natural warming (or cooling) is futile and a big waste of money better spent on real societal problems."

29

11+failed,

the pans 05/04/2008 09:35:14
22
And the fall in temperature of 0.75C between J07 and J08 was forecast, where?
30

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 05/04/2008 09:45:38
28. Singer is paid by big oil to spread disinformation.
31

eyeswider,

hahahaa 05/04/2008 09:51:42
#27 Alexander

Already the stupid card?

http://members.shaw.ca/sch25/FOS/Climate_Change_Science.html

From the above:
"The history of climate and CO2 concentration shows that temperature changes precede CO2 changes and can not be a significant driver of climate."

and

"The benefits of CO2 emissions greatly exceed any likely harmful effects. Several authorities who have studied solar cycles have warned that the Earth may soon enter a cooling phase as the Sun is expected to become less active."

I think you will be too ignorant to bother reading the above, very simply and comprehensively delivered, breakdown of the hype. Prove me wrong.


There is a great temperature trend graph at the start btw.



32

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 05/04/2008 10:02:08
What a relief that all of the Global Warming propaganda is now dying on its feet. The truth is that there are hundreds of scientists who don't go along with the anthropogenic climate change theory. These scientists are experts in this field. How did we ever get to this Orwellian situation where the pro-GW lobby can deny serious arguments to the contrary and is many cases literally shout down any opposition.

The term of preference for them is "denier" with all of its sinister Nazi connotations.

At last we are waking up to this thought control.
33

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 05/04/2008 10:07:15
#24 Tweedmouth

Yes, Tweedmouth, you have made your embarrassingly idiotic argument about ping pong balls et al before, and quite few folk have pointed out to you its idiocy, whilst no doubt trying not to fall off their chairs with laughter. Here is another similar experiment, (which in all kindness I would advise you not to actually try): Add 4ppm of hydrogen cyanide gas to the air you breath. I think you would find it has quite an effect, though I doubt you would be in a position to write back and tell us of your experiences thereafter.

As far as CO2 is concerned: you state it is a "non reactive, stable, non catalytic gas". But the chemical properties of CO2 are irrelevant with respect to its ability to absorb infra red radiation - which is how it warms the Earth. These effects have been very well understood for over a century. The ability of a particular molecule to absorb infra red radiation relates to the strength of the chemical bonds within the molecule and to the masses of the atoms at the ends of those bonds: those factors influence the size of the quanta of energy (ie frequencies of light) that can be absorbed. When a molecule absorbs a quanta of infra red radiation, it causes the molecule to bend or vibrate more rapidly. The bonds and masses in CO2 happen to be such to allow it to absorb at infra red frequencies. (So can water, methane, nitrous oxide and various man-made organic chlorine compounds, but oxygen and nitrogen and argon cannot). That absorption traps heat on Earth that would otherwise escape into space, thus warming up the Earth.

As far as a warming earth causing more CO2 to be released into the atmosphere - yes, of course it does, by entirely unrelated mechanisms. The fact is that 1. increase CO2 causes increased warming and 2. increased warming cause increased atmospheric CO2. That BOTH are true gives rise to the POSITIVE FEEDBACK mechanisms that are one of the most worrying aspects of global warming, since that is the basis of the "
34

eyeswider,

05/04/2008 10:09:30
#32 connaughtboy

Sadly it isn't over yet.

AGW deniers don’t get funding even if they seek it. Simple as that. It amazes me that there is any work being done in that particular vacuum. This produces several outcomes. The obvious being that deniers are poor and therefore poorly represented in the media and academia.
The increasingly shrill bleating from the alarmist warmers camp as their proof dissolves and the Sun comes around to save us from unwarranted draconian intervention into our lives shows their desperation for sure but Al Bore has not just been given .3 of a billion dollars for advertising so as to preach to the choir.

We need to actually fight this siht rather than just sit here griping and sniping.


35

Unimpressed one,

05/04/2008 10:13:38
"Singer is paid by big oil to spread disinformation."

This idiotic lie is why so many people give no credence to claims made by the green bams, such as yourself, who have a blind faith in the doom scenario. Christ I can't wait for the day when the obvious dawns and the media herd reverses its fad and pillories all the loonies for being so gullible. I fancy it may not be that far off.
36

Rulesbutnotrulers,

Federation, not separation 05/04/2008 10:14:53
Cooling? Warming? Equilibrium?

What really matters is that fossil and nuclear fuels are finite, that the population is exploding and that food and fuel are becoming scarce and pricy.

Let's focus on important matters, please.
37

eyeswider,

brrrrr 05/04/2008 10:19:46
#30 fred bloggs

That particular slander has been comprehensively debunked.

This is why I disregard anything you post.

Slioch and Guthrie also believe this lie so I have begun to think that what they post comes from a political position not their professedly scientific one.

If you can lie about this guy - even if, parrot fashion, you just took someone's word on the matter - then you are guilty of a far worse crime.


38

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 05/04/2008 10:21:22
34. It is well known that the oil and coal industries in the US (is that your undisclosed location?) have funded people and phony institutes to spread lies and disinformation about global warming.
39

Toom,

05/04/2008 10:23:42
#24 - Tweedmouth says "OK, take 10,000 white ping pong balls and put them in an empty swimmig pool. Now add FOUR red ping pong balls and mix well. Now go and try to find the 4 red balls among 10,000 white ones. You will be looking a long time. How can four molecules of non reactive, stable, non catalytic gas possibly affect the massively larger bulk of the other 10,000 molecules around them. Answer - they can't. Carbon dioxide cannot possibly CAUSE warming of the planet."

It has been known and demonstrable since the 1860s that nitrogen and oxygen, comprising 99% of the atmosphere are relative neutral in trapping radiated heat.
It has been known and demonstrable since the 1860s that CO2 at 0.04% and methane at 0.002%, together with vapour vapour are the principal active greenhouse gases. Without them average surface air temperature would be -15C; with then it is approx +15C
At 0.04%, your ping pong ball analogy translates to 10,000,000,000,000,000 molecules of CO2 per cubic centimetre of atmosphere. These molecules are travelling randomly at about 1600 Km per hour which is somewhat sufficient to transfer their heat/energy to the other components of air.
These are the accepted scientific and demonstrable facts which are usually acceptable by anyone with an informed opinion, whether it is for or against global warming. If you have evidence to the contrary then a Nobel prize awaits you. Please grace us by publishing your evidence here first.
40

eyeswider,

chilly bits 05/04/2008 10:24:32
#36 Rulesbutnotrulers

That is the other big lie. There is a shed load of oil and coal - and it just became a lot more profitable to bring to market as the prices have been manipulated to pay for war.



41

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 05/04/2008 10:26:06
Further to my 38: it is well known that the two Freds - Singer and Seitz (the late) - took dollars from Exxon and others for anti-AGW propoganda but also from Philip Morris to tell us that smoking is good for us.
42

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 05/04/2008 10:27:19
#29 11+failed

"And the fall in temperature of 0.75C between J07 and J08 was forecast, where?"

As far as I am aware no-one made such a forecast, nor do I think would anyone claim to be able to make forecasts of MONTHLY global temperatures concerning El Nino/La Nina events, which are difficult to forecast in advance. But I will forecast here that the overall ANNUAL drop in temperature as a result of this present La Nina (which is still continuing) will turn out to be about 0.2C. That doesn't require any more than an observation than that that is what normally happens as a result of a La Nina.

Incidentally, the global temperature INCREASE during the 1998 El Nina was very similar to our present La Nina decrease:

Feb 1997 +38C
Feb 1998 +1.02c (the peak month of the 1998 El Nino)

Thus, Feb 1997 to Feb 1998 increase = 0.64C.

The yearly 1998 increase = 0.223C above the long term trend on HADCRU compilation.
43

Unimpressed one,

05/04/2008 10:36:41
#41, "(I)t is well known that the two Freds - Singer and Seitz (the late) - took dollars from Exxon and others for anti-AGW propoganda but also from Philip Morris to tell us that smoking is good for us."

I assume you refer to the myth that passive smoking is harmful. The science said no but the anti-smoking brigade, such as ASH used dodgie stastisics to engineer a smoking ban. So again you parrot crap in typical greenie fashion in order to support your own flawed agenda.
44

Dave from Barra ©,

Western Isles 05/04/2008 10:45:40
The usual second hand scientists (or Non scientists actually) regurgitating second hand information on these boards. It's the same 3 always. The same 3 that try to take the moral high ground by trying to make themselves appear intelligent and informed.

Little do they know that nobody gives a flying fek what they they as people are too worried about keeping a roof over thier heads and not worried about the obvious - THAT THE WORLD CLIMATE WILL ALWAYS CHANGE NO MATTER WHETHER WE EXIST OR NOT.

Now, those that believe in MMGW, go live in a cave. Those that don't, carry on paying the bills and feeding your family.
45

eyeswider,

05/04/2008 10:47:35
#38 fred bloggs what is your undisclosed name?

That was money well spent then judging by all the edumacation displayed around the place.

#41 fred bloggs

Here is something of a movement to defend your namesake:

There is some wonderfully informed opinion on there and it gives me a little hope that the tide has turned.


Some stupid hack attacked Fred Singer on ABC.

There is loads of fallout.

Here is the original hit piece:
http://www.abcnews.go.com/Technology/GlobalWarming/story?id=4506059&page=1

and here is what has become a very public show of support for him:
http://www.abcnews.go.com/Technology/GlobalWarming/comments?type=story&id=4506059

Our very own inquisitors truthsleuth, fred bloggs, Guthrie and Slioch are now in a shrinking minority when it comes to slurring this icon of science and humanitarianism.

It would even seem he wasn't "paid off" by "big oil" after all. Gasp.


46

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 05/04/2008 10:52:15
43. Am I surprised that the deniers of the harm caused by smokers to people sharing the same air space are also deniers of AGW?

No.
47

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 05/04/2008 10:56:13
45. eyes-shut:

In 2007, Newsweek reported:

"In April 1998 a dozen people from the denial machine — including the Marshall Institute, Fred Singer's group and Exxon — met at the American Petroleum Institute's Washington headquarters. They proposed a $5 million campaign, according to a leaked eight-page memo, to convince the public that the science of global warming is riddled with controversy and uncertainty."
48

Neil,

Glasgow 05/04/2008 10:57:00
The problem with headlines saying "scientists say...." is that it is meaningless. Disagreement is what real science is about & since there are 100s of thousands of scientists across the world (such as the 19,000 who signed the widely unreported Oregon Petition against the warming scare) there are bound to be at least a plural number willing to support almost any journalistic point. The fact is that an awful lot of scientists say the warming claim is mince & the vast majority keep out of the way.

"Truthsleuth" perhaps, for the sake of truth you should rephrase:

Odd isn't it 10 years in their favour and its proof, no actual evidence for the alarmists claims and they want some.
49

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 05/04/2008 11:02:18
43. Fred Seitz was a paid consultant for R J Reynolds corporation.
50

Alexander,

Edinburgh 05/04/2008 11:03:24
31 eyeswider
Gee, thanks for the insult. Perhaps you should open your eyes a little wider and read what I wrote! I'll give you a clue, consider the relative dispositions of my tongue and cheek.
51

seanie,

05/04/2008 11:04:14
The La Nina will dissipate on a few months and average global temperatures will continue to rise, as they have done over the last 10 years, and within the next few years we'll have another El Nino and the 1998 (HadCRU)record will be decisivley broken.

Then the denialist will have to pick that year as the year "global warming stopped."

Up until the next peak as global temperatures continue to rise.
52

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 05/04/2008 11:05:25
48. Everyone knows that the 'Oregon Petition' was phony
53

eyeswider,

sector 3 05/04/2008 11:05:27
Lovely stuff:
http://www.abcnews.go.com/Technology/GlobalWarming/comments?type=story&id=4506059

Particularly:

"If you want to determine who is the real fraud in the climate debate just think of who is literally making millions of dollars; Al Gore and Dr. James Hansen or Dr. Singer."



54

Toom,

05/04/2008 11:05:40
We have, as usual in these comments, our regular bald men arguing over combs. The Met office spokesman is careful to put the current year's projection into the context of the background trends. Our current and projected temperature is, as always, a combination of factors, including sun activity, El Nino and La Nina effects, and levels of greenhouse gases. Whatever the resulting temperature, an increased level of greenhouse gases will make it RELATIVELY HIGHER THAN IT OTHERWISE WOULD HAVE BEEN.
If we were to experience one of the periodic Earth axis or orbit wobbles, or reduced sun activity, which results in cooling, then an increased greenhouse effect might, in effect, help keep things stable. Otherwise, in the current relatively quiescent period of natural factors, increasing CO2 is more likely to result in increasing temperature.
Since CO2 levels are measurably increasing, then that means their production is exceeding the available natural sinks' capacity to absorb them, and since human activity is releasing large amount of CO2 that means our activities are contributing to the greenhouse effect. I've yet to see any demonstrable or credible information or demonstration that things are otherwise.
It should also be borne in mind that the fact that the possibility of global warming may be exploited by capitalists or greens, and used to raise taxes, does not, per se, mean that it isn't happening.
55

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 05/04/2008 11:07:21
48 & 52:

and guess who wrote the Oregon Petition?

None other that the notorious paid denialist:

Fred Seitz!
56

eyeswider,

ooops 05/04/2008 11:07:22
#50 Alexander

ooOOoops

I just feel on my face didn't I (-;

I am so used to writing here and being called a stupid liar that I my knee jerked. Irony goes over the heads of most of the alarmists in here I have found.



57

eyeswider,

05/04/2008 11:09:42
#55 as usual fred the link:

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Technology/GlobalWarming/comments?type=story&id=4506059

is pearls before swine.

There are none so blind as those that will not see.
58

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 05/04/2008 11:13:58
57> eyes-shut:

I give you facts.

You give me links to denialist blogs.

Case proved.
59

11+failed,

the pans 05/04/2008 11:28:04
42
"nor do I think would anyone claim to be able to make forecasts of MONTHLY global temperatures"
It is annual changes that are being discussed not monthly. Seems you are going along with "Guthrie"(in hiding today apparently) who claimed earlier this week that a ten year fall in global temperatures was caused by two months of weather.
60

Toom,

05/04/2008 11:29:50
#53 Eyeswider "If you want to determine who is the real fraud in the climate debate just think of who is literally making millions of dollars; Al Gore and Dr. James Hansen or Dr. Singer."

One also has to consider the possibility that their income is directly and positively correlated with the credibility of their arguments.
If we are to accept the tenet that making millions from you viewpoint is evidence of your views being of doubtful validity, then many of our contributors to this discussion should be able to exploit this to their financial advantage.

61

eyeswider,

05/04/2008 11:34:30
#55 fred - it matters little who wrote it - who signed (and still does as the figure rises daily) it is what matters.

ABC News is a denialist blog - yep, sure anything you say. (backs away making conciliatory noises)


62

Rulesbutnotrulers,

Federation, not separation 05/04/2008 11:35:52
#40 Eyeswider (Mouthbigger?)

There may be shed loads of oil and coal, but it is still, as I said, finite. The more we use the quicker it will be used up, and what then? Nuclear is also finite. What then? Grasp the point, please.
63

eyeswider,

a new one 05/04/2008 11:41:53
#60 Toom

Gore is not allowed to speak in public about his "green investment company" because to do so would violate racketeering laws by "peddling a false prospectus."

yet

Gore has "earned" $100,000,000 in the last eight years.

Equitable? Credible?

64

seanie,

05/04/2008 11:44:07
#63 You're just making stuff up now.
65

Toom,

05/04/2008 11:46:12
#31 Eyeswider "The history of climate and CO2 concentration shows that temperature changes precede CO2 changes and can not be a significant driver of climate."

Which selectively omits that that is true only in certain circumstances such as gross changes due to other factors. When there are periodic orbital changes or axis wobbles typically causing start and end of ice ages, then movement of the Earth changes the temperature significantly, and the complex factors of oceanic heat sinks, algal blooms, temperature dependent solubility of CO2 in oceans, changes in land vegetation, will mean CO2 will not immediately correlate with the temperature change during these periods of fast climate change. During relatively stable periods, eg now, it largely will immediately correlate, and that is demonstrable in laboratory conditions as well as being measurable in the natural environment. Can you point us to any credible indication or argument that it is otherwise?




66

eyeswider,

05/04/2008 11:47:41
#62 Rulesbutnotrulers

If we have "200 years of easily obtainable" "fossil" fuel available to us we should be thankful that CO2 is a benign bounteous fertilizer and that mankind has used cow dung and wood to get to the industrial age and oil to get to the nuclear age. We will invent something to rid ourselves of our reliance on oil and coal _and_ nuclear - just be glad that we have over 2 centuries to do so.

Google peak oil scam for more info. Google abiotic (a-biotic) russian oil for the real eye-opener.

I will shut my mouth when I stop laughing.



67

eyeswider,

05/04/2008 11:48:36
#64 seanie alas no.

Do you people not use google or what?
68

drew 33,

05/04/2008 11:49:57
22 Slioch,

"1.The increased CO2 in the atmosphere causes an increase in the amount of heat captured from the sun. This results in a LONG TERM trend. The long term trend since 1975 is (and remains) +0.019deg Celsius per year."

The 2007 global average temperature was below the the 1960=90 average and continues to trend down.
"The University of East Anglia's Hadley Centre, predicted that, although 2008 would be cooler than some recent years, it would still be one of the 10 hottest years in history, and that any cooling would only "mask the underlying warming trend".
Seven weeks later it is clear that the cooling has gone much further than that, according better with the predictions of that growing body of scientists who argue that climate change is caused less by CO2 emissions than by magnetic activity on the Sun. They point to the abnormally low present sunspot level, of a type associated with severe cooling in the past, such as in the Little Ice Age between the 17th and early 19th centuries"
69

seanie,

05/04/2008 11:51:55
#67 I do use Google.

But I'm sane enough not to believe everything I find.
70

eyeswider,

yeah right 05/04/2008 11:55:33
#65 Toom

CO2 has been much higher, for much longer, many times before and coral reefs are still here. If they are a fragility indicator then we have nothing to worry about.



71

seanie,

05/04/2008 11:55:37
2007 was not below the 1960-90 average. It was the eighth warmest since records began.
72

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 05/04/2008 12:00:53
61. Eyes:

The infamous Oregon Petition was a phony. It was formatted to appear as a facsimile of the Proceeding of the National Academy of Sciences. It was in fact published by two denialist 'Institutes' funded by Exxon. Few of the people that signed it had a background in climate science, the only criterion was to be a college graduate .

Regarding your link: I said it was a link to a blog, not to a blog site. Your link is to a blog on the ABC News site.
73

drew 33,

05/04/2008 12:04:28
71seanie
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/obsdata/HadCRUT3.html
74

seanie,

05/04/2008 12:07:11
Try reading what the graphs are.

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

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

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

See that last bit?

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



75

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 05/04/2008 12:11:19
#59 11+failed referred to,

"nor do I think would anyone claim to be able to make forecasts of MONTHLY global temperatures"
It is annual changes that are being discussed not monthly."

You asked in #22 "And the fall in temperature of 0.75C between J07 and J08 was forecast where?". In other words you were asking about the difference in two global MONTHLY figures, Jan 07 and Jan 08. The ANNUAL difference between 2007 and 2008 isn't known yet (I'll leave you to work out why not).

You previously (in #20) stated, "I don't recall any predictions of a fall in global temperature of 0.6C to 0.75C for 2006-7." You were there referring to an annual change, but your implication that there had been such a fall was completely false. The annual global temperature anomalies (NASA GISS) for for 2006 and 2007 were:

2006 +0.65C
2007 *0.73C

- which is an INCREASE of 0.08C from 2006 to 2007. 2007 was the second warmest year (after 2005) ever recorded (since 1880) in the NASA GISS compilation.
76

Toom,

05/04/2008 12:12:24
#63 Eyeswider
Gore is indeed not exempt from compliance with the standard financial regulations
on how investments may be presented and marketed. His investment company is compliant and registered with the Financial Services Authority.

However, the fact that he also promotes a certains views and evidence of global warming is not, per se, evidence that global warming is not occurring, nor is the fact that he and others are making money from promoting their ideas.
77

eyeswider,

watching F1 qualifying 05/04/2008 12:23:12
#69 dude - seanie

Believe NASA?


"Apparent Relations Between Solar Activity
and Solar Tides Caused by the Planets"

Ching-Cheh Hung
Glenn Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio

http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/Citations.aspx?id=330

The main paper (pdf) is linked to at the bottom of the page.


The paper's release is remarkable for several reasons.

Its findings run counter to currently accepted fantasies.

It shows a wonderfully precise fit between solar events and planetary positions - which is _always_ what is objected to by scientists as "like astrology" so has been dismissed many times before even though Newton, Keppler and Brahe(amongst many others reaching back into the mists of time - because it is vital to agriculture) all worked on similar hypothesis and now here it is "with a confidence level of nearly 4 standard deviations" (meaning: extremely unlikely to be disproved).

It adds weight to the posited upcoming (or already here) cooling.

It was about time the boys with the biggest computers caught up.

Alternatively - for those of us that believe there are "too many people" for "dwindling resources" who continue to "pollute" the planet with plant food -

Move on citizen. Nothing to see here.


78

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 05/04/2008 12:26:02
#68 drew 33, claimed,

"The 2007 global average temperature was below the 1960=90 average and continues to trend down."

That is not true, or anywhere near true. Seanie has dealt with this misunderstanding.

Come back to us if you are still confused, otherwise I will assume you accept the data linked to by Seanie. data.
79

eyeswider,

during adverts 05/04/2008 12:27:16

Al Gore tells porkies. Hold the front page.
80

Toom,

05/04/2008 12:36:27
#70 Eyeswider "CO2 has been much higher, for much longer, many times before and coral reefs are still here. If they are a fragility indicator then we have nothing to worry about."

Which is indeed true and fully accounted for. Billions of coral larvae are produced at each spawning and if coral is dying of in one area will migrate and establish in a relatively more temperate zone.

But how is that relevant to what I said in #65 to which you direct your comments? The fact cited by you of periods where CO2 does not correlate with temperature, are well known and explainable, and I have explained them. You quoted that "CO2 changes can not be a significant driver of climate." follows from this. That is simply not so.

Let me state again - During relatively stable periods, eg now, it (CO2 levels and temperature) largely will immediately correlate, and that is demonstrable in laboratory conditions as well as being measurable in the natural environment. Can you point us to any credible indication or argument that it is otherwise?

A total non sequitur regarding coral reefs is not a credible indication or argument.

81

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 05/04/2008 12:38:32
77. eyes:

The paper you cite appears to have nothing to do with global warming or cooling. What is your point?
82

eyeswider,

05/04/2008 12:40:11
#80 Toom - would you peer review a paper for me please?

Ignore for just a while its provenance:
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/ClimateChange_Nicol.pdf


and have a good look at the science within please.
83

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 05/04/2008 12:40:51
#77 eyeswider

The Ching-Cheh Hung paper looks like an interesting paper, and is published by NASA, so should be taken seriously.
It makes NO reference or inference (as far as I see) to climate change on Earth or elsewhere.
84

eyeswider,

05/04/2008 12:53:21

# Slioch, fred - you have been following (or remember) my "lunacy" that planetary (not just ours) climate is controlled by the movement of those very planets haven't you?

This goes a looooong way toward that. They have missed some vital aspects but I am shocked(delighted) that it has seen the light of day.



CO2 again.
probably debunked (-;
http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.1161

85

seanie,

05/04/2008 12:55:53
Ahhh....I see.



Nurse! The medication!
86

Neil,

Glasgow 05/04/2008 12:56:34
Fred 53
"48. Everyone knows that the 'Oregon Petition' was phony"

Everyone knows that Fred is totally dishonest as is virtually everybody with the eco-Nazi agenda.

I do not wholly exclude the possibility that somebody on the "environmentalist" side here will come on & dissociate themselves from such total barefaced lies, in which case the possibility of that particular person being honest cannot be excluded. Beyond that the others merely prove that every word from them must be treated as lying eco-Nazi slogans rather than any form of honest debate.
87

seanie,

05/04/2008 12:58:40
We'll need the straitjackets too!
88

eyeswider,

lol 05/04/2008 13:02:33


http://www.redstate.com/stories/miscellanea/when_ten_years_is_not_a_trend

Whats happening (Jenson Button is even in final qualifying!)
89

seanie,

05/04/2008 13:03:57
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/myths/2.html

"A simple mathematical calculation of the temperature change over the latest decade (1998-2007) alone shows a continued warming of 0.1 °C per decade."
90

seanie,

05/04/2008