Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Saturday, 22nd November 2008 Change Date

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.

Arctic ice could be thinnest ever amid fears climate is 'low priority'



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: 16 September 2008
AS ANOTHER report reveals the vanishing state of the Arctic ice, scientists have raised fears that the message about the urgent need to act on climate change is not getting through fast enough.
The director of WWF Scotland has said only nuclear war or an asteroid hitting Earth should be considered more of a crisis than climate change.

New data has revealed this summer could have seen the lowest Arctic ice cover on record.

Dr Richard D
ixon admitted that, with concerns over house prices and the credit crunch, for some people it might not seem like the biggest priority.

But he said despite more immediate worries, it must be at the top of the list.

"Humans beings are genetically programmed to deal with the immediate crisis in front of them.

"If you don't know where your next crust of bread is coming from, you might not be concerned about what happens to the planet in 50 years' time."

But he said it must be seen as the biggest priority, and urged governments to act.

"If you don't tackle climate change, the global economy will fall apart," he said.

"If you don't tackle climate change the natural resources we rely on from timber to fish stocks will also be severely disrupted.

"Apart from all-out nuclear war or an asteroid hitting the planet, there isn't anything bigger than climate change."

The continuing loss of older, thicker ice means the cover has become dramatically thinner this year. The area of ice that is at least five years old has already decreased by 56 per cent between 1985 and 2007.

Dr Martin Sommerkorn, a senior climate change adviser at WWF International's Arctic Programme, said: "If you take reduced ice thickness into account, there is probably less ice overall in the Arctic this year than in any other year since monitoring began."

With less ice to reflect the sun's heat, more of it is absorbed by the water, adding to global warming.

This is also the first year that the Northwest Passage, over the top of North America, and the Northeast Passage, over the top of Russia, are both free of ice.

There are already signs that species including polar bears are suffering as climate change erodes the ice on which they rely.

Duncan McLaren, the chief executive of Friends of the Earth Scotland, thinks the public are not put off concerns about climate change by other worries, but by the enormity of the problem. "They are put off by the absolute magnitude of what it might mean," he said.

He said, as a result, both the public and governments look for excuses not to take action.

"What we get continually is people saying they want to do something but they say if they do it on their own it won't make a difference. The public is looking to the government and business to make the solutions easy to adopt."

Last week, a coalition of environment groups accused the main political parties of failing to prepare for the challenges of climate change, by switching focus instead to the economy.





The full article contains 527 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 15 September 2008 9:27 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Climate change
 
1

Resolutions,

16/09/2008 00:17:31
'Thin Arctic Ice' and 'Panic on Wall Street' and 'earthquakes' in every stock exchange!

Just perhaps, if these greedy industrialists, financiers et al, had not colluded to deny scientific facts, and manipulate them to suit a Presidential Election, we all might be in a better position. Certainly a more honest one.
2

Guga II,

Rockall 16/09/2008 02:23:43
More doom and gloom from the junk scientists on the make. More grants from government, and more taxes for governments.

Climate change is a fact, it always has been, since the beginnings of this planet. Minor variations are not the fault of people, they are a fact of life. The earth has been cooling for the past decade. The Antarctic ice is becoming thicker. The Arctic ice sheet has become smaller this summer, so what, big deal. It will be back to normal this (northern) winter.

Mars has been warming up at the same rate as the earth, presumably because of too many 4x4's running around. It will probably start to cool, just as the eath has for the last decade (maybe the Martian government has started to cash in on extra taxation too).

Why don't all these junk scientists go and find something useful to do?
3

Padraig,

16/09/2008 02:45:44
Guga said "Why don't all these junk scientists go and find something useful to do?"

Because they have built a well-paid career on climate alarmism and they have families to feed. Why would they kill the goose so long as it is delivering the bacon (to mix metaphors)?

And there isn't the same prospect for snake-oil salesmen as there once was.

Their problem is that we have seen through their propaganda and they have lost all credibility with worthless stunts to "sell" their pitch.
4

Another Anonymous Poster,

Edinburgh 16/09/2008 03:12:53
Excellent Article - Drastic Situation - I guess it just shows that each of us makes a difference through the choices we are able to make. Which means either choosing to take action (e.g. don't fly, reduce car use, insulate; build community responses; make what political pressure we can e.g vote Green) or it means responding by sticking our heads in te flat earth sands and insulting the messengers because we find the message too scary to really accept. For those who reassure themselves that this is all dreamt up by some scientists self interest, just have a look and see who is funding the very very few scisntists who cast any doubt on climate change science. It is not neutral Universities but oil companies.
5

Embra Don,

16/09/2008 04:04:54
# 2 Guga II,
# 3Padraig
On what evidence do you guys base this nonsense?

"We have seen through their propaganda" ??!!! Tell me you are joking...
6

Mark Renton,

Edinburgh 16/09/2008 04:53:21
The director of WWF Scotland syas we are all doomed.

I say he has his head up his ars.
7

Mark Renton,

Edinburgh 16/09/2008 04:54:56
If you're staying up nights worrying about your carbon footprint or how climate change is leaving polar bears adrift at sea, I've got the best advice you've heard in a while - get some sleep.

Al Gore and his global warming flunkies have half the world brainwashed into thinking our ice caps are melting, our seas are on the verge of boiling, and that everywhere from Miami to Juneau, Alaska is about to be ravaged by tropical diseases from malaria to Dengue Fever. Well, I've studied the science and I've got an "inconvenient truth" for Gore and company - the only hot air that's threatening the planet is coming out of their mouths.

Global warming has benefited from one of the greatest public relations and marketing efforts in recent history. You'll hear plenty from environmentalists about carbon emissions, clean energy, and the disappearing arctic, but here's what you will NEVER hear them admit:

Scientists have reaped MILLIONS from their global warming "research." They've turned supporting global warming - despite what the science really says - into a cash cow!
8

Anne,

Eaglesham 16/09/2008 06:25:37
What has been conveniently omitted from this article is that the Antarctic icecap is increasing in size.
9

hibbydoug,

edinburgh 16/09/2008 07:26:32
have a look out the window this morning...global warming !!!! aye i'm sittin in my deckchare-not.
10

Boy Wonder,

16/09/2008 07:32:52
Don't any of you be surprised when your grandkids develop gills!!!
11

Vote UKIP,

16/09/2008 07:35:48
That's because man made climate change is a lie. Don't believe it anymore.
12

eric,

16/09/2008 07:36:41
2 tribes go to war!
13

hibbydoug,

edinburgh 16/09/2008 07:37:39
With this lot you cannot win, if we have a cool wet summer it"s still the fault of global warming, i hope we have a freezer of a winter but that will just be a blip no doubt.
14

Vote UKIP,

16/09/2008 07:38:37
#8 Exactly right!

The Scotsman is a disgusting propaganda rag. Give it a few years and they'll be telling us that Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.
15

techpunk,

16/09/2008 07:55:21
"Apart from all-out nuclear war or an asteroid hitting the planet, there isn't anything bigger than climate change."

erm, world poverty? starvation? child mortality rates in developing countries? AIDS?.



16

Unimpressed one,

16/09/2008 08:52:36
""If you don't tackle climate change, the global economy will fall apart," he said."

Presumably this is WWF's attempt to link the financial crisis with GW. You can just see the headlines now- "Wall Steeet collapse dure to climate change!"

Of course what's bothering the pressure groups like WWF is that during times of economic downturn people priortise things - like mortgages, jobs, energy prices. They generally have no time for angst at the supermarkets over carrier bags or 'food miles'. Watch this space as 'climate change' goes off the boil over the next few months giving way to real the real concerns in ordinary people's lives. Meanwhile, the greenies will become increasingly desperate to link it to very thing going in order to get the publicity they crave.
17

eyeswide,

16/09/2008 08:55:30
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/monckton/monckton_what_hockey_stick.pdf

Every hack should read and absorb the above paper.

Do they not see that journalists are members of the very middle class that this ongoing exercise is designed to destroy? Maybe they are too stupid to realise that spreading this muck is accelerating their own demise. It would certainly seem so as they are too blind to perform due diligence on most of the "articles" they produce.

I would ask Ms Hayworth if she has any doubts about the climate fraud and those who promote it most.

Journalists should be at the forefront of the demand for an independent investigation into the so called "settled science" and to demand a debate between those eminent authorities who oppose the errant nonsense and those shrill voices whose pay check depends on postponing said debate until there are, once again, only two classes of human on this planet.

This is designed to create an elite and an underclass.

Journalists will not be a part of the elite.

Now is the time for you to do some real work.






18

nabodican,

Rural Scotland 16/09/2008 08:57:44
WWF,FOE etc have to keep the state of fear going in order that the gravy train they are on keeps on rolling.
Behind them off course, the puppet masters such as Al Gore and the wind industry keep on pulling the strings.
Climate change is a fact and is purely natural.
Those great greenwashed who think otherwise are living in cloud cuckoo land.
19

The Former Mr. Angry,

Perth 16/09/2008 09:08:45
There is an email piece circulating at the moment from WWF claiming that and I paraphrase "100 days left to halt global warming" then going on in lurid terms to decribe what will happen if we don't pay more in grants and fund WWF.

Along with this scare story above WWF and Dr Dixon appear to be getting desperate for us to swallow this propaganda, flinging in the plight of "cuddly" polar bears (but correct me if I'm wrong, their population is increasing!).

If Dixon thinks that global warming is the main priority right now here is the news - market meltdown! In a trice all the pontificating will disappear as people find their pensions and incomes affected and the likelihood of anyone choking on the cornflakes about some climate change (which, hello, has been going on for many thousands of years) is becoming vanishingly small, thank goodness. Next - Broon gets kicked out and somebody sensible I hope removes the stupid green taxes, carbon offsets and all the other Gore paraphernalia.
20

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 16/09/2008 09:17:01
Watch episode 2 of Dr Iain Stewart's excellent BBC2 series 'Earth - the Climate Wars' in which he shows how the denialists have spun lies and propaganda about the science, supported by the fossil fuel industries and the aided and abetted by the Bush Administration:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00dm7d5/
21

thinking,

Scotland 16/09/2008 09:19:05
'New data has revealed this summer could have seen the lowest Arctic ice cover on record.'
Which records are 'they' referring too and how long, exactly, have these records been kept?
22

John Cameron,

St Andrews 16/09/2008 09:25:04
Lewis Gordon Pugh, who set out to paddle a kayak to the Pole to demonstrate the vanishing of the Arctic ice, had to turn back 600 miles short of his goal. At 80.5 degrees north, he met with ice so thick that he and his fossil-fuelled support ship could not go on. This set back did not prevent him boasting that he had travelled "further north than anyone has kayaked so far”. Gordon Brown sent him a message of congratulation which is usually the kiss of death. In fact the Norwegian explorer Fridtjof Nansen in 1893 found the Arctic so ice-free that he was able to kayak above 82 degrees north, 100 miles nearer the Pole than this hapless campaigner "against unprecedented global warming".
23

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 16/09/2008 09:44:55
#17 Eyeswide

Monckton has attempted to demolish the 'hockey stick' graph before, in an article published via the Daily Telegraph, 5th Nov. 2006 entitled "Apocalypse Cancelled". In it Monckton claimed that:

"According to ... Soon & Baliunas (2003), the mediaeval warm period was warmer than the current warm period by up to 3C."

But if you actually bother to scrutinise the Soon & Baliunas (2003) paper you find that they make no such claim, and nothing like it.

Monckton peddles falsehoods to those who want to believe that MMGW isn't happening. I previously went to the trouble of studying his "Apocalypse Cancelled" paper and, like many others, found many errors like that mentioned above. I'm not going to bother with his latest effort. No doubt others will.
24

geekpie,

forfar 16/09/2008 09:57:10
There isn't a chance of saving the ice.

Even so, we should have far bigger taxes on driving a car. In July, the RAC reported that the cost of motoring has fallen by 18% in real terms over the past 20 years (despite the price of fuel rising by 210% in that time).

No wonder there are too many cars on our streets and parents won't let their kids walk to school any more.
25

eyeswider,

16/09/2008 09:58:08
The real issues, as mentioned by techpunk, are being completely ignored yet anyone on board the overriding agenda gets their bull trumpeted to the heights, is beatified and gets to "speak to congress".

Follow the money.

Al Gore - 8 years ago a failed politician and skint. Now. Still a failed politician but has 100 million in the bank. Fearmongering pays.

Pick a "pop" scientist like Iain Stewart. Lectured for 12 years (geology) after gaining his degree and spent the last 6 years working exclusively on volcanoes and earthquakes for the beeb, except for a brief sojourn delivering his verdict on some junk science shows but his brogue is used to forward the claims of the elite. Gets paid handsomely for spouting junk climate science (and falsifying results via overdose and coloured filters) yet has done none.

(Ice)Pick a politician. Any politician. Taxes. Lovely taxes.

James Hansen (NASA) able to fly first class from continent to continent to defend criminal behaviour by irresponsible idiots because he is extrememly well paid and has recieved 100's of thousands of dollars in "awards" for spouting scare stories.

Greenpeace, WWF, etc. 10's of millions a year in funding and donations.

Research scientists. Good money if you can get it. And you only get it for investigating the one side, not the other. Do a peer review old chap would you? No problem old boy as you could return the compliment. The kids need a new snowmobile don't you know.

Wind power. All the energy companies say "yes please, give me some tax breaks and some of that tax money and we can create as many non-working wind farms as you like".

Even the oil companies have seen the light and are applying for funding and tax breaks.

Ladies and gentlemen. I give you the IPCC. Billions spent on "preparing" and delivering the verict that, incidentally, needs meetings in exotic locales to organise the next meeting. Flying in by airliner. Eating 5 course meals. Yummy.

Follow the money.

26

It's life but not as we know it,

The Oort Clouds 16/09/2008 10:01:42
I'm just sick of hearing this greenie climate change bilge. The climate has always been changing long before man had any impact. 10,000 years ago it went through an ice age. In Victorian times the Thames froze over. Get a grip and stop fussing about nothing.
27

drunken proffet,

Tassy 16/09/2008 10:02:59
I watched the "Day after Tomorrow" on my computer. Gee it was good big hailstones, terrible storms and lots of places getting flooded out of business. It is not real though. Personally I reckon on a whacking great asteroid hitting the earth. Much like the one that came out of the sun and they noticed it when it passed. It is all relative, maybe not a lot of folk around, but the earth should survive.
28

Tweedmouth,

Coldstream 16/09/2008 10:03:24
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?view=DETAILS&grid=A1YourView&xml=/opinion/2008/09/14/do1402.xml

"Recent events have seen the scare campaign over global warming descend to the level of a Monty Python sketch. Much publicity was given, for instance, to Lewis Gordon Pugh, who set out to paddle a kayak to the Pole to demonstrate the vanishing of the Arctic ice. At 80.5 degrees north, still 600 miles short of his goal, he met with ice so thick that he and his fossil-fuelled support ship had to turn back.

But this did not prevent him receiving a congratulatory call from Gordon Brown, nor boasting that he had travelled "further north than anyone has kayaked so far". It took the admirable "Watts Up With That" blog, run by the American meteorologist Anthony Watts, to point out that in 1893 the Norwegian explorer Fridtjof Nansen found the Arctic so ice-free that he was able to kayak above 82 degrees north, 100 miles nearer the Pole than our hapless campaigner against "unprecedented global warming". There has also been an acclaimed new paper by Michael Mann, the creator of the iconic "hockey stick" graph, purporting to show that the world has recently become hotter than at any time in recorded history, eliminating all the wealth of evidence to show that temperatures were higher in the Mediaeval Warm Period than today.

After being used obsessively by the IPCC's 2001 report to promote the cause, the "hockey stick" was comprehensively discredited, not least by Steve McIntyre, a Canadian computer analyst, who showed that Mann had built into his computer programme an algorithm (or "al-gore-ithm") which would produce the hockey stick shape even if the data fed in was just "random noise".

Two weeks ago Dr Mann published a new study, claiming to have used 1,209 new historic "temperature proxies" to show that his original graph was essentially correct after all. This was faithfully reported by the media as further confirmation that we live in a time of unprec
29

Tweedmouth,

Coldstream 16/09/2008 10:03:53
CONTINUED
Two weeks ago Dr Mann published a new study, claiming to have used 1,209 new historic "temperature proxies" to show that his original graph was essentially correct after all. This was faithfully reported by the media as further confirmation that we live in a time of unprecedented warming. Steve McIntyre immediately got to work and, supported by expert readers on his Climate Audit website, shredded Mann's new version as mercilessly as he had the original.

He again showed how selective Mann had been in his new data, excluding anything which confirmed the Mediaeval Warming and concentrating on that showing temperatures recently rising to record levels.

Finnish experts pointed out that, where Mann placed emphasis on the evidence of sediments from Finnish lakes, there were particular reasons why these should have shown rising temperatures in recent years, such as expanding towns on their shores. McIntyre even discovered a part of Mann's programme akin to a disguised version of his earlier algorithm, which he now calls "Mannomatics".

But Mann's new study will surely be used to push the warmist party line in the run-up to the IPCC international conference in Copenhagen next year to agree a successor to the Kyoto Protocol.

Meanwhile, back in the real world, temperatures continue to drop. The latest Nasa satellite readings on global temperatures from the University of Alabama, one of four officially recognised sources of temperature data, show that August was the fourth month this year when temperatures fell below their 30-year average, ie since satellite records began. The US National Climatic Data Center showsis showing that last month in the USA was only the 39th warmest since records began 113 years ago.
30

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 16/09/2008 10:08:27
#21 thinking

Data on Arctic sea ice can be found here:

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/index.html

It has only been kept since 1979 unfortunately, but in that time the area of sea ice has decreased, and has done so dramatically in the last few years.

It is interesting to see how this summer's sea ice retreat has been catching up with 2007's. The following figures give the difference between 2007 and 2008 in square kilometres of sea ice (with the 2007 area always less than 2008):

July 17th 1,050,000 sq.km.
Aug 1st 890,000 sq.km.
Aug 11th 780,000 sq.km.
Aug 25th 580,000 sq.km.
Aug 26th 430,000 sq.km.
Sept 4th 370,000 sq.km.

August 2008 saw the fastest daily rate of Arctic sea ice loss ever recorded in that month.

Interestingly, Antarctic sea ice area has slightly increased since 1979, see:

http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn14724-antarctic-sea-ice-increases-despite-warming.html
31

eyeswider,

16/09/2008 10:11:23
Bjarne Andresen, a professor at The Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen

"Discussions on global warming often refer to 'global temperature.' Yet the concept is thermodynamically, as well as mathematically, an impossibility".



32

Resolutions,

16/09/2008 10:11:41
From #4"For those who reassure themselves that this is all dreamt up by some scientists self interest, just have a look and see who is funding the very very few scisntists who cast any doubt on climate change science. It is not neutral Universities but oil companies."

From#7 Scientists have reaped MILLIONS from their global warming "research." They've turned supporting global warming - despite what the science really says - into a cash cow!

From #15 "Apart from all-out nuclear war or an asteroid hitting the planet, there isn't anything bigger than climate change."

erm, world poverty? starvation? child mortality rates in developing countries? AIDS?."

Point 1 The few scientists who are in the pay of the big industrialists you mean? Those with vested interests and access to a vast - I mean vast - publicity machine to cast out garbage propaganda for their companies?

Point 2 Those on the other side are not too numerous and certainly have not been making millions. The basic facts and statistics have been gathered over many years - the interpretation of these is never given the proper consideration as the usual 'too academic' lot get going.

Point 3 What drives everything on this planet? The resources we have been blessed with and our use of them. Despite everything spoited we have never controlled that - we cannot control climate and that drives what grows what can survive, where we can do well where we are poor

BUT we can abuse that natural process by man's activity.

And we can plan to make the best of the hand we are dealt and stop accelerating speed of change

And we can start being a dashed sight less gullible to the 'big business' interests, manipulating us, for the benefit of their pockets and not the general welfare of Home Planet Earth.

ie looking at the Real Research and not pandering to the misinformation which the web's founder was expressing concerns about the other day.




33

drunken proffet,

Tassy 16/09/2008 10:26:05
Dunno, it could be that ever since they had that film on penguins the government reckoned they should do something about the ice. Could be a vote winner.
34

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 16/09/2008 10:28:59
'Open water now stretches all the way round the Arctic':

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/for-the-first-time-in-human-history-the-north-pole-can-be-circumnavigated-913924.html
35

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 16/09/2008 10:35:07
#30 Tweedmouth

You don't give the source of your information (or misinformation) concerning August temperatures so it is not possible to check what you say. However, one should not take much notice of an individual month's global average temperature, since there is much variation from month to month. And certainly your mention of temperatures in the USA is irrelevant when trying to assess global temperature changes. The USA is only about 2% of the Earth's surface.

For interest (but not for significance) the HADCRU record shows August 2008 the seventh warmest globally average since records began in 1850. see:

http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh%2Bsh/monthly

and NASA GISS shows August 2008 the 19th warmest globally average since records began in 1880. see:

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

However, to illustrate how monthly global average temperatures are not to be regarded as very significant, the NASA GISS series also shows July 2008 to be the third warmest since 1880.
36

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 16/09/2008 10:38:02
The Real Climate Censorship - how right-wing politicians pressurised the IPCC to water down their predictions on climate change:

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2007/04/10/the-real-climate-censorship/
37

eyeswider,

16/09/2008 11:32:07
34 Dave-

They don't want to go there do they?

Prof David Vaughan, a glacier expert at the British Antarctic Survey, said: "There are a lot of differences from year to year in the Antarctic. Some climate stations show warming and some, like the one at the South Pole, show cooling. The jury is still out on what is going to happen."

Dr. David Bromwich. President of the International Commission on Polar Meteorology:
“It’s hard to see a global warming signal from the mainland of Antarctica right now.”

Latest (yesterday) satellite product for Antarctica(yes, I know it is springtime down there):

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/antarctic.jpg

The bit that is always in the news - spot the volcano:

http://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov/Volcanoes/Antarctica/Maps/map_antarctica_volcanoes.html

Best stay away, eh.

I could recommend a good book:

http://www.archive.org/details/farthestnorthbei02nans

Farthest north; being a record of a voyage of exploration of the ship "Fram" 1893-96
38

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 16/09/2008 11:57:55
#39 eyeswider

"They don't want to go there do they?"

See link at foot of #31.

#32 eyeswider

You clearly don't understand Bjarne Andresen's misleading comment. Perhaps Bjarne Andresen doesn't either.
39

Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 16/09/2008 12:00:22
So we are supposed to react to and panic about every single little change in the weather nowadays are we? And put that above dealing with more immediate matters such as "how are we going to continue putting food on the table"?

It just goes to show the depths these climate fascists will plumb when they equate nuclear war or an asteroid hitting the earth to a bit of a change in weather. They can ram their daft King Canute politics.

Anyway, judging by the last two summers we've had in Scotland, we could do with a bit of global warming.
40

eyeswider,

16/09/2008 12:08:34
Our resident "guardian of the junk-rag knowledge" just pointed to a hit piece riddled with errant nonsense and whose title includes the staggeringly arrogant, and journalistically inept, "first time in human history" as if we knew this stuff, in that detail, before the satellites(1979).

The satellites, by the way, that have shown us:
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/RSSvs_Hansen.JPG

Remote Sensing System's 30 years of temperatures versus Hansen's 1988 "runaway" warming predictions.

Also:

UAH satellite current temperature product for 2008-
2008 1 -0.046
2008 2 0.020
2008 3 0.094
2008 4 0.015
2008 5 -0.180
2008 6 -0.114
2008 7 0.048
2008 8 -0.010

A lot of zero anomalies so far this year.

It certainly felt more like that than the GISS (Hansen's protected, proprietary and probably fraudulent) product.

41

eyeswider,

16/09/2008 12:26:24
41 Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head-

Yes, yes and it isn't going to happen, sadly.

The purposeful ignoring of alternatives to oil and coal and the promotion of taxation as the cure to our CO2 addiction are all I need to show me that the main "green" agenda is to punish us for advancing this far. All humans must die.

If hemp and vegetable mass were the fuels of choice for Henry Ford and are obviously preferable to petroleum distillate in automotion and gas, or coal, in power production why are we concentrating on sequestration and capture?

Why nuclear, when this:

http://www.greencrudeproduction.com/

is possible?

And, if nuclear, why not this:

http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html

Money. Not the environment or prevention of human suffering. Just money.

42

Unimpressed one,

16/09/2008 12:40:02
The bottom line is this. The earth is cooling - even those deniers such as the BBC, the RS and the IPCC - will slowly admit to this when it becomes blantantly obvious. Once the lights start to go out in the UK, our supine greenie government will start implementing a sensible energy policy based on real generation like coal and nuclear. 'Renewables' will disappear once the subsidies are withdrawn and only remote island communities and beardies will still promote them. history will judge this latest scare with mirth and disbelief much as we look back on witchcraft.
43

TimW1234,

Ottawa, Canada 16/09/2008 12:45:59
#16 Unimpressed One

I see that this poster is still in a state of denial.

I hardly think the WWF is a "pressure group" and the "greenies", as he so inexpertly puts it, are not media hogs but truly concerned with the downturn our world climate is taking.

He can stick his head in the sand and wallow in his own self-importance and self-opinonatedness but he may be the loser when he realised that all the "dire" warning were TRUE!
44

Vlad Tepes,

EDINBURGH 16/09/2008 13:11:59
Some contributors to this forum still seem to think that there is genuine scientific debate about whether global warming is driven by people's GHG emissions. There is not. For many years the IPCC (there is no higher provenance in this field, except perhaps Unimpressed 1, lol) have been telling us, with ever-reducing uncertainty, that pumping CO2 &c into the atmosphere is changing the climate (no-brainer really).
This is not because many hundreds of experts forgot to check the effects of sunspots, volcanoes, cosmic rays, "natural cycles", glacial rebound or any of the other semi-plausible hypotheses; it's because they analysed all the evidence and concluded that anthropogenic GHGs are the main cause. This is not news, there are no other suspects, and the past decade of research has just made us more certain. Furthermore if only "natural" factors were at work we would have experienced cooling over the past 50 years.
I can't believe that all these silly ideas are produced by misguided people; sadly many are sure to be cynical lies from fossil-fuel peddlers and greedy industrialists. These latter are worse than the odious holocaust deniers.
45

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 16/09/2008 13:25:32
The assorted climate sceptics above seem to think that changes in the Antarctic icecap support their arguments. They are wrong.

The Antarctic ice is melting round the edges where it is in contact with the warming ocean. In the centre where the ice is very thick and in contact with solid ground temperatures are still very low and the increased precipitation is falling as snow and thickening the ice.

THE most comprehensive study to date of Antarctica's ice confirms growing concern that the ice cap is melting faster than predicted.

The implications are that the global sea level will rise faster than expected, while a huge influx of freshwater into the salty oceans could alter ocean currents.

Antarctica holds 90 per cent of Earth's ice.

According to the new findings, snowfall is topping up ice in the continent's interior and East Antarctic has held its own. But West Antarctica and the Antarctic Peninsula lost nearly 200 billion tonnes of ice in 2006 alone.

That is 75 per cent more than losses in 1996 and the equivalent of a global sea level rise of more than half a millimetre, claim international scientists led by NASA geoscientist Eric Rignot, also with the University of California, Irvine (UCI).

46

eyeswider,

16/09/2008 13:52:46
46 Vlad Tepes-

There is at least one no-brainer here. Your claim that an entirely political organisation's investigation has ended scientific discovery shows which niche you inhabit.

There is no debate partly _because_ the IPCC have insisted that there will be none and their 50 pet scientists lend a hand.

But if it makes you feel better.....
47

eyeswider,

16/09/2008 13:56:23
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6276576.stm

"Armies of insects once crawled through lush forests in a region of Greenland now covered by more than 2,000m of ice. DNA extracted from ice cores shows that moths and butterflies were living in forests of spruce and pine in the area between 450,000 and 800,000 years ago. Researchers writing in Science magazine say the specimens could represent the oldest pure DNA samples ever obtained. The ice cores also suggest that the ice sheet is more resistant to warming than previously thought, the scientists say."

American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate:
"Glaciers are growing in the Himalayan Mountains, confounding global warming alarmists who recently claimed the glaciers were shrinking and that global warming was to blame."

VK Raina, India's leading Glaciologist:
"Claims of global warming causing glacial melt in the Himalayas are based on wrong assumptions. Out of 9,575 glaciers in India, 'til date, research has been conducted only on about 50. Nearly 200 years data has shown that nothing abnormal has occurred in any of these glaciers. It is simple. The issue of glacial retreat is being sensationalized by a few individuals."

48

Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 16/09/2008 14:06:19
#47:

Ok Fred, I'll bite.

Let's say you are talking absolute 100% truth. What are you, personally, doing to change the situation? I'm not interested in what "everyone should be doing". All I'm interested in is what you are personally doing about it. A similar question goes to Slioch and all the other beardy-weirdys with gaelic sounding monickers who are so quick to push the propaganda and come down hard on anyone who dares to question it.

It may surprise all of you to know that I am conscious of not wasting energy, but not for the daft pie-in-the-sky reasons that are being peddled by anyone who wants to justify higher taxes and less freedom. I try not to waste energy because it saves me money and for no other reason.
49

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 16/09/2008 14:39:52
49. There is no doubt that the majority of glaciers are shrinking. However, even if they all melt the amount contribution so sea level rise will be small compared to that caused by the melting of the Greenland ice-cap.

Furthermore the sea level rise due to thermal expansion caused by globel warming will be about the same.
50

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 16/09/2008 14:40:56
global!
51

,

16/09/2008 14:41:28
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
52

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 16/09/2008 14:53:17
50. In answer to your rather personal question Mr Fossil Fuel Head: by not owning an infernal combustion driven vehicle but locomoting via 'Shanks pony' my carbon footprint is greatly reduced.

And I am neither 'beardy' or 'wierdy'.

Your final paragraph illustrates a callous selfishness epitomised by your posts on other subjects as well as climate change.
53

eyeswider,

16/09/2008 14:55:54


"On global warming, public policy is where the science was in 1998. Due to new evidence, science has since moved off in a different direction. The UN science body on this matter, the IPCC, is a political body composed mainly of bureaucrats. So far it has resisted acknowledging the new evidence. But as Lord Keynes famously asked, "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?" - Dr David Evans



54

eyeswider,

16/09/2008 15:02:07
Most of the "measurements" used to "prove" AGW are moving upwards exactly as they should whilst our planet moves out of an ice age. The wonder is that some are moving extremely slowly and some have stalled.

Pacific sea levels:

http://lh5.ggpht.com/organonarchitecture/SKNPQL_5fQI/AAAAAAAAC7k/px9ciC65WWI/s1600-h/SealevelPacific1%5B5%5D.jpg

You may be sure that the slope of applied taxation does not resemble any of them.

55

thinking,

Scotland 16/09/2008 15:13:53
#31 Slioch
Thanks for the info but 29 years is too short a time to determine weather trends.
It often seems to go in 10 year mini cycles and 50 stronger cycles.
i.e. with last year's flooding some people were saying they remembered the same happened 50 years earlier.
1976 was a hot summer, so was 1996 and 2006. (I think 1986 was too)
So 30 years or less is far too short a time.
56

eyeswider,

16/09/2008 15:19:40
Global sea levels have been rising, usually, since the end of the last glacial period because ice sheets and glaciers on land continue to melt and add their contents to the oceans. The rate of global sea level rise has been sometimes variable, but no significant change to the rate has been observed recently.

http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/images/alt_gmsl_seas_not_rem.jpg

If this "trend" continues we will "suffer" from a 1 foot rise in sea level by 2100.

If it stays warm.

Which it will not.

57

walter,

16/09/2008 15:34:02
Quotes by Goebbels and Hitler.
"The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly - it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over".
"Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it".
"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State".

Any individual, group or organization will use these tactics to fulfill their agenda.
They will attempt to discredit any who disagree with them.
They will rubbish any evidence or belief that does not agree with them.
58

Media 1,

cape town 16/09/2008 15:49:46
I wish these people who bang on about climate change would just go away and leave the rest of us to carry on living without their constant drivel.

Ofcourse the ice sheets are melting, they tend to do so over billions of years and will continue to do so whether we are here or not.

You cannot change nature, ice melts, its normal!

Buy a Hummer today! Good cars and comfy...
59

eyeswider,

16/09/2008 15:54:46
62 Media 1-

It is fine for you. You live somewhere that will stay warm when the cooling hits the rest of us and your government has not bought into the tax scam. Relax guy. Take a seat. Look over there....


60

Media 1,

cape town 16/09/2008 16:01:43
eyeswider

Cooling, heating! The Earth will do what it needs to do and there is nothing we humans can do to stop it.

We have almost no impact at all - miniscule! Earth is a grain of sand, EVEN SMALLER, so chill out and let nature take its course.
61

eyeswider,

16/09/2008 16:03:37
61 walter-

Gorebbels learned his trade well under Bill. We are currently suffering economically from the repeal of a safety net put in place after the great depression and removed by the Clinton administartation. Bill signed it, but it was constant pressure on the dimwit Gore that pushed it to front and centre.

Same day? The signatories (JP Morgan, Chase, CitiGroup) discussed with big Al the possibility of a carbon bourse - the legendary "if they could tax the air that we breath, they would".

And the rest is history.

62

eyeswider,

16/09/2008 16:08:13
64 Media 1-

The point is that if we take measures to combat/prepare for/mitigate hot and it then turns cold:

We have wasted capital.
We have wasted energy.
We have sentenced people to suffering and, possibly death.

Unnecessarily.



63

Media 1,

cape town 16/09/2008 16:12:43
eyeswider

We dont need to take measures though, our impact is non existant!
64

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 16/09/2008 16:29:20
'From the high mountains to the vast polar ice sheets, the world is losing its ice faster than anyone thought possible. It’s no surprise that glaciers are melting as emissions from cars and industry warm the climate.
But lately, the ice loss has outstripped the
upward creep of temperatures.

The temperature threshold for drastic sea-level rise is near, but many scientists think we still have time to stop it, by sharply cutting back consumption of climate-warming coal, oil and gas. Few doubt, however, that another 50 years of business as usual will take us beyond a point of no return.'

- National Geographic.
65

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 16/09/2008 16:35:59
'Melting ice makes new Arctic border':

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/7609500.stm
66

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 16/09/2008 16:49:57
'The Arctic system is moving toward a new
state that falls outside the envelope of glacial-interglacial fluctuations that prevailed during
recent Earth history. This future Arctic is likely
to have dramatically less permanent ice than
exists at present. At the present rate of change, a
summer ice-free Arctic Ocean within a century
is a real possibility, a state not witnessed for at
least a million years'

- http://atoc.colorado.edu/~dcn/reprints/Overpeck_etal_EOS2005.pdf
67

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 16/09/2008 16:57:03
71. Your link says the rise would be more than 3 times what the IPCC have predicted:

'That would inundate much of Bangladesh, displacing millions of people, and would also endanger many low-lying coastal cities such as New Orleans and New York City, scientists have warned.'

Nothing to worry about then???

68

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 16/09/2008 17:14:08
#71 Scallywag

As Fred says, a rise in sea level of 0.8 - 2.0 metres by 2100 presents enormous problems, particularly when you consider that it would continue rising at a similar rate for several centuries.

The National Geographic piece that you linked to referred to "predictions from some scientists, who have warned that sea levels may rise as much as 16 feet (5 meters) by 2100." There have not been any such predictions. None of the publications like NG that ran articles following the publication of this paper were able to name any scientist who had made such a prediction. The falsehood came from a badly worded press release, but as Goebbels and Hitler realised (see #61 above), all you have to do is to repeat a lie often enough and it becomes a "fact".

Another example of this, on another subject, is Donald Trump's assertion that "93% of people in the north east" support his housing/golf course development. It is a lie, pure and simple, but repeated often enough it become a "fact" and then politicians have to act accordingly.
69

Calvinist,

16/09/2008 17:28:07
It's easy to see why Scotland comes only Second to the US in the Scientific Illiteracy League. Just read the comments above and despair. And we once had an enlightenment too. I'm afraid I trust Scientific findings because science is a truly international pursuit, which operates democratically in that all scientific findings are subject to peer review and overall a consensus is reached. Whether you like it or not, the consensus within the scientific community is that global warming is occurring and the principal cause is CO2 emissions. If you don't believe me then read the excellent special edition of Nature on this topic.
70

Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 16/09/2008 17:47:21
Fred:

Did you sell your car for this "cause" then?

And by the way IF you're going to argue a case about science then at least have the courtesy to use the correct terminology.

A carbon footprint is a mark made on a floor (usually a light-coloured carpet) as a result of someone treading in some ashes from a bonfire and not wiping their feet before coming into the house.

When you start using the correct terminology instead of meaningless "buzz-words" and "in" phrases, I might... just might... take you seriously... And all your beardy-wierdy, sandal-wearing mates as well.
71

Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 16/09/2008 17:54:44
Fred (again):

So I'm selfish because I want to save myself some money then am I? Even though the means by which I am doing so is PRECISELY IN LINE with the propaganda that you and the beard and sandals brigade are peddling?

The lot of you are hypocrites to a man.
72

Red Etin,

16/09/2008 17:57:12
" Whether you like it or not, the consensus within the scientific community is that global warming is occurring and the principal cause is CO2 emissions. If you don't believe me then read the excellent special edition of Nature on this topic. "

Science is not about consensus. CO2 is increasing because the globe is warming, not the other way around. Most CO2 in the atmosphere comes from natural sources. Water vapour is by far the most significant greenhouse gas.
73

Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 16/09/2008 18:05:51
#79:

But junk science IS all about "consensus"... and the louder you shout the more "consensus" you carry with you---especially if what you say has potential for governments to make money and/or to impose restrictions on freedom.
74

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 16/09/2008 18:08:23
79. Oh not that old chestnut again:

In fact: Does temperature rise cause CO2 rise or the other way around? A common misconception is that you can only have one or the other. In actuality, the answer is both.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm


75

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 16/09/2008 18:10:25
#80 Fuel Head shouts louder than anybody even though he shows no sign of understanding the science.
76

Friar Tuck,

Port Perry, Ontario, Canada 16/09/2008 18:25:24
I don't see a problem. I have some ocean-front property for sale on the Arctic Ocean. Buy now before the price goes up!
77

Waspy100,

16/09/2008 20:30:15
Mayby the reason the Antartic ice is increasing is because its winter rhere????
DOH
78

,

16/09/2008 20:54:06
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
79

,

16/09/2008 20:59:22
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
80

mike - across the pond,

16/09/2008 21:00:52
when taking a test....

ever & never.... these are clue-ins to FALSE statements...
81

Red Etin,

16/09/2008 21:01:13
#84 Friar Tuck,Port Perry, Ontario

Hang on to your property, it might soon be miles fae the sea.

Arctic sea level falls...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5076322.stm
82

mike - across the pond,

spectator.... 16/09/2008 21:03:12
so you are gonna go plug up all the volcanoes....

because you are aware that ONE SINGLE medium sized volcanic eruption releases more CO2 into the atmosphree than the grand sum of ALL that man has released.... EVER
83

,

16/09/2008 21:07:05
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
84

57Nomad,

california 16/09/2008 21:24:20
#46 vlad

vlad said:

"Some contributors to this forum still seem to think that there is genuine scientific debate about whether global warming