Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Tuesday, 7th October 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.

Climate change talks to hammer out 'son of Kyoto'



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: 02 June 2008
CRUCIAL climate-change talks get underway today to discuss the next steps the international community needs to take to tackle global warming.
Some 2,000 delegates from 162 countries and dozens of specialist agencies will gather in Germany for the two-week conference, the first to get into the nuts and bolts of a new global-warming agreement meant to take effect after 2012.

The meeting
builds on a landmark accord reached last December on the Indonesian island of Bali which, for the first time, held out the promise that the United States, China and India will join a coordinated effort to control carbon emissions blamed for the unnatural heating of the Earth.

The Bali conference agreed to conclude a new climate-change treaty by December 2009. Another conference four months later in Bangkok adopted a negotiating timetable. In Bonn, "the real work is now only beginning," said Yvo de Boer, the UN's top climate-change official.

Scientists say the world's carbon emissions must peak within the next 10 to 15 years and then fall by half by mid-century to avoid potentially catastrophic changes in weather patterns, a rise in sea levels that would threaten coastal cities and the mass extinction of plants and animals.

The new-climate change pact will follow the first phase of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which requires 37 industrialised nations to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions an average of 5 per cent below 1990 levels by 2012.

The United States is the only industrialised nation not to have ratified Kyoto. Negotiators hope Washington's consent to the Bali "action plan" marked the end of its hostility toward working with other countries to contain global warming.

"Their attitude, their activity, has changed very much in the recent year. It's really a big change," said Andrej Kranjc of Slovenia, the head of the European Union delegation.

Still, the US administration of George Bush rejects specific and mandatory targets to reduce emissions over the next dozen years. And countries like India and China question why they should accept limits on their development without commitments from the US – the world's largest per-capita polluter by far. Delegates say such major decisions must wait for the new US administration next January.

"It's unlikely we're going to make lots of progress because we need strong signals from the US, and that's not going happen until the election," said Ian Fry, the delegate from the tiny Pacific nation of Tuvalu.

BACKGROUND

THE Bonn meeting is the second of eight meant to clinch by 2009 a broader and tougher climate treaty to come into force after the first round of the Kyoto Protocol ends in 2012.

Kyoto binds the greenhouse gas emissions of some 37 industrialised countries, but neither of the world's top two emitters – the United States and China – have signed up.

The basic outline of the post-Kyoto agreement should be ready by next summer to prepare for the December conference in Copenhagen, Denmark, where the new pact should be adopted.







The full article contains 508 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 01 June 2008 9:36 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Climate change
 
1

WalIy,

By The Rivers Of Babylon (USA) 02/06/2008 01:15:54
Thinking we humans have much to do with global climate change is the height of arrogance, naturally we want cleaner air for our health but to screen in lies of “global warming” is wrong” by those who rule us.
2

Scullion,

Canada 02/06/2008 01:59:36
#1 So you agree with GWB? If so, you are accepting this ruler's word as truth.
Please read Jared Diamond's "Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed" for a sobering lesson on what awaits us if we don't act-and Professor Diamond ain't ruling anyone.
3

Big Nige,

Arizona,USA 02/06/2008 05:36:35
Wally by name, and evidently by nature.
4

Guga II,

Rockall 02/06/2008 06:27:32
So-called global warming is just a con, and has been taken up by a variety of governments as an excuse to steal even more money from taxpayers. It has also been utilised by a number of people for purely personal gain, including that lying numpty Al Gore.
5

SouthernSkye,

02/06/2008 07:28:28
"Son of Kyoto"?!
It's not as if the Father has done much is it?
There have been a raft of taxes but little practical forward steps.I have noticed no change in availability of public transport in my area not have I seen an increase/ease of availability of grants for "green household measures" (such as solar panels).
Nice to see they all travel to Bali for this as opposed to video conferencing which would have cut down on their carbon footprints!
6

Rulesbutnotrulers,

Federation, not separation 02/06/2008 07:29:43
#4 Guga pursues his/her usual chimera. Global warming explains the significant world-wide melting of most glaciers; unless Guga has a valid alternative explanation s/he can prove.

Human activity may or may not play an important causative part in the present melt down, but to say global warming is a con is just plain daft. I didn't know that Gugas also buried their heads in the sand.

Wise persons adopt the precautionary principle and reduce their carbon footprints 'just in case'.
7

Green booger,

02/06/2008 07:46:48
Manmade global warming is a fraud.
8

Green booger,

02/06/2008 07:48:33
31,000 scientists reject 'global warming' agenda
'Mr. Gore's movie has claims no informed expert endorses'

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=64734
9

Guga II,

Rockall 02/06/2008 07:50:41
#6 I said global warming is a con. I did not say that climate change was a con. There has always been cliamte change from the very beginning of the existence of this planet, and there will always be climate change.

However, to propagate lies about so-called global warming for purely financial gain, is a confidence trick; as is trying to blame man for it.
10

11+failed,

the pans 02/06/2008 07:57:39
"without commitments from the US – the world's largest per-capita polluter by far"

Why are these lies allowed?
The US is the world's eleventh largest per-capita polluter.
Even Luxemburg is higher than the US. The US reduced its emissions last year while nearly every European country saw an increase. China the world's biggest polluter also showed the biggest increase last year. Had the US population increased at the same rate as China's over the past fifty years its per-capita emissions would be lower than China.
11

Unimpressed one,

02/06/2008 08:27:50
#2, Read it - utter crap. Diamond falls into the trap of assuming humans sit back and watch their own demise. Another eco-doomster cashing in on 'catastrophe' politics.

Usual pointless gatherings of the thickies to discuss how we can change the weather. Pity they hadn't held their conference in Ulan Bator where spring snow storms killed 30 people just last week. But of course this is 'climate change' in action. Still it must be great to be a denialist greenie - to wake up in the morning and look out of the window and think, "We caused this". Then presumably in the distant future they waken up, look at the weather then say, "We cured this". Makes the Mayans and Aztecs look positvely civilised.
12

Unimpressed one,

02/06/2008 08:31:04
"Why are these lies allowed?"

Because it's an anti-capitalist rant. The new religion needs an enemy (even though they can't live without it) and big, bad America is the Satan incarnate for the greens
13

Unimpressed one,

02/06/2008 08:38:40
"Some 2,000 delegates from 162 countries and dozens of specialist agencies will gather in Germany for the two-week conference, the first to get into the nuts and bolts of a new global-warming agreement meant to take effect after 2012."

But these concerned citizens will be using rowing boats and bicycles to get to Germany, forsaking 'polluting' cars, trains, boats and planes. Once there, they will of course, power their thousands of laptops from only 'green' electricity, none of the nasty stuff derived from coal, oil, gas, or God forbid, nuclear power. And for the really concerned saviours, they will avoid using laptops altogether in an effort to show their displeasure with the world's biggest 'polluter, China, because that's where all our manufactured goods are coming from. Sounds like it will be a hoot.
14

drew 33,

02/06/2008 08:48:04
Hypocrite Al Gore and his family are among the top 0.25% per-capita polluters in the world.
15

Rulesbutnotrulers,

Federation, not separation 02/06/2008 09:07:02
#12 Unimpressed one.

Tripe! I am a greenie, but I don't believe in satan and I know plenty of concerned and very decent Americans.

Global warming is taking place. Humans may or may not be serious contributors. Wise people would rather not take any risks and so reduce their carbon footprint.

Exchange your gas guzzler for a bike, please.
16

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 02/06/2008 09:07:45
The US has the highest per capita emission of CO2 of any reasonable sized country in the world. It is exceeded by only a handful of tiny rich Gulf (eg Qatar or Kuwait) or Caribbean states (eg Trinidad and Tobago) and Luxembourg.

A list of per capita CO2 emissions follows (2003 figures):

USA 19.8 tons CO2 per person per year
Australia 18.0
Canada 17.9
Russia 10.3
Germany 9.8
Japan 9.7
United Kingdom 9.4
Spain 7.3
France 6.2
Sweden 5.9
Iran 5.6
Mexico 4.0
China 3.2
Cuba 2.3
Egypt 2.0
Brazil 1.6
Indonesia 1.4
India 1.19
Philipines 0.96
Vietnam 0.93
Nigeria 0.42
Kenya 0.27
Afganistan 0.03
17

Alexander,

Edinburgh 02/06/2008 09:23:36
16 Slioch
A true disciple of Al Gore! You lose the election so you want to change the rules.
Either it is per-capita emissions for the country or it is not. I see no statement of qualifying size in the text.
I also note the year of 2003. Since 2003 Chinese coal production has increase by 53% from 1.7bN to 2.6bN while US has been largely static.
18

11+failed,

the pans 02/06/2008 09:56:01
17
"Chinese coal production has increase by 53% from 1.7bN to 2.6bN while US has been largely static"
Since 2000 USA per-capita emissions have fallen slightly from 20.4t to 20.2t(estimated 2007) while China has increased by over 200% from 2.2t to estimated 4.8t
19

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 02/06/2008 09:58:01
#17 Alexander

"A true disciple of Al Gore!"

I have neither read Al Gores book (books?) nor watched his film, nor regard him as a source of information. Al Gore is a politician and wrto global warming provides (I understand) a summary of the subject in an easily digestible way. I get my information from science, not politicians.

As for the information on per capita emissions of CO2: If you want to say that the Scotsman article would have been marginally more accurate if it had said "... the world's largest per-capita polluter by far (except for a handful of tiny rich Gulf (eg Qatar or Kuwait) or Caribbean states (eg Trinidad and Tobago) and Luxembourg.)" Then, yes, of course it would. But would the significance of the what the article was saying have been changed? No, not at all.

Similarly, quibbling over the date 2003: go and find later dates if you wish - you will find the information much the same, with China's increasing, but nowhere near the levels of the US or even Europe.
I used 2003 because I have that info. easily available, and don't have to scan or type it out again. By all means post up the data for as late a year as you can find if you wish, it will save me the trouble.

You are nitpicker. In order to draw your attention away from matters of significance and importance that you do not wish to address, since they assault your belief system, you fasten upon tiny insignificant irrelevances. That is one of the techniques of those determined to remain with their heads in the sand.
20

Alternative (High Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 02/06/2008 10:09:39
I take it that they will all be travelling there by sailing boat rather than flying.

I am sick and tired of hearing about this. We KNOW it isn't happening. They have been banging on about it for 20-30 years now and NOTHING has happened. If climate change/global warming was real, it would be apparent by now.

21

Unimpressed one,

02/06/2008 10:18:36
#20, It's a bandwagon that's still rolling despite the fact that the original hypothesis has long been discredited. It's also human nature to assume we are responsible for the wrath of nature because we 'sin'. There's nothing that can be done until the idiots realise that as with all their other 'predictions', this one fails to materialise and they then turn their attention to something as equally banal. Pity them.
22

Mcsnagpile,

02/06/2008 10:21:34
Kyoto, land mines, cluster bombs, nuclear proliferation, WMD—it all depends on who’s selling and whose buying. If the right guys are not in the game the pot is not worth winning. So we are all going to hell in a banana boat –what are you going to do about it??

We do not need proof of global warming. If 6.5 billion people start to pour billions of tons of CO2 and methane into the atmosphere that was not there before something will happen. My pet parrot (non degreed) told me that one. As the USA is sitting on a lot of fault lines (Yellowstone Park et al) we may be able to see a firework display from Ben Nevis one day. Global warming will increase VOLVANIC ACTIVITY.
23

11+failed,

the pans 02/06/2008 10:22:40
We Europeans can be proud of our record on per-capita emissions. At our seat of government,Luxembourg 1998 17.4t, 2004 24.9 an increase of 43%. In the same period that bogey man of the green brigade
USA went from 19.8t to 20.4t an increase of 3%.
Hypocrite Al Gore has plenty of like minded "friends" in Europe
24

Alexander,

Edinburgh 02/06/2008 10:43:17
19 Slioch,
"I have neither read Al Gores book (books?) nor watched his film, nor regard him as a source of information"
I likened only your propensity to change the rules after the event, a la Gore. As regards your lack of interest in Al Gore I suggest you would benefit from seeing his film and reading his book if only to see the depth to which the global warming brigade descends with their misinformation and deceit.
25

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 02/06/2008 10:58:10
#23 11+failed

No wonder you failed your 11+ if that's the best argument you can come up with by rooting about in Wikipedia.

But why start your data at 1998? Why not start at 1990, the earliest date in the table and the year to which the Kyoto agreement refers? The answer, of course, is that you cherry picked the year 1998 because it gave the most favourable results for the point you were trying to make. see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita

Then you would get:

Luxembourg 1990 26.3 tons CO2/person/year
Luxembourg 2004 24.9 tons CO2/person/year
a decrease of 5.3%

USA 1990 18.9 tons CO2/person/year
USA 2004 20.4 tons CO2/person/year
an increase of 7.9%

We need to reduce CO2 emissions, the US is historically, and still, the highest per capita emitter, and until recently has refused to climb aboard the international efforts to reduce emissions. That does not absolve other rich western nations, including Scotland, from their responsibilities and the idiotic nitpicking of 11+ and Alexander simply distract attention from more important issues.
26

Guthrie,

Edinburgh 02/06/2008 11:36:10
#20, petrolhead- we have plenty of evidence that warming is occuring, it has been rpesented to you many times on this very forum. That you fail to read it or comprehend it is your failure.

Unimpressed #11- Diamond didn't assume anything. It is clear that the primitive societites he studied didn't know enough to be able to predict that the bad times would continue. Many individual members probably did leave the doomed areas, but many more stayed behind, probably hoping that next year would be better, or the year after that....
Sounds rather like the ostriches we have on this thread.
27

The wilkman,

Isle of Skye 02/06/2008 12:22:11
8
Green booger,
02/06/2008 07:48:33
31,000 scientists reject 'global warming' agenda

Could you give us a list of the ten most eminent climate scientists who reject the man-made global warming hypothesis? Any ten from among the most eminent hundred would do. I will then google them one by one and find out a bit more about them. Every time I've done this with any supposed list of eminent deniers the result has always been the same - they turned out to be elderly, unqualified, in the pay of Exxon, and/or had been misrepresented and did not actually hold denier views.

Go ahead - I think the result will be the same for any ten names you can produce. I'll look at this discussion a couple of times between now and 2.30 Scottish time. Get your list in before then, please.

28

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 02/06/2008 12:30:47
#27 The wilkman

Nice idea! ... but I wouldn't hold your breath.
29

11+failed,

the pans 02/06/2008 12:38:00
25 Slioch,
"#23 11+failed
No wonder you failed your 11+ if that's the best argument you can come up with by rooting about in Wikipedia.
But why start your data at 1998? Why not start at 1990, the earliest date in the table and the year to which the Kyoto agreement refers? The answer, of course, is that you cherry picked the year 1998 because it gave the most favourable results for the point you were trying to make."

Well, thank you for that. Personal abuse, the last refuge of the charlatan and the lost argument.
You are being disingenuous with your accusations of "cherry picking". You choose an arbitrary 1990,I chose 1998 as Kyoto was adopted in 11 Dec 1997 and 2004 is the latest available figure. Perfectly valid and relevant dates.
30

11+failed,

the pans 02/06/2008 12:58:27
You completely misrepresent my viewpoint. I have never at any time denied or claimed that global warming or even anthropogenically induced global warming exists or doesn't. What I have highlighted is the hypocrisy extant in the global warming brigade.
With your certainty regarding global warming I submit the following.
Estimates of the recent global temperature changes suggests that the planet may now have entered a period which deviates from the previous period since 1980, where increasing temperatures have prevailed. In contrast to this previous development, net changes since 1998 appear to be small. The year 1998 was especially warm due to the 1997-1998 El Niño in the Pacific Ocean, and was followed by a cooler period 1999-2000. From 2001 surface air temperatures remained essentially stable until 2007, where temperatures again began to decrease. Considering the whole 10-year period 1998-2007, however, net changes have been small.
It is impossible to know if this lack of warming will continue, but these observations are inconsistent with the predictions of the long-term global climate predictions, such as reported in the 2007 IPCC report. Three possibilities remain for the future development of the average global surface air temperature:

1) The planet has entered a period of more stable temperatures
2) The planet is just now passing a temperature peak and temperatures will begin to drop in the near future
3) Temperatures will begin to increase again
31

Saoghal Beag,

02/06/2008 13:01:20
mcsnagpile that typo is it volcanic or vulvanic? intriguing thought.
32

Unimpressed one,

02/06/2008 13:08:38
#31, As far as I'm aware, vulvanic emissions have not caused many problems for the planet, just for unfortunate individuals. LOL.
33

Alexander,

Edinburgh 02/06/2008 13:16:39
30 11+failed
Why waste your time with Slioch? He is fixated on anthropogenic Global Warming and nothing is going to change his entrenched prejudices.
34

The wilkman,

Isle of Skye 02/06/2008 13:26:08
No list of ten eminent climate scientists who disagree that man-made global warming is taking place then. I'll have one more look at around 2.00. I wonder if the reason no list is forthcoming is that I've said I would check on the truth of each one - maybe the deniers actually know that these claims can't bear scrutiny.
35

drew 33,

02/06/2008 13:33:47
33 Alexander
Slioch is cast from the same mould as Rulesbutnotrulers, Guthrie and Truthsleuth with an IQ about two points higher.
36

Prester John,

Pots_n_Pans (but in a rush, so only one post just 02/06/2008 13:35:54
Slioch, and most othe AGW brigade are totally fixated. However, it is extremely likely that their world based on GISS / HADCRU data is going to come crashing down around their ears quite soon. All of the stations being used to collect surface readings are being visited and evaluated strictly by CRN standards and thoroughly documented.

Four things are apparent :
Most do not record data correctly. Most quite clearly demonstrate the heat island effect as a result of their locations.
Some have been moved and the moves were not correctly documented so there are apparent increases in temperature which are 'location' not 'climate related..
Data from stations has been 'amended' if it does not fit in with observed patterns of adjacent stations
Of the stations examined so far, most of those in truly rural and ideal locations do NOT demonstrate the warming trends claimed by AGW zealots.

Each station is being fully and meticulously examined, with detailed readings including infrared readings wherever possible. Over 45% of the entire North American network has been examined. Hardly any meet the proper criteria and many have errors which exceed five degrees.

It certainly looks as though some of the so-called AGW is simply due to the heat island effect of urban areas.

Perhaps that's one reason why the satellite data shows no change or cooling over the last decade.
37

Neil,

Glasgow 02/06/2008 13:38:41
Germany this time rather than Bali. What a come down.

Here is a list of 31,000 scientists who say it is rubbish.

www.oism.org/pproject

Granted most of them are not "climate scientists" (actaully compilers of computer models) but then it would be difficult to find many scientists who disagree with "creation science" if one only selected from "peer approved creation scientists" which demonstrates what a scam they both are.
38

Rosie's Opinion,

02/06/2008 14:07:49
4 Guga II,Rockall

We agree, alert the media!
39

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 02/06/2008 14:23:04
#29 11+ failed

"You choose an arbitrary 1990,I chose 1998 as Kyoto was adopted in 11 Dec 1997 and 2004 is the latest available figure."

As the above article makes clear, the Kyoto agreement requires signatories "to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions an average of 5 per cent below 1990 levels by 2012."

Quite obviously, therefore, it is necessary to start with the 1990 figures if one is to monitor progress. 1990 is not "arbitrary" as you claim, it is the date upon which the Kyoto agreement is based. That (I assume) is why the table in the Wiki article starts with 1990. The figures I displayed in #25 show that Luxembourg had already achieved that target by 2004, with a reduction of 5.3%, whereas the USA was heading in the wrong direction with an increase of 7.9%. Those are the figures to use if, as this article is doing, you are considering the effectiveness or otherwise of Kyoto.

Not, of course, that I hold any brief for Luxembourg, which still holds the record as the most profligate western country (in CO2 terms). But Luxembourg is tiny, so its emissions do not have the same clout as big countries like the US or China.
40

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 02/06/2008 14:55:23
#30 11+failed

I would not disagree with much that you say concerning recent temperatures, except:

"temperatures remained essentially stable until 2007, where temperatures again began to decrease"

2007 was the second warmest year (after 2005) since records began in 1880, according to the NASA GISS series. (and eighth since 1860 in the HADCRU series).
It too early to know what 2008 will be.

"but these observations are inconsistent with the predictions of the long-term global climate predictions"

That is not correct. The following graph shows the long(er)-term trend, since 1975 to mid-2007. The temperature record does not show a statistically significant deviation from that trend:
http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/t1975.jpg

Moreover, it is no part of the theory of AGW that surface temperatures should increase steadily. What AGW basically clams is that increased levels of CO2 (etc) will cause more heat to be retained in the atmosphere. There may well be times during this process when, because, for example, of changes in oceanic currents, more of that extra heat is absorbed by the oceans. It is important to remember that the oceans a) have a huge thermal capacity compared to the atmosphere, and b) are NOT in thermal equilibrium with the atmosphere - they are much colder, on average, than the atmosphere at the Earth's surface and also significantly stratified. Thus upwellings of cold waters from the depths have significant effects on global surface temperatures. That is why the graph of average global surface temperatures is so "noisy": but that does not imply that extra heat is not being captured by the extra CO2 in the atmosphere.

It would be great if we could measure directly the increased heating of the atmosphere, rather than concentrating on the rather wobbly effect that process has on the Earth's surface temperature. Though, having said that, in effect we can, and do so when we measure the net reduction between the long-wave radiatio
41

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 02/06/2008 14:57:26
For clarity in #40 above:

"The temperature record does not show a statistically significant deviation from that trend:"

should be

"The temperature record of the last few years does not show a statistically significant deviation from that trend:"
42

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 02/06/2008 15:01:20
#40 contd.

Sorry. hadn't noticed that #40 had been truncated:


It would be great if we could measure directly the increased heating of the atmosphere, rather than concentrating on the rather wobbly effect that process has on the Earth's surface temperature. Though, having said that, in effect we can, and do so when we measure the net reduction between the long-wave radiation emitted from the surface of the Earth and the long-wave radiation emitted to space. That shows us directly the amount of energy being absorbed by the atmosphere. But I fear such lines of evidence are a bit abstruse, though they provide stronger evidence for AGW than wobbly global temperatures.
43

PJ,

Edinburgh 02/06/2008 17:00:21
While you are ranting about the CO2 emissions of USA, Australia, UK etc. bear in mind that little pre Christmas jolly to Bali for Christmas presents…whoops sorry the UN’s climate change conference which took place on Bali itself became a major contributor to global warming. Calculations suggested flying the 15,000 politicians, civil servants, green campaigners and television crews into Indonesia generated the equivalent of 100,000 tonnes of extra CO2. That was supposed to be similar to the entire annual emissions of the African state of Chad.

Chris Goodall, a carbon emissions expert who did the calculations for The Sunday Times, estimated that each person flying to Bali would, on average, generated the equivalent of 6.48 tonnes of CO2. 15,000 people attended, which added up to over 97,000 tonnes of CO2. To this was added about 13,000 tonnes of CO2 from the conference venue and hotels — a total of 110,000 tonnes. Which was similar to the entire annual emissions of the African state of Chad.

In this age of modern technology i.e. video conferencing, did they all feel that they had to attend for Al Gore along with his cronnies to sit there saying “flying don’t do it, it is harming the environment!” or is a case of the rich telling the common man what to do again.
44

Unimpressed one,

02/06/2008 17:10:34
Slioch, "2007 was the second warmest year (after 2005) since records began in 1880, according to the NASA GISS series. (and eighth since 1860 in the HADCRU series).
It too early to know what 2008 will be."

This is utter pi*sh you are ranting as usual. The climate has not warmed up since 1998 and well you know it. You can present all these dubious statistics as much as you like but you area typical greenie denialist, who can't admit that you're seriously wrong.
45

Bemused and above it all,

02/06/2008 17:11:56
#22
would be very surprised to see any pryocastic activity in Ben Nevis given it is a glacial feature and as such non-volcanic.
Perhaps Arthurs Seat which is dromant, but certainly not in any of the Bens or Munros, they lack the neccessary geological features
46

Lord of All Mordor,

By The Nokia River 02/06/2008 17:53:46
So Slioch admits the oceans can cool the atmosphere (la nina years) or heat them (el nino years. The decades of the 40s, 50s and 60s were predominantly la nina years so would have depressed the temperatures in most of those years.

Conversely, the 70s, 80s and 90s were mainly warm el nino years so would have given a heating effect. Over all result a climate graph which would have been low throughout the early middle 20th Century and then warmed up.

It is widely recognised that there is a decadal pattern to this; approximately thity years or so. We could well be heading into a thirty year cool period on this basis.

Add to that the continuing low solar activity and it seems even more likely that a cool period is on its way.
I note Sliock (wrongly) announced the end of the last solar cycle and the start of the next a few weeks ago. Not terribly prescient friend Slioch.

I was particularly interested in the point about surface stations producing flawed readings - and even more interested in Slioch ignoring it.
47

Lord of All Mordor,

By the Nokia River 02/06/2008 17:55:41
Apologies, it is, of course "Slioch" rather "Sliock" and thirty is the number.
48

,

02/06/2008 18:07:10
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
49

Lord of All Mordor,

By The Nokia River 02/06/2008 18:17:49
Strange. A thread I remember. Wasn't 1934 the hottest ? Slioch was in that thread so why is he perpetuating the myth about 2007 when 1998 (el nino year) was hotter.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/aug/16/1?gusrc=rss&feed=science
50

Lord of All Mordor,

By The Nokia River 02/06/2008 18:20:20
Note Slioch is, once again, picking and choosing his statistics to support his argument. If the earlier post is right and GISS figures are not correct then Slioch has no leg to stand on.
51

Lord of All Mordor,

By The Nokia River 02/06/2008 18:23:56
when 1998 (el nino year) was hotter.

Hotter than 2007.

He also knows that there has been no increase since 1998 and some cooling has taken place.

Scientists who know about solar activity are far more worried about the present inactivity of the sun and its impact on the world than AGW.
52

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 02/06/2008 18:40:33
#44 Unimpressed one

"You can present all these dubious statistics as much as you like .... "

Good grief. I hadn't realised quite how deluded you are, Unimpressed One, forgive me.

Let's go through it nice and slowly:

Qu. How do we know that 1998 was a particularly warm year?

Ans. Because the NASA GISS and HADCRU series both tell us it was:

1998 NASA GISS = 0.72deg.C above the 1951-19870 mean.
1998 HADCRU = 0.546deg.C above the 1961-1990 mean.

What about 2007? From the very same series, we get:

2007 NASA GISS = 0.74deg.C above the 1951-19870 mean.
2007 HADCRU = 0.403deg.C above the 1961-1990 mean.

And for good measure, 2005:

2005 NASA GISS = 0.76deg.C above the 1951-19870 mean.
2005 HADCRU = 0.482deg.C above the 1961-1990 mean.

Hint for Unimpressed One: 0.74C is warmer than 0.72C, and 0,76C is warmer still.

See:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts.txt
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/gtc2007.csv

So, Unimpressed One (and every other denialist on the face of the planet it seems) accepts the figures for 1998, because that is what he wants to hear. But denies the figures for other years (2007 & 2005) because that isn't what he wants to hear.

Jeez, this is like shooting frogs in a barrel.

53

Alternative (High Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 02/06/2008 18:40:55
Guthrie:

"we have plenty of evidence that warming is occuring, it has been rpesented to you many times on this very forum."

To be honest Guthrie, fancy graphs (with hand-picked logarithmic scales) and 20cm thick reports from "experts" mean nothing to me---especially when they are presented as "evidence".

For every report you find that says global warming is happening, I could find another which contradicts it (if I could be bothered, but I can't be bothered so don't ask).

My synopsis of the whole matter goes from personal memory of what the weather has been like each year I have been alive. The simple fact of the matter is that it has not changed. Not one iota.

Floods happen now, Floods happened in the 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s.
Occasionally it gets hot. Occasionally it got hot in the 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s.
Sometimes we get high winds. We sometimes got high winds in the 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s.
Sometimes it rains a lot. Sometimes it rained a lot in the 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s.

Like I say, NOTHING has changed---at all. Yet we have a band of "experts" trying to tell me it has when I can REMEMBER what the weather was like years ago and therefore REALIZE that nothing has changed.

Nothing has changed, nothing is changing and nothing will change---at least not due to man.
54

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 02/06/2008 19:05:40
#46 Lord of All Mordor

"So Slioch admits the oceans can cool the atmosphere"

I've never denied it. If you want a particularly dramatic instance of that, Google "Evidence for an extraterrestrial impact 12,900 years ago that contributed to the megafaunal extinctions and the Younger Dryas cooling" PNAS, 2007.

Briefly, a comet hit the NE North America 12,900 years ago, when the Earth was warming after the last ice age. The comet shattered the ice dam holding up a HUGE amount of meltwater on land, which then cascaded into the N Atlantic and stopped the Gulf stream overturning, with the result that Europe returned to very cold conditions for another c.1300 years.
Can oceans cool the climate? You bet they can!

As for your comments about el Nino/La Nina decades, I think you are referring to the Pacific Decadal oscillation, see:
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/05/27/pdo-the-pacific-decadal-oscillation/

I note Slioch (wrongly) announced the end of the last solar cycle and the start of the next a few weeks ago.
I don't think I did. I merely correctly reported that the first sunspot of the new cycle had appeared: where the two cycles are said to end and start is something for solar scientists to argue over.

"and even more interested in Slioch ignoring it."
Stone me, I'm flattered. Can't I go out and do something else without all manner of dark meanings being attributed?

That's enough for now.


55

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 02/06/2008 19:17:01
#46 Lord of All Mordor

"and even more interested in Slioch ignoring it."

Oh, all right. Just another point: if the NASA GISS series was corrupted by the heat island effect (or anything else) it wouldn't correlate with the satellite data. But it does. Very well. See:

http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/global2.jpg
56

Mcsnagpile,

02/06/2008 21:52:55
comment 22

Always check your Volva before pressing return.
The Ben Nevis comment meant, standing on Ben Nevis or suitable high point to watch Yellowstone Park heading for outer space without flag ship Enterprise.
57

57Nomad,

california 03/06/2008 16:12:18
#52 Slioch

Slioch said:

"
"Qu. How do we know that 1998 was a particularly warm year?

Ans. Because the NASA GISS and HADCRU series both tell us it was:

1998 NASA GISS = 0.72deg.C above the 1951-19870 mean.
1998 HADCRU = 0.546deg.C above the 1961-1990 mean."

While interesting from a certain point of view I must point out that stating that the temperature is 'n' degrees above the mean is absolutely without significance. For every day you find temperatures above the mean you can find and equal number of days whose temperatures are below the mean. The mean is the average temperature, i.e. the temperature of every day measured divided by the number of days the data was collected. for every time the temperature was one degree above the mean you will find a corresponding temperature or temperatures below the mean.

Here is an interesting fact. Whatever the mean temperature is, you will be hard pressed to find a day that the temperature was exactly the same. So the real news would be if the temperature stayed exactly the same day in and day out. It never happens, nature may abhor a vacuum but it doesn't much care for a straight line. Stating that a selected group of temperatures is either above or below the mean, means nothing and any inferences drawn from those data are open to dispute.
58

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 03/06/2008 23:21:17
#57 57Nomad

Utter meaningless gibberish.
59

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 03/06/2008 23:44:42
#57 57Nomad

The best estimate for absolute global mean temperature for the period 1951-1980 is 14C = 57.2F

1998 was 0.72C above that mean.

ie the average global temperature in 1998 in the NASA GISS series was 14.72C.


2007 was 0.74C above that mean.

ie the average global temperature in 2007 in the NASA GISS series was 14.74C.


2005 was 0.76C above that mean.

ie the average global temperature in 2005 in the NASA GISS series was 14.76C.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

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

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