|
Columnists
 
|
UK NEWSSNOW CHAOS: AND THEY STILL CLAIM IT'S GLOBAL WARMING
A man clears snow from the paths outside his house in Wilkieston in West Lothian Wednesday January 6,2010 By Martyn BrownAS one of the worst winters in 100 years grips the country, climate experts are still trying to claim the world is growing warmer.
With millions of Britons battling through snow and ice to get to work today, scientists claim that the cold conditions should not be used as evidence against man-made climate change. Blizzards, ice and sub-zero temperatures that have gripped the UK for almost a month in a record deep freeze are not “robust” indicators of global weather patterns, they say. Their claims come despite the fact that the rest of the northern hemisphere, from America to Europe and Asia, is suffering some of the worst winters in living memory. Huge snowfalls are being witnessed from China and South Korea, across eastern, central and western Europe and to America where even Florida is struggling to record temperatures above freezing. Last night critics of the global warming lobby said the public were no longer prepared to be conned into believing that man-made emissions were adding to the problem. Long-term forecaster and trends analyst Piers Corbyn, of WeatherAction, said: “Global warming is a failed science built on falsified data. It is a sham to say that man has caused it.” But Stephen Dorling, of the scandal-hit University of East Anglia’s school of environmental sciences, remained adamant that the weather should not be used as evidence against climate change. But he added: “It’s no surprise that people look out of their window and find it hard to rationalise what’s going on with the longer term trend.”
But he said it was wrong to focus on cold snaps or heat waves but look instead at longer-term trends. The Met Office’s Barry Gromett said December and January’s cold weather was “within the bounds of variability” in a global trend of rising temperatures in which 2009 is set to be the fifth warmest year on record. He added that while Siberia, the UK and parts of the US were very cold, other areas including Alaska, Canada and the Mediterranean were warmer than usual. But China faces its worst winter in 20 years, with temperatures down to -43C. Mr Gromett added: “Climate change is likely to give us milder winters, but there’s always opportunities within that to have colder years. “The temperature graph is a series of peaks and troughs and there’s a lot of variability within the trend.” Labour insisted yesterday that last month’s shambolic Copenhagen climate summit had led to greater efforts to tackle global warming. But shadow climate change secretary Greg Clark branded the conference a flop, only delivering an accord that was “an agreement to disagree”. Christopher Booker, author of The Real Global Warming Disaster, said: “It is amazing how this scaremongering from climate change lobbyists keeps arising even though they are constantly being proved wrong. “Last year there was snow in Saudia Arabia and still they persist in saying the temperature is going up.”
|
|
|||||||||||||
Sitemap | Print Archive | Contact | Advertise Here | Site Credits Copyright ©2006 Northern and Shell Media Publications. "Daily Express" is a registered trademark.
All rights reserved. By viewing this site you agree to our Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
JUST LOOK AT THE FACTS
24.01.10, 4:24pm
There has been no global warming this decade. (There was a short term warming trend that ceased in 1998).
There has been no increase in the amount of carbon in the atmosphere,despite the amount that we pump into the air (the amount of carbon varies between 0.3 and 0.6% and the failure to increase despite man's reckless activities is explained by the fact that the excess carbon is sucked up by the oceans and trees).
There is no historical link between the increase in carbon and increased temperatures as the scientists suggest. In fact, it's the other way around (previous temperature increases in the climate have resulted some time later in an increase in carbon!).
These are just three reasons for people to question the warmists on where their information is coming from. Instead of labelling those who ask intelligent questions as 'flat earthers', why don't they simply answer our questions?
Name calling is a pretty good sign that you have lost the argument!
• Posted by: WEATHERED • Report Comment
CLIMATE SKEPTICS REVEAL LACK OF UNDERSTANDING
15.01.10, 6:03am
don't you just love it how climate skeptics base their conclusions upon complex scientific issues on their own personal observations about the weather.
or they selectively pick scientific reports from a minority of scientists, whilst ignoring the consensus of the global scientific community about the existence and severity of climate change impacts.
oh by the way people, climate change is not just about temperature rises. The impacts of climate change includes AN INCREASE IN THE FREQUENCY AND SEVERITY OF EXTREME WEATHER EVENTS AND NATURAL DISASTERS.
why don't you do your homework and go read the intergovernmental panel on climate change's fourth assessment report before embarrassing yourself any further with comments that reveal a deep misunderstanding of what climate change is about
• Posted by: CarlyB • Report Comment
CO2??
14.01.10, 12:26am
The earth is now on the brink of entering another Ice Age, according to a large and compelling body of evidence from within the field of climate science. Many sources of data which provide our knowledge base of long-term climate change indicate that the warm, twelve thousand year-long Holocene period will rather soon be coming to an end, and then the earth will return to Ice Age conditions for the next 100,000 years.
Ice cores, ocean sediment cores, the geologic record, and studies of ancient plant and animal populations all demonstrate a regular cyclic pattern of Ice Age glacial maximums which each last about 100,000 years, separated by intervening warm interglacials, each lasting about 12,000 years.
Most of the long-term climate data collected from various sources also shows a strong correlation with the three astronomical cycles which are together known as the Milankovich cycles. The three Milankovich cycles include the tilt of the earth, which varies over a 41,000 year period; the shape of the earth’s orbit, which changes over a period of 100,000 years; and the Precession of the Equinoxes, also known as the earth’s ‘wobble’, which gradually rotates the direction of the earth’s axis over a period of 26,000 years. According to the Milankovich theory of Ice Age causation, these three astronomical cycles, each of which effects the amount of solar radiation which reaches the earth, act together to produce the cycle of cold Ice Age maximums and warm interglacials.
Elements of the astronomical theory of Ice Age causation were first presented by the French mathematician Joseph Adhemar in 1842, it was developed further by the English prodigy Joseph Croll in 1875, and the theory was established in its present form by the Serbian mathematician Milutin Milankovich in the 1920s and 30s. In 1976 the prestigious journal “Science” published a landmark paper by John Imbrie, James Hays, and Nicholas Shackleton entitled “Variations in the Earth's orbit: Pacemaker of the Ice Ages,” which described the correlation which the trio of scientist/authors had found between the climate data obtained from ocean sediment cores and the patterns of the astronomical Milankovich cycles. Since the late 1970s, the Milankovich theory has remained the predominant theory to account for Ice Age causation among climate scientists, and hence the Milankovich theory is always described in textbooks of climatology and in encyclopaedia articles about the Ice Ages.
In their 1976 paper Imbrie, Hays, and Shackleton wrote that their own climate forecasts, which were based on sea-sediment cores and the Milankovich cycles, "… must be qualified in two ways. First, they apply only to the natural component of future climatic trends - and not to anthropogenic effects such as those due to the burning of fossil fuels. Second, they describe only the long-term trends, because they are linked to orbital variations with periods of 20,000 years and longer. Climatic oscillations at higher frequencies are not predicted... the results indicate that the long-term trend over the next 20,000 years is towards extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation and cooler climate."
During the 1970s the famous American astronomer Carl Sagan and other scientists began promoting the theory that ‘greenhouse gasses’ such as carbon dioxide, or CO2, produced by human industries could lead to catastrophic global warming. Since the 1970s the theory of ‘anthropogenic global warming’ (AGW) has gradually become accepted as fact by most of the academic establishment, and their acceptance of AGW has inspired a global movement to encourage governments to make pivotal changes to prevent the worsening of AGW.
The central piece of evidence that is cited in support of the AGW theory is the famous ‘hockey stick’ graph which was presented by Al Gore in his 2006 film “An Inconvenient Truth.” The ‘hockey stick’ graph shows an acute upward spike in global temperatures which began during the 1970s and continued through the winter of 2006/07. However, this warming trend was interrupted when the winter of 2007/8 delivered the deepest snow cover to the Northern Hemisphere since 1966 and the coldest temperatures since 2001. It now appears that the current Northern Hemisphere winter of 2008/09 will probably equal or surpass the winter of 2007/08 for both snow depth and cold temperatures.
The main flaw in the AGW theory is that its proponents focus on evidence from only the past one thousand years at most, while ignoring the evidence from the past million years -- evidence which is essential for a true understanding of climatology. The data from paleoclimatology provides us with an alternative and more credible explanation for the recent global temperature spike, based on the natural cycle of Ice Age maximums and interglacials.
In 1999 the British journal “Nature” published the results of data derived from glacial ice cores collected at the Russia’s Vostok station in Antarctica during the 1990s. The Vostok ice core data includes a record of global atmospheric temperatures, atmospheric CO2 and other greenhouse gases, and airborne particulates starting from 420,000 years ago and continuing through history up to our present time.
The graph of the Vostok ice core data shows that the Ice Age maximums and the warm interglacials occur within a regular cyclic pattern, the graph-line of which is similar to the rhythm of a heartbeat on an electrocardiogram tracing. The Vostok data graph also shows that changes in global CO2 levels lag behind global temperature changes by about eight hundred years. What that indicates is that global temperatures precede or cause global CO2 changes, and not the reverse. In other words, increasing atmospheric CO2 is not causing global temperature to rise; instead the natural cyclic increase in global temperature is causing global CO2 to rise.
The reason that global CO2 levels rise and fall in response to the global temperature is because cold water is capable of retaining more CO2 than warm water. That is why carbonated beverages loose their carbonation, or CO2, when stored in a warm environment. We store our carbonated soft drinks, wine, and beer in a cool place to prevent them from loosing their ‘fizz’, which is a feature of their carbonation, or CO2 content. The earth is currently warming as a result of the natural Ice Age cycle, and as the oceans get warmer, they release increasing amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere.
Because the release of CO2 by the warming oceans lags behind the changes in the earth’s temperature, we should expect to see global CO2 levels continue to rise for another eight hundred years after the end of the earth’s current Interglacial warm period. We should already be eight hundred years into the coming Ice Age before global CO2 levels begin to drop in response to the increased chilling of the world’s oceans.
The Vostok ice core data graph reveals that global CO2 levels regularly rose and fell in a direct response to the natural cycle of Ice Age minimums and maximums during the past four hundred and twenty thousand years. Within that natural cycle, about every 110,000 years global temperatures, followed by global CO2 levels, have peaked at approximately the same levels which they are at today.
Today we are again at the peak, and near to the end, of a warm interglacial, and the earth is now due to enter the next Ice Age. If we are lucky, we may have a few years to prepare for it. The Ice Age will return, as it always has, in its regular and natural cycle, with or without any influence from the effects of AGW.
The AGW theory is based on data that is drawn from a ridiculously narrow span of time and it demonstrates a wanton disregard for the ‘big picture’ of long-term climate change. The data from paleoclimatology, including ice cores, sea sediments, geology, paleobotany and zoology, indicate that we are on the verge of entering another Ice Age, and the data also shows that severe and lasting climate change can occur within only a few years. While concern over the dubious threat of Anthropogenic Global Warming continues to distract the attention of people throughout the world, the very real threat of the approaching and inevitable Ice Age, which will render large parts of the Northern Hemisphere uninhabitable, is being foolishly ignored.
• Posted by: Humugous • Report Comment
GLOBAL WARMING EH?
11.01.10, 10:23am
I understand that many 'climate experts' are now doing a volte face, and claiming that this may be a hiccup, or pause in the global warming theory...
Seems that even the most highly-educated people suffer from the failing of not being able to admit mistakes....
• Posted by: Chevronb8 • Report Comment
THIS ARTICLE GIVES THE UNEDUCATED A CHANCE TO MOAN
11.01.10, 8:35am
The very premise that global warming revolves around what happens in the UK is farcical and arrogant.
Granted, this current spell of bad weather is pretty much over most of the northern hemisphere but the same argument holds true as far as 2 hemispheres are concerned. Ask the Aussies or Kiwis about their current droughts and record temperatures and suggest to them that there isn't climate change. NZ is having a water shortage, Oz heatwaves.
If anybody wants to discuss climate change then they should know the basics of the ecosystem. Simple really. If you are not willing to accept that man has had SOME impact then your opinion isn't worth anything.
Here are some simple examples:
Years ago, long before climate change had been mentioned, I remember a Geography teacher who grew up in Indonesia (his father was the Dutch ambassador) who, many times, told us how it used to rain like clockwork, at about 3 p.m. every day, when he was at school. It would rain pretty much just over the man made built up areas, and he always made a point about the delineation of where the rain ended, which was at the edge of the vegetation. This was caused by the build up of heat over the tar sealed areas.
Ever notice how it is colder in the countrside than in the cities?
These very basic, indesputable examples show how man DOES alter the climate.
I don't know how much of this climate change is cyclical but I do know that the amount of trees destroyed, the population and industrial growth plus pollution MUST of had SOME affect on the planet. How much again is up for debate.
For those like the Jeremy Clarkson that says the world is big enough to look after itself...what happened with the ozone layer? Who caused the hole in it? And who, by changing things, has allowed the hole to shrink?
If climate change is cyclical maybe the amount man adds to it could make a difference. If your car was having mechanical problems you wouldn't go around thrashing it, would you? You'd nurse it along. OK maybe what we do won't make a difference, but who knows?
Whats the worst that can happen if the scientists are wrong? Jobs, technology, and industry are always evolving. People will learn new skills and get new jobs.
But...what could happen if the scientists are right? Well who knows, but people will suffer a lot more than having to retrain for different jobs.
What is wrong with looking for different forms of fuel? We wouldn't have a reliance on many problem oil rich countries and perhaps the world would end up a more peacefull place without western interference.
People who spout on about taxes are unbelievably ignorant. and should be ashamed at their lack of intelligence. I can't even be bothered discussing that nonsense.
• Posted by: sd0001 • Report Comment
HASNT ANYONE LISTENED TO THE FACTS?
10.01.10, 8:44am
Just because it is snowing over in Europe doesn't mean the planet isn't suffering from warming. The warming has melted substantial amounts of ice in Iceland causing all the fresh water to mix with the north Atlantic current. This is slowing the current down and could possibly cause it to stop it has been proven with buoys that the current is slowing down. This current supplies Europe with warm water that keeps it at moderate temperatures. It is at the same latitude as Canada which is a cold environment but is substantially warmer because of this current. If the current stops no more warm weather for Europe thus the freezing of Europe. Get it. The great barrier reef has been suffering from the warming of the ocean in that area and is dying off because of its sensitivity to temperature changes. crustaceans are dying of because they can no longer form a shell properly because of the raised levels of co2 in the ocean. The weather here in Perth in summer is becoming more tropical because the cold weather from the south is not heading as far north. How many examples do you need before you admit that humans are drastically changing the ecology of the planet. sea levels are rising there is more flooding in tropicals areas because of the warming of the ocean causing Hurricanes and cyclones to become more severe. Do i need to go on?. Massive chunks of ice known as icebergs for the "idiots" are breaking off at an ever increasing rate. Deep crevasses are forming with millions of gallons of water flooding down to the bed rock causing and increased rate at which ice sheets are moving towards the ocean in ice covered areas like Antarctica, Iceland and the antarctic. Still want more? Entire lakes in Africa which have been around for thousands of years are disappearing completely and in Siberia rivers are disappearing. Are you twonks getting the point yet? Mankind is **** the planet and nothing will be done about it until the governments of the world who are only interested in money are removed and mankind works together to make this planet a better place to live for the whole but there are to many selfish pricks around for that to happen. So there is no point arguing about it, it is inevitable because of all the ignorant pricks who would rather be driving around in there pollution makers to have a little pleasure for themselves. Rather than looking at the big picture. More animal life is becoming extinct than ever before seen on this planet but does mankind slow down to smell the roses no. We burn the roses to make room for our over sized fields and remove any life that gets in the way i am ashamed to be part of what we call the human race we are just animals like every other creature on this planet but we know better and should be working to preserve life not extinguish it when it gets in the way of making money.
• Posted by: dareeper • Report Comment
To view all 'Have Your Say' comments, click this button...