Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Monday, 8th September 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.

How global warming is good news for Greenland's economic climate



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: 31 May 2008
RARELY a month goes by without another scientific survey proclaiming that Greenland's ice sheet is melting faster than previously thought. But for the 56,000 people who live on the giant Arctic island, climate change is now being seen as an opportunity rather than a threat: a passport to prosperity, perhaps even independence.

The self-governing Danish territory didn't miss the chance to promote itself on the world stage this week when diplomats from Denmark, Norway, Russia, Canada and the United States gathered in the town of Ilulissat, halfway up the west coast, to discuss competing claims for territory in a region believed to contain a quarter of the world's un-discovered oil and gas reserves.

"We are the first ones to notice climate changes, so it's important people co-operate with us," said Greenland's prime minister, Hans Enoksen. "We live in the Arctic and are daily users of the natural world, so we feel it's important we take the natural world and animal life into consideration in our decisions."

Few could deny Greenland's Inuit understand the effects of global warming better than anyone on the planet. They have had a front-row seat to see the glaciers retract and the sea ice thin, altering a traditional way of life that has existed for 3,000 years. But global warming is also heating up the economy.

The fishing industry, which accounts for almost all of its exports, remains strong. Having opted out of the European Union in 1979, Greenland is not restricted by fishing quotas, and stocks remain healthy. This gives Royal Greenland, the state-owned seafood company, a monopoly in Arctic waters, which are home to some of the world's finest quality fish.

Tourism is the biggest growth industry, while rising temperatures could soon leave most of the Arctic ice-free in the summer, opening up the Northwest Passage and cutting thousands of miles off the shipping route from Europe to Asia.

But the key to Greenland's future lies under the seabed. Producers have drilled just six wells – and only once since the 1970s – but record oil prices and declining reserves elsewhere have persuaded at least half a dozen companies to take the plunge.

Cairn Energy, the Edinburgh-based oil exploration company, controls or has a stake in six of ten blocks of territory leased by the Greenland government and will be at the forefront of the search off the west coast. It plans to conduct seismic testing soon to determine the size of its reserves. And Greenland is preparing to cash in.

On and off, it has been under Danish control for more than 400 years, officially becoming part of the kingdom of Denmark in 1953 before opting for devolution in 1979. But potential oil revenues have raised the prospect of Greenland being able to go it alone in 15 to 20 years.

"The development of the oil industry is one of the most important components in Greenland's effort to establish a self-bearing economy," Kim Kielsen, Greenland's minister of mines and petroleum, has said.

In the shorter term, the country is relying on the rapidly expanding eco-tourism market. Business is already booming in Ilulissat, where hotels are now booked up a year in advance and unemployment is 0 per cent.

Hotel Arctic, which hosted this week's North Pole conference, opened a new five-star wing this month, and local politicians hope to extend the airport and attract a hotel chain.

Located 200 miles north of the Arctic Circle, the town of 5,200 people, and almost as many sled dogs, welcomed 27,000 tourists last year, and several thousand more dropped in from cruise ships. Most visitors are drawn by the fastest-moving and most productive glacier in the world, which now moves at up to 40 metres a day and empties spectacularly into Disko Bay. The ice fjord joined the Unesco world heritage list in 2004.


The full article contains 661 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 30 May 2008 11:16 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Climate change
 
1

tomi,

31/05/2008 02:41:18
Even if global warming is true, it is NOT all "Gloom and Doom"
2

Yane,

31/05/2008 03:45:53
I just want to tell you that the other day we had a guy come to where we work to talk to us about how to save the planet re: water usage, recycling, heating, food etc. Most of the people being lectured were disabled &/or elderly. At the end of the lecture the guy says — the key is to spend more money & do the right thing. I says — well that's just great to be tellin pensioners.
Global warming aside, this is marketing. Tellin people to spend more money is no bl**dy revolution.
3

Scullion,

Canada 31/05/2008 04:22:38
#2 No, the true key to combat global warming is to spend less money and do the right thing. Use less gas, less electricity and you'll pay less tax. The Canadian government just gave me $1,000 for buying a fuel efficient car so I save both ways.
Be green and be cheap.
4

,

31/05/2008 04:34:18
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
5

William of Liberton,

EDINBURGH 31/05/2008 04:49:58
Lucky Greenland: unlike Scotland, voted the right way in 1979 for devolution then, and now, well on the way to claiming its own oil resources.
6

donald,

glasgow 31/05/2008 05:55:36
Will Ibrox allow Greens in?
7

Rulesbutnotrulers,

Federation, not separation 31/05/2008 06:45:37
#4 Alec.

No global warming? So why are these glaciers melting in most places?

Humans have no role in climate change? And the evidence is? The fact is that everything we do effects everything else, climate is no exception.

A wise person observes the precautionary principle. It's why we use car seat belts, clean our teeth, avoid the bad parts of cities and reduce our carbon footprints-just in case!
8

Stevie. G,

Las Vegas 31/05/2008 06:52:10
# 6
I recall reading your last comment,like this one it is stupid,I guess that why you fall in to that category
STUPID Green, may be you should make a suggestion to Ibrox park,that we paint / dye the GREEN grass blue,you just might make some money from this and go get yourself a education?
9

Stevie. G,

Las Vegas 31/05/2008 07:02:18
# 7 VERY GOOD POINT, I wish there where more peple that shared our views.
Global warming is a serious matter,people should read more on this subject,as opposd to ignoring it.
10

Stevie. G,

Las Vegas 31/05/2008 07:21:39
It has come to my conclosion,that most of the comments here are from editors from the news paper.
I could be wrong but,I have this gut feeling that I'm right,it would seem this way reading comments from all over the globe,just to keep the rating up.
I could be wrong,but I don't think so, well MR.Editor?
11

Stevie. G,

Las Vegas 31/05/2008 07:32:23
HAS THE WORLD GONE TO SLEEP? WELL MR.EDITOR I thought I would have gotten a response from this,evidently not,I take it you must be asleep,or my posting has fallen upon deaf ears, (( please excuse the term ))
12

,

31/05/2008 07:32:46
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
13

Stevie. G,

Las Vegas 31/05/2008 07:42:35
MEGA BUCKS is well over $20.Milion,nice wee bit of pocket money, I think I would buy a wee house back in Bearsden / Milngavie if I won it.
14

thinking,

Scotland 31/05/2008 08:26:04
I see Greenland is able to do well in the fishing industry because they opted out of the EU.
The UK would do better out of the EU too as it costs us billions
15

Khalid.A,

Edinburgh 31/05/2008 08:43:48
The truth is the there are long term weather fluctuations, and the atmohsphere and other earth systems it's linked to are so vast and complex it's really quite hard to say conclusively if we're contributing to climate change. This is why experts say different things.

One thing cannot be denied however; there is a finite amount of oil. It will run out one day. The recent price hike may not be a result of peak oil; but peak oil WILL happen. As a result we need to strive towards sustainable lifestyles; otherwise global warming or not, we'll be up the creek without a paddle.
16

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 31/05/2008 09:04:57
#15 Khalid.A

Re. your first paragraph.

Do some reading on the subject rather than making inaccurate comments about "long term weather fluctuations". You are just saying what you hope is true, without having taken the trouble to look at the evidence.
17

Stevie. G,

Las Vegas 31/05/2008 09:13:09
Their has to be other means of fuel, SOLAR for a start,I'm hearing of people making fuel from old fat from the chippy,/ fast food places, their has to be other ways of making a engine run appart from oil.
It's out there someone just has to patten it,make it work fuel prices are totaly so far out of hand,when are they going to stop.
I feel very sorry for my country men back in Scotland,gas prices are about $3.85 per gallon here in the U.S.
mY FAMILY BACK HOME TELL ME i'M LUCKY TO A POINT AS GAS HAS GONE OVER 1.29 A LTR, VERY SAID WHEN SCOTLAND HAS OIL FIELDS OFF THE NORTH SEA.
18

Stevie. G,

Las Vegas 31/05/2008 09:25:14
#15 Siloch
I take it you have done some research / reading on the weather fluctuations, why don't you share it with the other readers,so we will all be on the same page as you.
Instead of criticiam.
19

Yes We Can,

Ayr 31/05/2008 09:40:02
Hang on!

A country with a small population, and an economy based on tourism, fishing and oil resources might be moving towards Independence to better benefit from the emerging economic opportunity.

Shouldn't Scotsman Journalists be pouring scorn and ridicule on such an audacious way of thinking!?
20

Unimpressed one,

31/05/2008 10:15:03
#17, Stevie g, YOU MIGHT GET MORE RESPONSES IF YOU DIDN'T SHOUT.
21

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 31/05/2008 10:15:09
#18 Stevie. G

"why don't you share it with the other readers"

I've been doing just that in these columns for almost two years, Stevie. Just now I don't have time to say very much.

But Khalid implied that "long term (ie, presumably entirely natural) weather fluctuations" were responsible for recent changes in climate. So I was (and still do) challenging him/her to provide any evidence for that assertion. If he reads up on the subject I think he will find there is none.

Long term changes in climate have in the past been caused by natural processes, such as slight changes in the Earth's orbit/axis wobble etc and changes in the output and behaviour of the sun. Neither of those causes can explain the global climate changes of the last few decades.

Orbital changes, in the absence of human effects, would cause a very slow cooling over the next ten to twenty thousand years before a new ice age began. Changes in the sun over the last few decades should have made things slightly cooler. Instead we have experienced the most rapid period of warming probably for well over 1000 years.

For example, a recent authoritative paper showing graphs for various solar outputs, along with global temperature is here:

http://publishing.royalsociety.org/media/proceedings_a/rspa20071880.pdf

From just glancing at the graphs it is easy to see that there is no correlation with recent climate changes.
22

Unimpressed one,

31/05/2008 10:15:42
"Be green and be cheap."

Be simple.
23

Hmm ...,

31/05/2008 11:10:39
... well this should get informed discussion going. Now let's hear it from the eco-loonies!

http://www.cgfi.org/2008/05/05/satellite-indicates-23-year-global-cooling/

SATELLITE INDICATES 23-YEAR GLOBAL COOLING


May 5, 2008
BY DENNIS T. AVERY


CHURCHVILLE VA-Now it's not just the sunspots that predict a 23-year global cooling. The new Jason oceanographic satellite shows that 2007 was a "cool" La
Nina year-but Jason also says something more important is at work: The much larger and more persistent Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) has turned into its
cool phase, telling us to expect moderately lower global temperatures until 2030 or so.

For the past century at least, global temperatures have tended to mirror the 20-to 30-year warmings and coolings of the north-central Pacific Ocean. We
don't know just why, but the pattern of the last century is clear: the earth warmed from about 1915 to 1940, while the PDO was also warming (1925 to 46). The
earth cooled from 1940 to 1975, while the PDO was cooling (1946 to 1977). The strong global warming from 1976 to 1998 was accompanied by a strong and almost-constant warming of the north-central Pacific. Ancient tree rings in Baja California and Mexico show there have been 11 such PDO shifts since 1650, averaging 23 years on length.

Researchers discovered the PDO only recently-in 1996-while searching for the reason salmon numbers had declined sharply in the Columbia River after 1977.
The salmon catch record for the past 100 years gave the answer-shifting Pacific Ocean currents. The PDO favors the salmon from the Columbia for about 25 years
at a time, and then the salmon from the Gulf of Alaska, but the two fisheries never thrive at the same time. Something in the PDO favors the early development
of the salmon smolts from one region or the other. Other fish, such as halibut, sardines, and anchovies follow similar shifts in line with the PDO.

The PDO seems to be driven by the huge Aleutian Low in the A
24

Hmm ...,

31/05/2008 11:12:32
The PDO seems to be driven by the huge Aleutian Low in the Arctic-but we don't know what controls the Aleutian Low. Nonetheless, 22.5-year "double sunspot
cycles" have been identified in South African rainfall, Indian monsoons, Australian droughts, and rains in the United States' far southwest as well.
These cycles argue that the sun, not CO2, controls the earth's temperatures.

Dr. Henrik Svensmark's recent experiments at the Danish Space Research Institute seem to show that the earth's temperatures are importantly affected by the low, wet clouds that deflect more or less solar heat back into space. The number of such clouds is affected, in turn, by more or fewer cosmic rays hitting the earth. The number of earthbound cosmic rays depends on the extent of the giant magnetic wind thrown out by the sun.

All of this defies the "consensus" that human-emitted carbon dioxide has been responsible for our global warming. But the evidence for man-made warming has
never been as strong as its Green advocates maintained. The earth's warming from 1915 to 1940 was just about as strong as the "scary" 1975 to 1998 warming in both scope and duration-and occurred too early to be blamed on human-emitted CO2. The cooling from 1940 to 1975 defied the Greenhouse Theory, occurring during the first big surge of man-made greenhouse emissions. Most recently, the climate has stubbornly refused to warm since 1998, even though human CO2 emissions have continued to rise strongly.

The Jason satellite is an updated and more-accurate version of the Poseidon satellite that has been monitoring the oceans since 1992, picking up ocean wind
speeds, wave heights, and sea level changes. Jason is run by NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory and a French team.

How many years of declining world temperature would it take now-in the wake of the ten-year non-warming since 1998-to break up Al Gore's "climate change consensus"?

DENNIS T. AVERY is a senior fellow for the Hudson Institute in Washington
25

Hmm ...,

31/05/2008 11:13:17
DENNIS T. AVERY is a senior fellow for the Hudson Institute in Washington, DC and is the Director for the Center for Global Food Issues. (www.cgfi.org) He was formerly a senior analyst for the Department of State. He is co-author, with S.Fred Singer, of Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1500 Hundred Years, Readers may write him at PO Box 202, Churchville, VA 2442
26

Douglas,

Bathgate 31/05/2008 11:13:43
Stevie.G, or is it the US branch of Charles Linskaill inc?
27

Hmm ...,

31/05/2008 11:35:39
... see also GLOBAL WARMING MAY 'STOP', SCIENTISTS PREDICT

The Daily Telegraph, 30 May 2008
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/04/30/eaclimate130.x\ml

By Charles Clover, Environment Editor

Global warming will stop until at least 2015 because of natural variations in the climate, scientists have said.

Researchers studying long-term changes in sea temperatures said they now expect a "lull" for up to a decade while natural variations in climate cancel out the increases caused by man-made greenhouse gas emissions.

The average temperature of the sea around Europe and North America is expected to cool slightly over the decade while the tropical Pacific remains unchanged.

This would mean that the 0.3°C global average temperature rise which has been predicted for the next decade by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change may not happen, according to the paper published in the scientific journal Nature.

However, the effect of rising fossil fuel emissions will mean that warming will accelerate again after 2015 when natural trends in the oceans veer back towards warming, according to the computer model.

Noel Keenlyside of the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences, Kiel, Germany, said: "The IPCC would predict a 0.3°C warming over the next decade. Our prediction is that there will be no warming until 2015 but it will pick up after that."

He stressed that the results were just the initial findings from a new computer model of how the oceans behave over decades and it would be wholly misleading to infer that global warming, in the sense of the enhanced greenhouse effect from increased carbon emissions, had gone away.

The IPCC currently does not include in its models actual records of such events as the strength of the Gulf Stream and the El Nino cyclical warming event in the Pacific, which are known to have been behind the warmest year ever recorded in 1998.

Today's paper in Nature tries to simulate the variabil
28

Hmm ...,

31/05/2008 11:37:47
Today's paper in Nature tries to simulate the variability of these events and longer cycles, such as the giant ocean "conveyor belt" known as the meridional
overturning circulation (MOC), which brings warm water north into the North East Atlantic.

This has a 70 to 80-year cycle and when the circulation is strong, it creates warmer temperatures in Europe. When it is weak, as it will be over the next
decade, temperatures fall. Scientists think that variations of this kind could partly explain the cooling of global average temperatures between the 1940s and 1970s after which temperatures rose again.

Global warming forecast predicts rise in 2014

Writing in Nature, the scientists said: "Our results suggest that global surface temperature may not increase over the next decade, as natural climate variations in the North Atlantic and tropical Pacific temporarily offset the projected anthropogenic [manmade] warming."

The study shows a more pronounced weakening effect than the Met Office's Hadley Centre, which last year predicted that global warming would slow until 2009 and
pick up after that, with half the years after 2009 being warmer than the warmest year on record, 1998.

Commenting on the new study, Richard Wood of the Hadley Centre said the model suggested the weakening of the MOC would have a cooling effect around the North
Atlantic.

"Such a cooling could temporarily offset the longer-term warming trend from increasing levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

"That emphasises once again the need to consider climate variability and climate change together when making predictions over timescales of decades."

But he said the use of just sea surface temperatures might not accurately reflect the state of the MOC, which was several miles deep and dependent on
factors besides temperatures, such as salt content, which were included in the Met Office Hadley Centre model.

If the model could accurately forecast other variables besides temperat
29

Hmm ...,

31/05/2008 11:40:22
If the model could accurately forecast other variables besides temperature, such as rainfall, it would be increasingly useful, but climate predictions for a
decade ahead would always be to some extent uncertain, he added.

Copyright 2008, TDT

In short - these are all exercises in computer modelling which are vulnerable to the assumptions input by the researchers.

They are no more than straws in the wind of our attempts to predict very complex influences of climate variation.
30

Hmm ...,

31/05/2008 12:13:52
And there's nothing new about climate change! Prehistoric man was certainly unable to "pollute" the climate.

See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7358868.stm

(The moderator would not accept some wording from this BBC report, saying "We have detected some potentially unsuitable words in your post `h0m0' Your comment has not been processed)!!
31

Rulesbutnotrulers,

Federation, not separation 31/05/2008 12:54:20
#30 Hmm.

You are sadly wrong! Prehistoric man resorted to much slash and burn activity, whether to clear land or to get rid of predators, enemies, and so on. A good near modern example is the aboriginal custom of burning the outback. These were not controlled fires and so could often spread over great distances, sending vast amounts of smoke aloft.

I doubt this caused significant climate change, of course, not as much as does modern slash and burn. anyway.
32

Neil,

Glasgow 31/05/2008 13:09:22
#2 Yane - I assume this parasite was paid for by the rest of us. Greenery is a marketing campaign to get us to give more money to pay people to run a marketing campaign, which politicians are keen to fund because a side effect of it is that they are marketing claims that the government should tax & regulate us more.

The bad news for Greenland is that most of the arctic sea ice came back last year & we are facing cooling unless the sunspot cycle re-starts.
33

Rennie,

Hills of Upstate NY 31/05/2008 14:30:08
Now the fear in Greenland will be that the Vikings will move bacK?
# 32 How dare you bring sunspot cycle reality up? No one can admit that the sun moves in cycles as yet not understood or predictable, and even though peoples around the world thousands of years ago understood the sun rules our planet and set up all these observatories, and noticed similarities between the ocurence of sunspots and events like floods, famine, drought, and wars caused by hungry populations, our sacrificing our economies or automobiles to the sun won't amount to anymore than the pagan sacrifices did back then. We have three "global warming" stooges running for President, it's just a question of which demographic you prefer voting for. A repeat of the solar storm of 1859, after the Little Ice Age minimum, will leave most of the developed world in the dark and without satellite radio or HD tv, how will we ever survive? I'm all for preventing pollution and developing alternative energy, but our economy has enough problems without this excuse for more taxes and regulation, it's time to give a lot of politicians the boot. We are literally paying tribute to Baal with these "carbon credits".
34

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 31/05/2008 14:34:09
#23 Hmm
Just a few points on Avery (I have other things to do, so will pull the plug in a few minutes).

Critique of Avery and Singer here:

http://www.cgfi.org/2008/05/05/satellite-indicates-23-year-global-cooling/

One or two points from your #23:

Avery states:

* "evidence for man-made warming has
never been as strong as its Green advocates maintained"
It is not green advocates. It is mainstream science.

* "The earth's warming from 1915 to 1940 was just about as strong as the "scary" 1975 to 1998 warming in both scope and duration-and occurred too early to be blamed on human-emitted CO2." Straw man argument - nobody does blame the early twentieth century warming on human-emitted CO2.

* "The cooling from 1940 to 1975 defied the Greenhouse Theory". Nonsense. Human emission in the 1940s were about one sixth of what they are at present. In fact the present 80% target for reducing emissions by 2050 equates approximately to the level of emissions in the 1940s.

* "the climate has stubbornly refused to warm since 1998" Anyone who uses 1998 as the beginning of a series of short term temperature changes is cherry-picking: that is the work of a charlatan or an idiot.

As far as the Kenleyside paper is concerned. Firstly, it is a properly peer-reviewed serious paper, but it amuses me that after years of slagging off computer generated forecasts as worthless (because they predicted warming), as soon as one(ONE) comes along that predicts cooling all the denialists are genuflecting before it as if it were gospel truth. Further, even if the Kenleyside analysis and predictions turn out to be entirely correct, that would not (as the authors were at great pains to stress in their paper) impact AT ALL on the theory of CO2 induced warming. It simply suggests changes in ocean currents (bringing cooler waters to the surface) may absorb much of the extra heat for some time.

You can find a critique of the Kenleyside paper, which concludes that their predict
35

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 31/05/2008 14:34:58
Contd.

You can find a critique of the Kenleyside paper, which concludes that their predictions are unlikely to be realised, here:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/the-global-cooling-bet-part-2/#more-565

As for the short term influence of sunspots on average global temperatures, take a look at Fig.1 in this paper to see that any effect is marginal in the extreme.

http://publishing.royalsociety.org/media/proceedings_a/rspa20071880.pdf
36

Wally,

By The Rivers Of Babylon (USA) 31/05/2008 15:47:48
of course global warming is real. but it is not the environmental disaster that some paint it. It will harm some regions & help some regions. Genetically modified foods can potentially destroy the earth, the pharmaceutical drugs that people take in large quantity can destroy the earth. but global warming won't do that. Al Gore & the environmental movement attempt to distract us from these greater harms. because the people that rule us profit from these greater harms and they know they are destroying the earth.

Here is an interesting article about weather warfare.

http://www.theecologist.org/archive_detail.asp?content_id=1215
37

Neil,

Glasgow 31/05/2008 17:00:48
Slioch:

"* "the climate has stubbornly refused to warm since 1998" Anyone who uses 1998 as the beginning of a series of short term temperature changes is cherry-picking: that is the work of a charlatan or an idiot."

The point is that the only recent period of warming was from 1975 to 1998. From 1940 to 1975 & since 1998 the trend has been for cooling. To claim, as the "environmentalists" do, that only the period 1975-1998 can represent a "trend" while the much more numerous other years are statistical anomalies is cherry picking by dumping most of the crop & clearly proves the "environmentalist" movement to consist solely of charlatans & idiots.

I do Slioch the courtesy of not believing she is an idiot.
38

Wally,

By The Rivers Of Babylon (USA) 31/05/2008 18:11:49
yes, we've had periods of warming & periods of cooling in history. and they've been quite dramatic. but today some parts of the world really are warming. that's why up in the far north there's glaciers melting.

but an interesting trend is the warming that is occurring around the many large cities of the world. Where people live in abundance especially with advanced economies we have warming in those locations.

I live in the Phoenix, Arizona area. In this community the local university tells us that the year-round average temperature is about 12 degrees higher now than it was prior to 1960. thats because of all the development. so much land area is covered in asphalt, concrete, crushed rock landscape or buildings that the ground no longer soaks up the heat radiated from the sun. these materials catch the heat, store it up for a few hours and then bounce it back into the atmosphere. Hence in the summer time every night at 2 AM the hottest spot in the US is Phoenix. excluding perhaps Death Valley, Nevada. We won't be the hottest in the day, but at night we are nearly every night in the summer.

When we have a pressure system holding the heat in, I've seen it over 110 degrees F at midnight. that happens maybe once every 3 years. so far its always cooled down to 99 degrees F or less by 5 AM, but the time will come when our low will be 100.
39

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 31/05/2008 18:19:45
#37 Neil

"since 1998 the trend has been for cooling."

Even that is not true. (and the cooling phase was from 1940 to the early 1950s). The following two graph show plots of monthly global average surface temperatures, plotted from both the HADCRU and NASA GISS compilations. The first graph is from 1998 and the slope of the best fit straight line (derived by the method of least squares)is still positive. The second graph is from 1975 and shows how the last decade fits in with the previous decades without an inflection in the graph.

http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/t1998.jpg

http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/t1975.jpg

Incidentally, I've just noticed a very recent article by Tamino on the PDO (see #23 Hmm), which I haven't yet read, but will do so within a day or so. See:

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/05/27/pdo-the-pacific-decadal-oscillation/

Meanwhile, I have a wych elm suffering from Dutch Elm Disease to deal with: #36 Wally, There are certainly other environmental problems, of which invasive alien species (such as the US fungus that is killing my elms) are some of the most intractable.
40

Dekester,

Canada's westcoast 31/05/2008 18:41:47
The Green movement is indeed a huge marketing ploy. Hats off to those making a killing out of it.

Greenpeace started the myth, and other clever individuals have tapped into the naivety of some of mankind.

Capitalism at it's finest.

All the best
41

11+failed,

the pans 31/05/2008 18:50:49
Global warming is far from the done deal that the IPCC claims!
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 have entered a period of more stable temperatures
2) The planet are just now passing a temperature peak and temperatures will begin to drop in the near future
3) Temperatures will begin to increase again
42

Dekester,

Canada's westcoast 31/05/2008 18:51:26
Vancouver Sun May 13 2008.

The Provinces Bee Keepers have reported a 30% drop in their winter Hive stocks because of cooler than normal temperatures . So says our minister of agriculture.

This is expected to increase as because of colder than normal temperatures.

Honestly, people are such fools. As the old saying goes follow the money.

All the best.
43

Stevie. G,

Las Vegas 31/05/2008 19:26:02
Slioch
I must say,it seems you have done your home work so to speak,good job rather impressive.
But it's not me you have to impress,it the rest of these people,that's if they listen to the voice of reason.
44

Gannyaa,

Campbell River, BC, Canada 31/05/2008 20:09:17
Sangáay 'láa! Good Day!
Global Warming is a product of the Earth's Percession Cycle. The last great flood was 26,000 years ago, and is scheduled to happen again before 2012 AD. All the great pyramid builders, stone hedge and others (including Native America mythos and stories) point to the almanac in the sky (zodiac) which have stories that relate to earth changes. Percession makes the earth cooler when tilting further from the Sun and hotter when tilting closer. These tilting or wobbling effects of the earth, either bring an flood (now) or an ice age (13,000 years ago or 13,000 years in the future). This is the age of aquarius or age of water according to the mayan and egyptian writing on the walls.
Haw'aa
45

Roni Bell,

Colorado 31/05/2008 20:26:58
Mr. Al Gore, inventor and CEO of “WEATHER OR NOT” Inc. (WON) reported yesterday the sky’s not the limit for his sales of his product...Hot Air.
In an interview with Catie Correct, Gore stated, “Global warming sales are not warm, they’re HOT! WON should continue to enjoy financial gain during the remainder of 2008.”
He continued, “One thing that really helped us Catie, WON won the prestigious “Mandate Consumer Purchase”label! We were so happy the consulates of UN, EU and PU unanimously agreed to put the MCP label on each WON.”
“What is the MCP award, uh- label?” asked Catie.
“Well,” answered Al, “In a way this award first came about when insurance companies lobbied the feds until they made purchase of auto insurance mandatory. So let’s say you want to sell hot air. But, ha, ha, you can’t do that for that’d be copyright infringement on my product, and I’d have to sue your ass. Sorry Catie, didn’t mean to digress. Anyway, point being, figure a way to buddie up with bureaucrats. Get them to help promote, maybe finance, but mainly make a law mandating everybody buy your widget.”
“What happens if let’s say Joe Citizen in Iowa doesn’t want to buy?” said Catie.
“MCP does come with the warning: “Do not hedge funding this product, or you will face severe penalties by EPA, ESA, NRDC, WWF, TNC, USA, GP, CBD, IRS, Arianna Huffington, Alec Baldwin, MERUS and all three main candidates for president of the United States of America...Isn't it grand? I even dupped them! Ha, ha. Ah ha, ha, - now I didn’t mean to exclude any Hollywood scientists...uh I mean celebrities, but there’s just so many who love “WONNING,” I love saying that...WONNING...anyway I’d be here until global cooling naming them all.”
“Speaking of global cooling, I read somewhere that we’re in a global cooling now. Is this true?” asked Catie.
“Yeh. But shhhhhhh. By time the public catches on to that fact - well, ha, ha, where do you think we got the name for our company? WEATHER OR NO
46

Jock Tamson,

Scotland, Caledonia, Alba 31/05/2008 20:31:25
I think it must be about 10 years sinse the papers were reporting lost migrationary flocks of birds.

This was put down to the periodic magnetic field change that the Earth undergoes.

Surely, anyone with a bit of joined up thinking can try to equate that with climate change?
47

Roni Bell,

31/05/2008 20:33:33
continued...
WEATHER OR NOT. It happens! Ha, ha, ha. Some scientists have tested WON and proved it happens! Even I know it's been happening...for over 300 billion years. But by time the stupid public finds out, my WON will have made me a very rich, famous, powerful man Catie."
"One last question Al. Did you just pull a fast WON?"
"Yes Catie. And let them recall that WON!"
48

Big Nige,

Arizona,USA 31/05/2008 21:26:26
Hmmm...(#23,24,25,27,28,29,30): Your verbosity does not hide your foolishness. Avery and Singer are well known junk scientists funded by Exxon and other vested interest private and corporate sources. They don't publish peer reviewed science. They cherry pick and spin real science. They lie. They are charlatans. No-one who wants to debate the science seriously would touch them with a bargepole. None of the peer reviewed science you cite denies or contradicts anthropogenic global warming. Global warming continues against the backdrop of many natural cyles and influences.
49

Big Nige,

Arizona, USA 31/05/2008 21:40:15
Cost Benefit Analysis of Global Warming? Yes there may be some benefits from global warming but at what cost? Benefits are likely to be few, limited and very unevenly distributed, ironically enough, to those who are most responsible for global warming (i.e. developed, nothern hemisphere). Sensible and ethical economists learned that you cannot put an economic value of peoples' livelihood, welfare and lives (Bjorn Ljundberg doesn't agree with this). Ultimately, to avoid meaningful action on global warming, will increasingly deny water, food, shleter and life to billions.
50

Big Nige,

Arizona, USA 31/05/2008 21:53:55
Greenland has in the past been a much more hospitable place for human life. During the medieval warm period, Greenland supported several sizable communities with populations numbering in the thousands. However, when the period ended, so did life, and the settlements were abandoned. (Note the cause of 'naturally' occuring warm period is not comparable to our current human caused warming).

The benefits now being looked forward to by some, could well be short lived. As global warming continues into dangerous levels the effects are increasingly difficult to forecast but are highly likeky to massively disrupt our global society. Ironically, one of the 'benefits' being eagerly anticipated is to open up new oil fields so we can warm the planet even more.
51

Dáithí,

San Jose 31/05/2008 22:16:55
Regardless of Al Gore, sun spots, global warming, Greenland, Iceland, Water World, ignorance, claims of exaggeration or what have you -

There is simply no good reason to continue to pump cr@p into the air, water and ground.
52

Sylvia in Regina,

Canada 31/05/2008 22:44:30
#51 - of all the above posts, you make the most sense!!!
53

truthsleuth,

01/06/2008 01:42:46
Just what sort of evidence will persuade ostriches to take their head out of the sand.
a short period of cooler weather and they have their evidence that Accelerated Climate Change is a Con.

With most of the deniers their philosophy is if they close their eyes and say 'I deny the evidence' the problem will go away.

I'm afraid it will not and the result will be far more catastrophic than the massive rise in food and fuel prices. No doubt they will claim that these are just temporary and previous records show that fuel and food prices have increased before and then reduced again.

54

Dekester,

Canada's westcoast 01/06/2008 03:27:11
#53..you are obviously left of centre politically.

As think you know everything, and anyone of a differing opinion is wrong.

All the best.
55

TimW1234,

Ottawa, Canada 01/06/2008 15:31:54
#4 Alec in Chicago

You, sir, have NEVER had a clue and you are the usual blabbermouthed,run-off-at-the-mouth, LOUD and OBNOXIOUS American.

Your public arrogance in this thread is breathtaking in its obviousness and since you deny global warming you can wallow in your bottomless stupidity.
56

Hugo Rafael Chávez,

Venezuela 01/06/2008 16:16:04
57 TimW1234

You are one of the most rude posters I've seen in a long time.
57

Dáithí,

San Jose 01/06/2008 16:39:21
#54 - Dekester

>"As think you know everything, and anyone of a differing opinion is wrong."

Uh, ok - then in response to my question, can you give me some good reasons to continue to pump pollutants into the air, water and ground?
58

Hmm ...,

01/06/2008 18:24:21
... interesting article in Washington Post (although I realise that the eco-loonies will consider it worthless because it is from America or at least because it distracts from their propaganda)!

See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/29/AR2008052903266_pf.html
59

Hmm ...,

01/06/2008 18:27:02
It read -

Carbon Chastity
The First Commandment of the Church of the Environment

By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, May 30, 2008; A13

I'm not a global warming believer. I'm not a global warming denier. I'm a global warming agnostic who believes instinctively that it can't be very good to pump lots of CO2into the atmosphere but is equally convinced that those who presume to know exactly where that leads are talking through their hats.

Predictions of catastrophe depend on models. Models depend on assumptions about complex planetary systems -- from ocean currents to cloud formation -- that no one fully understands. Which is why the models are inherently flawed and forever changing. The doomsday scenarios posit a cascade of events, each with a certain probability. The multiple improbability of their simultaneous occurrence renders all such predictions entirely speculative.

Yet on the basis of this speculation, environmental activists, attended by compliant scientists and opportunistic politicians, are advocating radical economic and social regulation. "The largest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity," warns Czech President Vaclav Klaus, "is no longer socialism. It is, instead, the ambitious, arrogant, unscrupulous ideology of environmentalism."

If you doubt the arrogance, you haven't seen that Newsweek cover story that declared the global warming debate over. Consider: If Newton's laws of motion could, after 200 years of unfailing experimental and experiential confirmation, be overthrown, it requires religious fervor to believe that global warming -- infinitely more untested, complex and speculative -- is a closed issue.

But declaring it closed has its rewards. It not only dismisses skeptics as the running dogs of reaction, i.e., of Exxon, Cheney and now Klaus. By fiat, it also hugely re-empowers the intellectual left.

For a century, an ambitious, arrogant, unscrupulous knowledge class -- social planners, scientists, int
60

Hmm ...,

01/06/2008 18:28:10
For a century, an ambitious, arrogant, unscrupulous knowledge class -- social planners, scientists, intellectuals, experts and their left-wing political allies -- arrogated to themselves the right to rule either in the name of the oppressed working class (communism) or, in its more benign form, by virtue of their superior expertise in achieving the highest social progress by means of state planning (socialism).

Two decades ago, however, socialism and communism died rudely, then were buried forever by the empirical demonstration of the superiority of market capitalism everywhere from Thatcher's England to Deng's China, where just the partial abolition of socialism lifted more people out of poverty more rapidly than ever in human history.

Just as the ash heap of history beckoned, the intellectual left was handed the ultimate salvation: environmentalism. Now the experts will regulate your life not in the name of the proletariat or Fabian socialism but -- even better -- in the name of Earth itself.

Environmentalists are Gaia's priests, instructing us in her proper service and casting out those who refuse to genuflect. (See Newsweek above.) And having proclaimed the ultimate commandment -- carbon chastity -- they are preparing the supporting canonical legislation that will tell you how much you can travel, what kind of light you will read by, and at what temperature you may set your bedroom thermostat.

Only Monday, a British parliamentary committee proposed that every citizen be required to carry a carbon card that must be presented, under penalty of law, when buying gasoline, taking an airplane or using electricity. The card contains your yearly carbon ration to be drawn down with every purchase, every trip, every swipe.

There's no greater social power than the power to ration. And, other than rationing food, there is no greater instrument of social control than rationing energy, the currency of just about everything one does and uses in an advanced socie
61

Hmm ...,

01/06/2008 18:29:03
There's no greater social power than the power to ration. And, other than rationing food, there is no greater instrument of social control than rationing energy, the currency of just about everything one does and uses in an advanced society.

So what does the global warming agnostic propose as an alternative? First, more research -- untainted and reliable -- to determine (a) whether the carbon footprint of man is or is not lost among the massive natural forces (from sunspot activity to ocean currents) that affect climate, and (b) if the human effect is indeed significant, whether the planetary climate system has the homeostatic mechanisms (like the feedback loops in the human body, for example) with which to compensate.

Second, reduce our carbon footprint in the interim by doing the doable, rather than the economically ruinous and socially destructive. The most obvious step is a major move to nuclear power, which to the atmosphere is the cleanest of the clean.

But your would-be masters have foreseen this contingency. The Church of the Environment promulgates secondary dogmas as well. One of these is a strict nuclear taboo.

Rather convenient, is it not? Take this major coal-substituting fix off the table, and we will be rationing all the more. Guess who does the rationing.

letters@charleskrauthammer.com
62

TimW1234,

Ottawa, Canada 01/06/2008 19:17:25
#58 Hugo from Venezuela

Obviously you, sir, have not seen some of the other postings from posters in Scotland that make my benign comments seem like pabulum.

If you are going to be so wimpish and sissified and coddled, I suggest you post at "Lady's Home Journal" or "The Lady".
63

Big Nige,

Arizona, USA 01/06/2008 23:54:07
Hmmm... so what does reproducing an arch neocon op-ed columnist's stream of conciousness achieve? Nothing, other than affirming your susceptibility to be influenced by opinion, ideology and (from your earlier references to Avery and Singer) disinformation. The answers to his questions are already firmly established by the published (peer reviewed of course) science. His equating of environmentalism with socialism, marxism, religious estremism and an assault on basic freedoms is becoming an increasingly common tactic from the right wing intended to distract from the real issue as they see that their tactic of trashing the science is finally fading.
64

Big Nige,

Arizona,USA 02/06/2008 00:16:45
Hmmm... I don't consider Krauthammer worthless because he is from America. I consider him worthless because his arguments are weak and unfounded. To state that Newton's laws were overthrown is complete nonsense - they are still perfectly valid in most everday environments and are used used in countless engineering and science calculations everyday. You, and Krauthammer, obviously have little understanding of science. Of cousre there is much in the field of climatology to be understood as all credible climate scientist will readily tell you - that's why there is still much research going on. But they will also tell you that anthropogenic global warming is real and is dangerous. Those who choose to ignore this message reject science as a cornerstone of our society and thereby become the ideologues and irrational extremists they accuse others of being.
65

WalIy,

By The Rivers Of Babylon (USA) 02/06/2008 01:25:53
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.
66

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 02/06/2008 10:59:48
#65&66 Big Nige

Excellently put, Big Nige. Thanks for saving me the bother.
67

Alec in Chicago,

Chicago 01/09/2008 11:03:10
#55 Tim

The poster of comment #4 deserves every bit of the vitriol you aim at him/her - but it is not me!

I am trying to find out how this clown manages to use my user name.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In