Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Friday, 16th May 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.

2007 could be one of the hottest years ever for the UK



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: 14 December 2007
WIMBLEDON stopped for "rain breaks" and even the tenacious Tartan Army seemed about to be washed away by a year of hail and torrential downpours.
But experts yesterday said that 2007 is on course to be among the UK's hottest years on record.

Officials with the Met Office said new figures, which it compiled with the University of East Anglia, were further evidence of the need to tackle cli
mate change.

Globally, 2007 has so far been the seventh hottest since records began in 1850, with an average temperature of 14.4C. In the UK, where nationwide records have been kept since 1914, the 2007 average between January and December was 9.7C – fractionally lower than the record of 9.75C set last year.

However, a Met Office spokesman said this year's UK figure was likely to drop slightly as colder conditions set in over the Christmas break. The research shows that the 11 warmest average annual global temperatures were recorded in the past 13 years.

The findings were released as leading scientists and politicians from 189 countries met at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Bali to discuss ways of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Dr Dan Barlow, acting director of WWF Scotland, said: "Our own figures show in Scotland that 2007 could be in the top three hottest years. Six months this year have been at least a degree warmer than normal.

"However, as well as political changes, we should all be thinking of what we can do on an individual level – from choosing our transport carefully, perhaps taking less flights and turning down heating."

The Scottish Climate Bill is due to go for consultation in the New Year. It aims to cut emissions by 80 per cent by 2050.



The full article contains 303 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 14 December 2007 1:14 AM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Weather
 
1

Unimpressed one,

Edinburgh 14/12/2007 08:29:45
Where and when were the high temperatures seen this year in the UK? Given that snow fell in Brazil for the first time in many years, there were severe frosts in Queensland and much of the rest of the southern hemphisphere froze, how is 2007 another record year? More political spin dressed as science.
2

Vincent-W,

14/12/2007 08:51:16
1 - it's just that you don't understand the science. Because the average temperature of the planet is going up does not mean there is a uniform rise across the whole globe. I didn't think that was a difficult concept. Clearly you are either not scietifically minded or have your own political spin on scienctific facts.
3

Dave from Barra ©,

Western Isles 14/12/2007 08:51:20
Not according to my figures it ain't! In fact, by collating my figures now, I can say we are on target for an extremely average year.
4

Guthrie,

Edinburgh 14/12/2007 09:37:29
DAve- Barra is surrounded by water, therefore any temperature changes are going to be reduced by the surrounding ocean.
Nevertheless, it would be possible to take your figures and graph them. However, it would help if the measurements were taken at the same time of day, from a thermometer within a stephenson screen, preferably a few yards away from houses and trees and suchlike. That way you should get reliable results.
5

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 14/12/2007 09:37:52
#1 Unimpressed one

I think the first five months of this year were well above average.

This is not "political spin". Temperature data are collected by ground stations and satellites. They are compiled, for example by the University of East Anglia in the UK and by the Goddard Institute for Space Science in the USA, and then published. You can find their graphs of global temperature change for the last 150 years or so here:

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

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/
6

Unimpressed one,

Edinburgh 14/12/2007 09:38:12
Where and when were the high temperatures seen this year in the UK? Given that snow fell in Brazil for the first time in many years, there were severe frosts in Queensland and much of the rest of the southern hemphisphere froze, how is 2007 another record year? More political spin dressed as science.
7

Unimpressed one,

14/12/2007 09:39:35
#2, please don't claim there is science associated with this scaremongering
8

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 14/12/2007 10:06:33
#7 Unimpressed one

In the hope that you (or others who may be wondering) might be interested actually looking at the data, here is the graph of temperature anomalies (compared to 1961-1990 average) for the UK and Eng, Wales, Scotland etc.

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/2007/temperature.html
9

Guthrie,

Edinburgh 14/12/2007 10:20:11
What do you mean southern hemisphere froze?
Looking here:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/maps/

I see lots of positive temperature anomalys, i.e. it was warmer in much of the Southern hemisphere for much of the year. Besides, as people will point out, one months results do not a trend make, and the trend is upwards.

10

George.,

14/12/2007 10:52:18
How nice to pick a period to set the average temp when they were known to be dropping. 1940's to 1980's. So is it little wonder that we have temps above that average.
Arctic sea ice is freezing at a record rate and has returned to average coverage.
Hudson Bay has frozen 20 days earlier than last year.
The Antarctic had a record setting amount of sea ice this year. Is the above data from satelite or from ground based stations? Have they carried out their adjustments of satelite data as raw satelite data does not match ground based measurements? Do you take data from stations like this one.http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2007/07/contributing-to.html
11

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 14/12/2007 11:11:12
#10 George

The period against which anomalies are compared is 1961 to 1990, during which time global temperatures were rising. Not that it makes the slightest difference whether temperature were rising or falling: a thirty year period in the recent past is chosen simply to make comparisons more user-friendly. It has absolutely no effect on the actual data.

Did you manage to see my reply to your reference to the Christopher Booker article in the Telegraph a couple of evening ago? You were completely misled by that article, as no doubt many others were as well.
12

George.,

14/12/2007 11:31:01
Global temps fell between the late 1930's and the late 70's. Thats why there was a scare about an impending ice age. So to pick a period that had a lower average temp than today and claim that we are x number degrees above that average is being dishonest to say the least. If we used average temps from the little ice age we would be well above average or during the Holocene climatic optimum we would be well below average.
You are quite right it does not make any difference to the data shown however nobody would care if they had shown it to be below average. Now if NASA is correct in regards to solar cycle 24 we can expect to see a 1.5c drop in global temps. Remember all of the Global Warming hype is over a .6c increase in temps.
13

Guthrie,

Edinburgh 14/12/2007 12:09:33
But George, you havn't demonstrated that there was a scare amongst the scientific community about an impending ice age. There was a short lived media scare, but no scientific consensus that an ice was due. In fact, the general consensus was that lacking interference, the earths climate would slowly cool down into another ice age in a few thousand years.
14

George.,

14/12/2007 12:39:11
Since 1895, the media has alternated between global cooling and warming scares during four separate and sometimes overlapping time periods. From 1895 until the 1930’s the media peddled a coming ice age.

From the late 1920’s until the 1960’s they warned of global warming. From the 1950’s until the 1970’s they warned us again of a coming ice age. This makes modern global warming the fourth estate’s fourth attempt to promote opposing climate change fears during the last 100 years.

In addition, something that the media almost never addresses are the holes in the theory that C02 has been the driving force in global warming. Alarmists fail to adequately explain why temperatures began warming at the end of the Little Ice Age in about 1850, long before man-made CO2 emissions could have impacted the climate. Then about 1940, just as man-made CO2 emissions rose sharply, the temperatures began a decline that lasted until the 1970’s, prompting the media and many scientists to fear a coming ice age.

Second, what the climate alarmists and their advocates in the media have continued to ignore is the fact that the Little Ice Age, which resulted in harsh winters which froze New York Harbor and caused untold deaths, ended about 1850. So trying to prove man-made global warming by comparing the well-known fact that today's temperatures are warmer than during the Little Ice Age is akin to comparing summer to winter to show a catastrophic temperature trend.

http://epw.senate.gov/speechitem.cfm?party=rep&id=263759
"akin to comparing summer to winter to show a catastrophic temperature trend"
Are they not doing the same with this article
15

Guthrie,

Edinburgh 14/12/2007 13:07:46
Ahh, so George, you trust the media to report the science? I'm afraid you have to accept that they are not a reliable source.

Hence, you have no evidence against AGW.
16

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 14/12/2007 13:12:57
You are wrong on two points George.

First the main global temperatures fall was between about 1942 and 1955 - just look at the graph:

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

Secondly, and more to your point, as I said previously, it makes not the slightest difference where the "baseline" against which temperatures are compared. It wouldn't matter if there were no baseline - it is just a convenience. Again look at the graph and ask yourself if it would make any difference if the (average for 1961-1990) baseline (the junction between the blue and the red parts of the graph) was positioned one or two degrees higher or lower. Of course it would not. Nor would it matter at all if the baseline were not present. It is just a convenience to refer to the average for a particular thirty (or whatever) year period.

What would you do instead????
17

Guthrie,

Edinburgh 14/12/2007 13:21:36
George, its no wonder you are confused. The media is not widely known for its coherent and accurate description of science issues.

Instead, you can read the IPCC report yourself, and find the answers in there:
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/assessments-reports.htm

I direct you to this section, on the physical basis of the atribution of climate change:

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm

It will take a few days to read, but afterwards you will know much better of what you talk.
18

George.,

14/12/2007 13:29:44
How about an average based on the Holocene optimum to present. That would average out any short term highs or lows. You are correct; it would make to difference to the graph however we would still be well below the long term average. The article states that 11 of the warmest years were set in the last thirteen. That looks quite impressive until you realise temperature records are biased towards the present, because if two equal temperatures are set only the most recent is included in the records.
19

George.,

14/12/2007 13:37:05
A few links to just one site that blows the science of AGW right out the window.

http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2007/12/hadley-99-chanc.html
http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2007/12/false-sense-of.html
http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2007/12/surface-tempera.html
http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2007/12/a-brief-window.html
http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2007/12/observer-techno.html
http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2007/12/its-the-cities.html
http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2007/12/climate-models.html
20

Guthrie,

Edinburgh 14/12/2007 13:37:28
George, it is the "Short term" highs and lows that cause the problems. The "little ice age" period spanned 2 or 3 hundred years. The current warming is happening in decades. It is precisely these changes that your suggested metric would completely eliminate.

Doing it your way would also mean that climatogology could never advance further than the 1970's. in fact, you appear to want to turn the clock back, to when scientists knew much less about the subject and could therefore be ignored.
21

George.,

14/12/2007 13:41:53
No what it would mean is that chicken little would have to shut up.
22

Guthrie,

Edinburgh 14/12/2007 13:45:50
Lovely, a website that has no science in it. When you find something that actually has science backing it up, George, let us know.
23

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 14/12/2007 13:54:07
#18 George.

"How about an average based on the Holocene optimum to present."

Well here is a compilation graph of several attempts to assess the temperatures for the last 12,000 years. You will see that there is no support for your assertion that "we would still be well below the long term average." All the graphs shown were published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Holocene_Temperature_Variations_Rev_png

I repeat, "Did you manage to see my reply to your reference to the Christopher Booker article in the Telegraph a couple of evening ago?"

If not, I'll post it again. It is a very revealing article. It reveals how climate change deniers like Christopher Booker manipulate and confuse and mislead people. You appear to one of his many victims.
24

Guthrie,

Edinburgh 14/12/2007 13:54:40
Either way you lose, george. If we take an average from 8,000 years ago, it will still end up warmer than then, in a couple of hundred years time (on the current trajectory), moreover, the sea level will have risen by several metres and Greenland will be most of the way to being ice free, which has not happened in the past 8,000 years.
25

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 14/12/2007 14:14:48
#19 George

I've just had a couple of minutes look at one of your climate skeptic sites. That is all the time it took me to find a glaring howler of an error.

In http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2007/11/single-best-rea.html
the author presents graph of temperature against time in para. 4., whilst talking about climate sensitivity.

In it he makes the absurd assumption (though he doesn't mention it) that the Earth INSTANTLY achieves thermodynamic equilibrium with its present CO2 concentration. In particular he states that the today's warming of 0.6C is caused as a result of today's concentration of CO2. This is idiotic nonsense. It takes several decades for the atmosphere to achieve equilibrium with a given CO2 concentration, and probably several hundreds or thousands of years for the oceans to do so.

Forgive me if I don't peruse this nonsense further.

George, either start reading some proper science on this subject, or get yourself a proper scientific education so you can recognise garbage when you see it.
26

George.,

14/12/2007 14:28:46
So the graphs you show are composites of reconstructed data and modern real time data. This is like comparing the sweetness of oranges to lemons not the same thing. The reconstructed data still shows that the temperature during the medieval warm period is higher than today and the Holocene climatic optimum was warmer still. The 2004 temperature I bet is based on ground stations which show twice the amount of warming satellites do. Why will sea levels have risen several meters when satellites show no trend and I could list many places where sea levels are dropping. The ice on Greenland is thinning at the edges but that is due to warmer oceans where as the ice sheet is getting thicker in the middle. The reason why the oceans are warming is a hole different story.
27

Guthrie,

Edinburgh 14/12/2007 14:37:20
George, which bit of "no the reconstructions do not show the medieval warm period as being warmer than today" do you not understand?
See for example wikipedia, which has some useful graphs based on the data:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png


Perhaps you can tell us why the oceans are warming? I have an idea how you will answer, but don't want to give you any ideas.
28

George.,

14/12/2007 14:46:49
Oranges and lemons again, also note the number of tracks from Mann and Jones. That old hockey stick again.
29

George.,

14/12/2007 14:59:31
It is not Warren Meyer that says the earth has warmed by .6c it is the IPCC. It is not Warren Meyer that is saying the most important factor in that warming
is co2 it is the IPCC. What he has shown is that if they are correct and co2 is responsible for that warming then their figures just don't add up.
30

Guthrie,

Edinburgh 14/12/2007 15:38:55
#28 and 29- no, the studies still show a hockey stick even using different proxies and processing from Manns work. They show that it was not warmer in the early medieval period than it is now. As for 29, Slioch has already answered you.

Also, why is the ocean warming?
31

Saoghal Beag,

14/12/2007 16:08:08
is it george w bush? there can't possibly be more than two folk with the same lame excuses and absolute refusal to believe the consensus of scientists. They appear to try to muddy the waters by drawing attention to climate change over the centuries when the argument is that the current rate of change is being influenced by human activity.
32

George.,

14/12/2007 16:27:13
If Slioch has issues with Warren Meyer then he must also have issues with IPCC.
Please read this article.
http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2007/11/the-splice.html

It covers your temperature graph quite well.
33

George.,

14/12/2007 16:36:49
Lets have a closer look at that graph. First you have to remove the thick black line as it measured data.
Light Blue line Jones
Dark blue Line "
Blue Line Mann
Yellow Mann
Orange Mann
Red Orange Does not go back far enough.
Dark red " " "
Jones and Mann all follow the hockey stick which has been totally discredited.
34

George.,

14/12/2007 16:59:45
Thousand of new volcanoes revealed beneath the waves
The true extent to which the ocean bed is dotted with volcanoes has been revealed by researchers who have counted 201,055 underwater cones. This is over 10 times more than have been found before.

The team estimates that in total there could be about 3 million submarine volcanoes, 39,000 of which rise more than 1000 metres over the sea bed

http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn12218-thousand-of-new-volcanoes-revealed-beneath-the-waves.html
35

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 14/12/2007 17:03:06
#29 George

Warren Meyer has not shown that the IPCC figures 'don't add up' with his graph etc. to which I referred in #25 above.

Let me use an analogy to explain the mistake he has made. Suppose you have a very large tank of water (representing the Earth's atmosphere) being heated by a Bunsen burner. After a long time the tank of water will reach a constant temperature if the Bunsen and all other factors remain constant. Those other factors include the loss of heat to the surrounding from the warming tank. When heat loss to the surroundings equals heat gained from the Bunsen, the temperature remains constant. If then you increase the gas supply to the Bunsen, more heat is supplied to the tank and it begins to get hotter again. In effect, using this very crude analogy, Meyer is asking the question "If the rate of supply of gas to the Bunsen is doubled, how hot will the tank get?" And he notes that after a 36% increase (which is correct) temperature has gone up by 0.6C (actually a bit more, but lets not quibble). But what he forgets is that the tank (Earth) has not yet reached equilibrium with that 36% increase in CO2, nor would it yet for several decades, even if we could magically maintain CO2 levels at their present levels during that time.

Thus, his use of the 0.6C rise in his graph is completely unjustified and his whole argument falls flat on its face.
36

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 14/12/2007 20:02:42
#32 George

I've read the article called The Splice by Meyer.

He makes much ado about nothing, or rather nothing very much. His description of the "splice" as he inaccurately calls it (it is not a splice, which implies a co-joining) is inaccurate: the various coloured (proxy temperatures) lines do correspond fairly well with the black line (measured temperatures) and they overlap for at least 100 years, so it can hardly be called an inflection.

The only valid point seems to be (I haven't looked at this in detail) the problem with the post 1950 tree ring data by Briffa. I at present recall where, but I have read about this previously (and not in contrarian blogs) so his complaint that it is not receiving "open scientific discussion" seems to be off the mark.

But let us step back from this nit-picking about tiny details and ask ourselves a broader question. Which would be the more comforting to our present predicament a) a situation where temperatures for the last 10,000 have been reasonably stable, or b) a situation where they have fluctuated considerably?

It seems, from the evidence (the hockey stick and the many other similar graphs ie the coloured graphs in Meyer Splice article) that situation a) pertains.

But suppose the contrarians were correct. Suppose situation b) pertained, and the medieval warm period (and the Holocene maximum) etc. really had been much warmer than at present. What would that tell us?

Well, on the positive side it would tell us that the Earth has fairly recently been through climatic fluctuations, and seems to have survived. But then, of course, we didn't then have a planet whose biosphere is already deeply stressed by all the assaults that six billion humans produce. Nor did it have countless cities built close to sea-level. So the Earth would have survived past fluctuations more easily that at present.

But there is a far more worrying side to the argument, if the contrarians were correct: Because it would tell us tha
37

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 14/12/2007 20:04:08
#36 contd

But there is a far more worrying side to the argument, if the contrarians were correct: Because it would tell us that the Earth's climate is actually far less stable than we previously imagined. If minor changes in solar radiation (or whatever - but certainly not human actions) caused large fluctuations in climate in the past, then the prospect for the future looks even more precarious, as we are chucking 27 billion tons of fossil fuel CO2 in the atmosphere every year, with the result that CO2 is rising more rapidly than at any time for millions of years.

The evidence suggests the contrarians are wrong when they claim that the MWP was warmer than today. But if they were right, then you had better hang on to your hat, because it means we would be in for a rougher ride than we presently think we are.
38

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 14/12/2007 20:05:31
#34 George.

Lovely! Lots more volcanoes discovered!

And you point is?
39

Guthrie,

Edinburgh 15/12/2007 00:16:51
Slioch- I asked him why he thought the ocean was warming. Of course, the warming is occuring at the surface, not deep underwater where the volcanoes are, but that won't stop him.

As for the hockey stick being broken, have a look here:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/07/the-missing-piece-at-the-wegman-hearing/#more-328

Basically, even with the different data manipulation that Wegman suggested, the same shape occurs. This of course is ignored by every denialist out there. If there are any unbiased people reading this who have not come across this non-issue before, you just have to look at the graphs in the post to see that George and others have not got a clue.

An explanation for laymen of the issues around the hockey stick can be found here:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=121

 

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.