The Great Global Warming Swindle?

Discussion of global warming both as a part of the experiment and as part of the real world.

Moderators: crandles, Moderators, Site admin

The Great Global Warming Swindle?

Postby JohnofWem » Thu Mar 08, 2007 6:47 pm

The Great Global Warming Swindle

UK Channel 4 9pm tonight.

Are you green? How many flights have you taken in the last year? Feeling guilty about all those unnecessary car journeys? Well, maybe there's no need to feel bad.

According to a group of scientists brought together by documentary-maker Martin Durkin, if the planet is heating up, it isn't your fault and there's nothing you can do about it.

We've almost begun to take it for granted that climate change is a man-made phenomenon. But just as the environmental lobby think they've got our attention, a group of naysayers have emerged to slay the whole premise of global warming.


I don't expect to be convinced but I will give this a fair hearing in the interests of 'Know Thine Enemy' at least.
:roll:
User avatar
JohnofWem
Guru L-III.
Guru L-III.
 
Posts: 758
Joined: Sun Mar 05, 2006 8:31 pm
Location: North Shropshire UK

Postby Egon » Thu Mar 08, 2007 7:05 pm

Have you seen the poll? I think the results are interesting, 77 % think that global warming is caused by human carbon emissions but only 60 % think we should use the precautionary principle.
Egon
Guru L-I.
Guru L-I.
 
Posts: 121
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2005 2:33 pm
Location: Sweden

Postby McDerek » Fri Mar 09, 2007 9:24 pm

Hi All,
If you are "concerned" or "interested" in or by climate change then please spent 99p downloading the below documentary..
(Please watch before replying..)_
http://www.channel4.com/science/microsi ... index.html
or,
The Great Global Warming Swindle

You can downoad 4od and register below,
http://www.channel4.com/4od/

I am livid, feel abused, and conned.. Are you.. Are we all..

Is "beleiving carbon dioxide is driving the Greenhouse Effect tantamount to being anti-human"...


I am very sorry to ask people to spend 99p, but this really is an exception.

I'll not say anything more at present, untill I can see, or have been told a Team position,
but I've suspended my model, and it will not crunch again untill this is sorted..
"The variations, and causes of perfectly natural climate variations are not understood, nor quantified.
The "human contribution" to climate overall, if it be large, small, or insignificant, can not be a "settled science".
User avatar
McDerek
Guru L-I.
Guru L-I.
 
Posts: 126
Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2006 10:27 pm
Location: UK

Postby Les Bayliss » Fri Mar 09, 2007 10:09 pm

Perhaps, Derek, you're just being conned by the conners.

As it may take 20 years or more for "really obvious" signs of GW change to show up on your doorstep, your model could be paused for a long time.
If 'knowing for sure' is really important to you before you commit computer time and electricity to this project, perhaps you would be more comfortable with another DC project, such as Malaria, while you wait for 'more convincing evidence' of GW.

And, at the risk of repeating myself too much, THIS is the real reason for this project. Everything else is just a bonus. (The results of our models could just as easily show that the Earth will cool down, and we'll get another ice age, and the project will still achieve it's stated purpose of improving the understanding of climate modelling.)
The opinions here are my own, and the help ideas either mine, or that gleaned from other posts.
Les Bayliss
Forum Admin
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 4732
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2004 10:56 am
Location: Sydney, Australia

Postby grahamd » Fri Mar 09, 2007 10:12 pm

I'm sure we all watched the programme Derek. Despite their criticisms on the reliabilty of computer simulations did they make any reference to direct empirical evidence ie. what we actually see happening at ground level; the consequences of environmental change, climate change and the rate that it is happening. No!
Don't accept the last thing you heard or read. Carry on crunching.
Drag a white beach pebble from below the strandline and dump it inland to both cool the planet and counteract sealevel rise. Go back for more. Recycle ice cubes on the South Pole.
User avatar
grahamd
Guru L-IV.
Guru L-IV.
 
Posts: 2379
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2003 3:37 pm
Location: hemel herts UK

Postby Ice » Fri Mar 09, 2007 10:15 pm

I'm still open and can see the arguments have been around for some time. But that's what research is about - about arguing about the unknowns and trying to fit conclusions to facts, or what we think are facts. I am of the view that even if climate is going in other directions, these models are invaluable in helping to bring together conclusions and facts.
Image
Image
User avatar
Ice
Guru L-II.
Guru L-II.
 
Posts: 294
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 8:06 pm
Location: Surrey, England

Postby Ice » Fri Mar 09, 2007 10:16 pm

The Great Global Warming Swindle UK Channel 4, March 8 20007

The Arguments

Earth's 4.5 billion year history is one long story of climate change. This fact is pretty much accepted by those who think global warming is a natural process, and those who think it's caused by man.

In more recent history there has been: a mini ice age in the seventeenth century when the Thames froze so solidly that fairs could regularly be held on the ice; a Medieval Warm Period, even balmier than today; and sunnier still was the so-called Holocene Maximum, which was the warmest period in the last 10,000 years.

Those who think global warming is a natural process point to the fact that in the last 10,000 years, the warmest periods have happened well before humans started to produce large amounts of carbon dioxide.

A detailed look at recent climate change reveals that the temperature rose prior to 1940 but unexpectedly dropped in the post-war economic boom, when carbon dioxide emissions rose dramatically.

There is some evidence to suggest that the rise in carbon dioxide lags behind the temperature rise by 800 years and therefore can't be the cause of it.

In the greenhouse model of global warming, heat from the sun's rays is trapped by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. If it weren't for these gases, Earth would be too cold for life.

Greenhouse gases trap heat from the sun within the earth's atmosphere. This is the greenhouse effect. Traditional models predict that increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases lead to runaway heating.

If greenhouse warming were happening, then scientists predict that the troposphere (the layer of the earth's atmosphere roughly 10-15km above us) should heat up faster than the surface of the planet, but data collected from satellites and weather balloons doesn't seem to support this.

Those who think global warming is a natural process say that the troposphere is not heating up because man-made greenhouse gases are not causing the planet to heat up.

For some people, the final nail in the coffin of human-produced greenhouse gas theories is the fact that carbon dioxide is produced in far larger quantities by many natural means: human emissions are miniscule in comparison. Volcanic emissions and carbon dioxide from animals, bacteria, decaying vegetation and the ocean outweigh our own production several times over.

Others would argue that carbon dioxide isn't the only greenhouse gas and that human emissions could tip up a finely balanced system.

New evidence shows that that as the radiation coming from the sun varies (and sun-spot activity is one way of monitoring this) the earth seems to heat up or cool down. Solar activity very precisely matches the plot of temperature change over the last 100 years. It correlates well with the anomalous post-war temperature dip, when global carbon dioxide levels were rising.

In fact, what is known of solar activity over the last several hundred years correlates very well with temperature. This is what some scientists are beginning to believe causes climate change. Others feel that solar activity only explains the fine details of temperature change.

So how does the sun affect the earth's temperature? The process scientists suggest is that as earth moves through space, the atmosphere is constantly bombarded by ever-present cosmic rays. As these particles hit water vapour evaporating from the oceans, clouds form in the atmosphere. Clouds shield Earth from some of the sun's radiation and have a cooling effect.

When solar activity is high, there is an increase in solar wind and this has the effect of reducing the amount of cosmic radiation which reaches Earth.

When less cosmic radiation reaches Earth, fewer clouds form and the full effects of the sun's radiation heats the planet.

But is the effect of solar activity really enough to explain away global warming caused by the greenhouse effect? This is still a moot point – have your vote here.
Image
Image
User avatar
Ice
Guru L-II.
Guru L-II.
 
Posts: 294
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 8:06 pm
Location: Surrey, England

Postby crandles » Fri Mar 09, 2007 10:40 pm

Perhaps it is worth finding out what climate scientists think before taking precipitous action like stopping crunching.

Some links:

http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2007/03/t ... 1.php#more

http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2007/03/t ... p#comments

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... w-clothes/
Wiki help

BOINC Synergy for all the news

Views expressed here are not necessarily those of climateprediction.net, nor its participating institutions
User avatar
crandles
Forum Admin
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 2708
Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2003 11:26 am
Location: North Wales

Postby marj » Fri Mar 09, 2007 11:33 pm

For those who may not follow the real climate links...

Swindled!

On Thursday the 8th, the UK TV channel 4 aired a programme titled "The Great Global Warming Swindle". We were hoping for important revelations and final proof that we have all been hornswoggled by the climate Illuminati, but it just repeated the usual specious claims we hear all the time. We feel swindled. Indeed we are not the only ones: Carl Wunsch (who was a surprise addition to the cast) was apparently mislead into thinking this was going to be a balanced look at the issues (the producers have a history of doing this), but who found himself put into a very different context indeed.

So what did they have to say for themselves?

CO2 doesn't match the temperature record over the 20th C. True but not relevant, because it isn't supposed to. The programme spent a long time agonising over what they presented as a sharp temperature fall for 4 decades from 1940 to 1980 (incidentally their graph looks rather odd and may have been carefully selected; on a more usual (and sourced!) plot the "4 decades of cooling" is rather less evident). They presented this as a major flaw in the theory, which is deeply deceptive, because as they and their interviewees must know, the 40-70 cooling type period is readily explained, in that the GCMs are quite happy to reproduce it, as largely caused by sulphate aerosols. See this for a wiki-pic, for example; or (all together now) the IPCC TAR SPM fig 4; or more up-to-date AR4 fig 4. So... they are lying to us by omission.

The troposphere should warm faster than the sfc, say the models and basic theory. As indeed it does - unless you're wedded to the multiply-corrected Spencer+Christy version of the MSU series. Christy (naturally enough) features in this section, though he seems to have forgotten the US CCSP report, and the executive summary which he authored says Previously reported discrepancies between the amount of warming near the surface and higher in the atmosphere have been used to challenge the reliability of climate models and the reality of human induced global warming. Specifically, surface data showed substantial global-average warming, while early versions of satellite and radiosonde data showed little or no warming above the surface. This significant discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and radiosonde data have been identified and corrected. New data sets have also been developed that do not show such discrepancies. See-also previous RC posts.

Temperature leads CO2 by 800 years in the ice cores. Not quite as true as they said, but basically correct; however they misinterpret it. The way they said this you would have thought that T and CO2 are anti-correlated; but if you overlay the full 400/800 kyr of ice core record, you can't even see the lag because its so small. The correct interpretation of this is well known: that there is a T-CO2 feedback: see RC again for more.

All the previous parts of the programme were leading up to "so if it isn't CO2, what is it?" to which their answer is "solar". The section was curiously weak, and largely lead by pictures of people on beaches. It was somewhat surprising that they didn't feature Svensmark at all; other stuff we've commented on before. Note that the graph they used as "proof" of the excellent solar-T connection turns out to have some problems: see figure 1c of Damon and Laut.

Along the way the programme ticked off most of the other obligatory skeptic talking points: even down to English vineyards and that old favourite, volcanoes emitting more CO2 than humans.

It ended with politics, with a segment blaming the lack of African development on the environmental movement. We don't want to get into the politics, but should point out what the programme didn't: that Kyoto exempts developing nations.


http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=414
'I'd rather be a rising ape than a fallen angel' -
Terry Pratchett
marj
Forum Admin
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 8:40 pm
Location: Manchester, UK

Postby McDerek » Sat Mar 10, 2007 9:19 am

Hi All,
Many, many sincere thanks for the replies. I have not had time to read through the above replies and think this out yet, but I will.
As I have said before, I'm all for informed choice..

If this project is about improving modelling, then why is Dr. Piers Corbin winning so much money "against" the met office models predictions with William Hill.
(Dr Corbin is using models "adjusted" for sun spot activity as I understood it, Met office models being very similar to ours Yes / No. :?: .)
That alone would suggest the parametres "our" models use need to be looked at.
"The variations, and causes of perfectly natural climate variations are not understood, nor quantified.
The "human contribution" to climate overall, if it be large, small, or insignificant, can not be a "settled science".
User avatar
McDerek
Guru L-I.
Guru L-I.
 
Posts: 126
Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2006 10:27 pm
Location: UK

Postby IanBoyle » Sat Mar 10, 2007 2:21 pm

Hi,
I just wonder why it has to be an either or equation
even if he is correct in some of his theories does that mean we shouldnt try and negate mans load on the planet also ?
we cant control the sun but we can control man
so if he's right fine but that doesnt mean mans effect on top of the programmes solar explanation cant be looked at as a contribution to warming also.

Derek I can walk into a bookies for the first time place a bet on a horse and have it win that doesnt mean I know anything about horses maybe he's just lucky :wink:

Ian
ImageImage
User avatar
IanBoyle
 
Posts: 77
Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 9:32 am
Location: Tillicoultry, Central Scotland, Team : Scotland

Postby Iain Inglis » Sun Mar 11, 2007 2:15 am

It seems that the description of the programme's director Martin Durkin as a 'libertarian corporatist' is intentionally misleading, as he is usually supposed to be a Marxist; his public posture is intended to hasten the 'inevitable' collapse of capitalism - by promoting it, and by opposing anything that might act as a constraint on it. So, by undermining greenhouse gas theory, global warming is actually made more likely, and capitalism will eventually collapse as trade fails. Cute.
User avatar
Iain Inglis
Forum Admin
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 1188
Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2006 10:38 am
Location: London, UK

Postby CreditPro » Sun Mar 11, 2007 6:59 am

Iain Inglis wrote:It seems that the description of the programme's director Martin Durkin as a 'libertarian corporatist' is intentionally misleading, as he is usually supposed to be a Marxist; his public posture is intended to hasten the 'inevitable' collapse of capitalism - by promoting it, and by opposing anything that might act as a constraint on it. So, by undermining greenhouse gas theory, global warming is actually made more likely, and capitalism will eventually collapse as trade fails. Cute.


And then again, maybe he just saw an opportunity in reporting some very compelling information. This is a major blow to GW theory and a necessary one...back to the drawing board.
CreditPro
Guru L-III.
Guru L-III.
 
Posts: 546
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 10:21 am
Location: US-Northern California

Postby marj » Sun Mar 11, 2007 11:50 am

I hardly think a channel 4 'documentary' which has to resort to using TV footage from the 1970s and doesn't even seem to know the difference between climate and weather is likely to be a major blow to GW theory...

Not to mention the fact that one of their senior contributors (Carl Wunsch) is considering taking legal action against them for misrepresentation
http://news.independent.co.uk/environme ... 347526.ece

and its not the first time either that channel 4 and Durkin have had to make a similar public apology


Bad science: http://www.badscience.net/?p=383#more-383
'I'd rather be a rising ape than a fallen angel' -
Terry Pratchett
marj
Forum Admin
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 8:40 pm
Location: Manchester, UK

Postby Strathpeffer » Sun Mar 11, 2007 1:25 pm

Thank you Marj - unfortunately I think many members of the general public, including no doubt some of our fellow-crunchers, will have been taken in by the programme all the same. :(
User avatar
Strathpeffer
Guru L-III.
Guru L-III.
 
Posts: 787
Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2006 10:56 pm
Location: Highlands of Scotland

Next

Return to Global warming

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests