The Great Global Warming Swindle

[shropshire 0]

The controversial documentary is just about to start (22:00 12-03-07) on "More 4" (U.K T,V) for those that can receive it......

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[shropshire 0]

Now, this is a polemic documentary and as such only gives one side of the argument,,, i.e to discredit the 'New Religion' of Man Made Climate change.

It points out that Al Gore's "Inconvenient Truth", tried to establish that Higher concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere equated to higher temperatures, but what he fail to point out (apparently) was that the was something like an 800year lag between the raise in CO2 concentrations and temperature change..

Also, rather interestingly, the recent temperature rise, started before the major industrialisation.



.........

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[shropshire 0]

So, if it's not Man Made CO2, then what could be causing Climate Change.?

Our Sun?

After all, it's jolly big and has a massive impact on the whole Solar system.

The correlation between Earths temperature and Solar activity does appear to be very close and with No Lag..

There also appears to be an inverse relationship between our temperature and Cosmic Ray activity

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[ExAFO 0]

Quote

So, if it's not Man Made CO2, then what could be causing Climate Change.?

Ruffed Lemurs, Kittens, Mice, and Poop.

Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW.

[shropshire 0]

B.T.W : Temperatures were far higher in the Middle ages than they are currently


Bottom line...... it's a politically not scientifically driven theory..

It has spawned a MASSIVE Industry, incredible numbers of jobs, many Billions of £/$/Euros etc..

It is alleged to be holding back the 3rd world, by quashing their industrialisation.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[shropshire 0]

Perceived meteorology theory suggests that Storms (small and large) are caused by the temperature differential between the Poles and the Equator......


So, if Global warming is increasing the temperature at the poles, then the number and magnitude of Storms should be getting LESS..... Why are we therefore being told that all of the big storms around the world at the moment are being caused by Global Warming? ummmmm


.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[quade 3]

Quote

Why are we therefore being told that all of the big storms around the world at the moment are being caused by Global Warming?

Because the entire system has not yet reached equilibrium.

If it ever did, there would be no "weather" at all.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[shropshire 0]

but surely, as the differential becomes less, so should the itensity of the weather patterns?

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[quade 3]

Who said the differential was currently less?

While the polar regions are getting warmer, so to are all the other regions on the planet and in some cases, at quite a bit higher rates.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[shropshire 0]

That was a good program..... now I'd like to see the case for the prosecution...


I dont know enough either way, but I'm more open minded now (I think).

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[shropshire 0]

Personally, I'm not too sure what is actually going on... but I'm prepared to (try to) learn some more

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[Mostly_Harmless 0]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9005566792811497638

_________________________________________
www.myspace.com/termvelocity

[billvon 2,466]

> but surely, as the differential becomes less, so should the itensity of the weather patterns?

Yes. Once the temperature stops increasing, and the planet begins to return to equilibrium, we can expect the storms to decrease in intensity again.

[JackC 0]

Quote

but surely, as the differential becomes less, so should the itensity of the weather patterns?

That might be true if the differential was becomming less but all the data I've seen suggests otherwise. Quite a bit of the sceince they used looked dubious to me. Like the ocean fliping between intake and emission of CO2 with temperature. I don't know for sure but that seems dubious over the few degrees we're talking about here. If anyone has a reference for that, I'd appreciate it.

For me the program lost a chunk of credibility when they said the whole global warming movement was a neo-marxist conspiracy and that scientists were routinely falsifying data to get more "interesting" results.

The production quality was OK though, it was just aimed at the average Sun reader, all hyperbole and conspiracy theories.

2/5 stars.

[shropshire 0]

Goods points.
I have to admit, I had been sucked in by the CO2 'evidence', up 'till now, but am now more sceptical. I'm now more inclined towards the Sun being the root cause.
The CO2 argument is not so compelling as the Water vapour/Solar activity one, when one considers that pre-Industrial revolution Heat Waves existed.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[JackC 0]

Quote

I'm now more inclined towards the Sun being the root cause.

Yeah those damn red top tabloids, responsible for all the worlds ill's.

Quote

The CO2 argument is not so compelling as the Water vapour/Solar activity one, when one considers that pre-Industrial revolution Heat Waves existed.

I'm not so convinced. Water vapour in the atmosphere is largely self regulating. the Sun heats up the ocean which evaporates, produces cloud and then rains. CO2 isn't. It requires a sink and the ones we've got are disappearing. Satellites can actually measured CO2 being sucked in by plants during the growing season. Likewise, air polutants like NO2, CO and NH4 can all be seen to increase in concentration in local areas over a very short period. It used to be called smog, but you don't notice it so much these days because we've cleaned our act up a bit and removed the soot.

The fact that pre-industrial revolution heat waves existed isn't that surprising. It's a bit of a red herring really. Weather cycles didn't just appear overnight sometime after WW2. It's not that heat waves or big freezes existed before the internal combustion engine, it's the average trend that matters. If temperature records are getting broken on a regular basis, it just might be that the average is going up a bit.

There is a well known 11 year sun spot cycle and there may be other long term solar cycles we don't know about that may affect our climate. I'd be hesitant to blame global warming on a largely unknown solar cycle/climate interaction when we've got stacks of data to show atmospheric polutants do have that effect.

In reality, it might well be a bit of both but only one of them is within our power to do anything about and not treating the planet like a garbage dump is probably a good idea anyway.

Still, a good H5N1 pandemic and this global warming nonsense wont seem anywhere near important.

[ScottishJohn 25]

Martin Durkin has a history of distorting the truth and misrepresenting what scientist say just to support his own perception of Man made climate change.

http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/climate_change/article

Quote

Martin Durkin, for his part, achieved notoriety when his previous series on the environment for the channel, called Against Nature , was roundly condemned by the Independent Television Commission for misleading contributors on the purpose of the programmes, and for editing four interviewees in a way that "distorted or mispresented their known views".

Channel 4 was forced to issue a humiliating apology. But it seems to have forgiven Mr Durkin and sees no need to make special checks on the accuracy of the programme. For his part, the film-maker accepts the charge of misleading contributors, but describes the verdict of distortion as "complete tosh."

And it looks like he has not learned from his previous mistakes.


http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/climate_change/article2347526.ece

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled-carl-wunsch-responds/

John

----------------------------------------------------------------------
If you think my attitude stinks you should smell my fingers

[billvon 2,466]

>I'm now more inclined towards the Sun being the root cause.

That was one of the first things that anyone looked at. And it's just not causing as much increase (in watts/sq m) as we're seeing. The amount of CO2 we're releasing accounts for the warming; the change in insolation does not. See attached graph.

>The CO2 argument is not so compelling as the Water vapour/Solar activity
>one, when one considers that pre-Industrial revolution Heat Waves
> existed.

?? No one is arguing that CO2 causes heat waves, or El Nino like events. It doesn't. It just causes a slight rise in _average_ temperature. It doesn't cause record heat waves; it just makes them slightly hotter overall.

[shropshire 0]

Cheers Bill.

Do you have any idea why the apparently corresponding peaks on the Temperature and CO2 graphs seem to be offset by 800 years (not my data, this was presented in a T.V prog' that I saw last evening)...

I'm trying to qujestion & understand more, not dis' anything (yet).

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[JackC 0]

Quote

Do you have any idea why the apparently corresponding peaks on the Temperature and CO2 graphs seem to be offset by 800 years

Try this:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=13

[shropshire 0]

Thanks for that...... sure makes the whole subject appear even more complicated .....

Now, if only we 'knew' that this was scientific, irrefutable truth and that everyone of our experts could agree with it......

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[JackC 0]

Quote

Thanks for that...... sure makes the whole subject appear even more complicated .....

Now, if only we 'knew' that this was scientific, irrefutable truth and that everyone of our experts could agree with it......

That's why they call it research.

[billvon 2,466]

>sure makes the whole subject appear even more complicated .....

When I'm talking about this topic with someone, often I get "it's the sun warming us, I mean duh" or "well of course it's 100% CO2." These people are missing most of the argument. But if I'm talking to someone and they say "man, that's really complicated" then it makes me think they are beginning to understand it.

[shropshire 0]

Ta.... there are so many variables and their interactions..... mind boggling.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[speedy 0]

From the article linked above....
Some (currently unknown) process causes Antarctica and the surrounding ocean to warm.

I think we really should be looking at what this unknown process is. 1st, it causes CO2 levels to rise, 2nd it suddenly disappears leaving CO2 to do the rest of the warming. Of course when the planet starts to cool again (most likely due to an unknown process) then the CO2 levels start to fall. When the CO2 levels have fallen enough to cool the planets by itself, the unknown cooling process that started it all disappears and at some point the unknown warming process starts again.

You are right, sure is complicated.

Dave

Fallschirmsport Marl