The Great Global Warming Swindle

[Kärnfysikern]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6Wr1hcIp2U

I have to admit I thought this was going to be rubbish. But Im watching it right now and its quite convincing. Especialy since Patric Moore is in it and I respect his oppinions tremendously.

Going to be fun to se how the opposition to man made global warming will grow now that it is getting so much attention. If more and more scientists oppose the IPCC view then it will totaly break the claims that a majority supports it.

Interesting no doubt. To bad I know so little about climatology. Would be fun to atleast know enough to be able to have a solid oppinion.

[Logan13]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6Wr1hcIp2U

I have to admit I thought this was going to be rubbish. But Im watching it right now and its quite convincing. Especialy since Patric Moore is in it and I respect his oppinions tremendously.

Going to be fun to se how the opposition to man made global warming will grow now that it is getting so much attention. If more and more scientists oppose the IPCC view then it will totaly break the claims that a majority supports it.

Interesting no doubt. To bad I know so little about climatology. Would be fun to atleast know enough to be able to have a solid oppinion.

Me Tell!!!!
After man-made global warming is totally debunked, I want everyone to line up, kiss my ass, and admit that I was right..............
About EVERYTHING!!!!

[Kärnfysikern]

There is some doubts about that documentary though. I have discovered one thing wrong so far. They claim volcanic activity release far more co2 than humans. But it seems to be wrong.

http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Hazards/Wh...as/volgas.html

Comparison of CO2 emissions from volcanoes vs. human activities.
Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (Gerlach, 1999, 1992). This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts. Emissions of CO2 by human activities, including fossil fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring, amount to about 22 billion tonnes per year (24 billion tons) [ ( Marland, et al., 1998) - The reference gives the amount of released carbon (C), rather than CO2.]. Human activities release more than 150 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes--the equivalent of nearly 17,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 13.2 million tonnes/year)!

If I have some time Il have to do some checking of the 800 year lag betwen temp and co2 increases.

[Kärnfysikern]

Time will tell if your right or not logan But a laymans oppinion isnt much more than a guess and you got 50/50 odds

[Logan13]

Time will tell if your right or not logan But a laymans oppinion isnt much more than a guess and you got 50/50 odds

That's if you consider my opinion to be that of a "layman".........

[Kärnfysikern]

That's if you consider my opinion to be that of a "layman".........

Offcourse I do.

Since you are not a professional in a field related to climate sciences then by definition you are a layman.

[Kärnfysikern]

Here is another view on the clip

http://www.jri.org.uk/index.php?opti...=137&Itemid=83

Here I briefly point out the main lines of evidence for human-induced climate change and then address some of the main arguments presented in the programme.

1. First, it is important to note that the main lines of evidence for human-induced climate change not addressed in the programme were:

* growth of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere mainly due to fossil fuel burning to a level greater than for at least 600,000 years;
* observations of global warming at the earth’s surface (in magnitude and pattern) consistent with the increase in greenhouse gases, the basic science of which has been known and understood for over 200 years.
2. Climate is always changing – TRUE. However, the programme also argued that changes in global average temperature over the last 50 years and as projected for the 21st century are within the range of natural climate variability as observed over the last few millennia – NOT TRUE.

Many of the prominent climate changes over past centuries have been regional in scale. Global Warming is concerned with global scale changes. The IPCC 4th Assessment Report Summary for Policymakers has a particular section summarising the conclusions of detailed studies using a wide range of paleoclimate data. It concludes that ‘Paleoclimate information supports the interpretation that the warmth of the last half century is unusual in at least the previous 1300 years.’

3. That carbon dioxide content and temperature correlate so closely during the last ice age is not evidence of carbon dioxide driving the temperature but rather the other way round - TRUE. The programme went on to state that this correlation has been presented as the main evidence for global warming by the IPCC – NOT TRUE.
For instance, I often show that diagram in my lectures on climate change but always make the point that it gives no proof of global warming due to increased carbon dioxide.

4. The troposphere is warming less than the surface – NOT TRUE.
This raises a debate that took place in the 1990s but which has now been resolved. There is now agreement among the scientists involved in measurements that trends in satellite observed tropospheric temperatures when properly analysed agree well with trends in surface temperature observations. The programme also stated that warming should continue to higher levels. That is not the case. In fact, higher levels are observed to be cooling, consistent with the science of global warming that indicates that there is warming below and cooling above the ‘blanket’ of additional carbon dioxide.

5. Volcanic eruptions emit more carbon dioxide than fossil fuel burning – NOT TRUE. In fact, none of the large volcanic eruptions over the last 50 years feature in the detailed record of increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide.

6. Changes in the sun influence climate – TRUE. They cited the Maunder Minimum in the 17th century when no sunspots were observed, as a probable example. Solar influences are the main driver of global average temperature in the 20th century – NOT TRUE.

Changes in solar output together with the absence of large volcanoes (that tend to cool the climate) are likely to have been causes for the rise in temperature between 1900 and 1940. However, the much more complete observations of the sun from space instruments over the past 40 years demonstrate that such influences cannot have contributed significantly to the temperature increase over this period. Other possibilities such as cosmic rays affecting cloud formation have been very carefully considered by the IPCC (see the 3rd Assessment Report on www.ipcc.ch) and there is no evidence that they are significant compared with the much larger and well understood effects of increased greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide.

7. Climate models are too complex and uncertain to provide useful projections of climate change - NOT TRUE.
In the programme, this was illustrated by a statement made by a youthful Professor Smagorinsky, a pioneer in climate modelling, speaking in the 1980s explaining some of the inadequacies of early models. Climate modelling has developed enormously since then. Modern models include detailed coupling of the circulations of atmosphere and ocean and detailed descriptions of the interactions between all components of the climate system including ice and the biosphere. They have been tested thoroughly in their ability to reconstruct current and past climates. The 30 or more major modelling groups in the world regularly compare their methods and their findings. Contributors to the programme with their parodies of climate models just demonstrated their complete ignorance of the significance and capabilities of modern models.

8. The IPCC process stifles debate and is used by scientists to further their own self interest – NOT TRUE.
I chaired the main meetings of Working Group I during the production of the first three IPCC scientific assessments. I can say categorically that the process was very open and honest. The aim was to distinguish between what was reasonably well known and the areas where there is large uncertainty. The chapter groups had complete freedom to investigate and assess the scientific literature and draw their conclusions.

Contrary to the impression given in the programme, no one ever resigned from being a lead author in Working Group I because of their disagreement with the process or the final content of their chapter. In fact, no one ever communicated to me a complaint about the integrity of the process.

I should mention, however, a case of disagreement that occurred in Working Group 2 of the IPCC that dealt with the impacts of climate change – a more complex area to address that the basic science of Working Group I. Professor Reiter who appeared in the programme described how, unfortunately, his expert work on malaria failed to get recognition in the relevant IPCC chapter.

Even Professor Lindzen, who appeared at length on the programme, stayed the course as lead author within Working Group I, expressing his satisfaction with the report’s chapters as good scientific documents. He has often, however, gone on to express his view that the conclusions of the Policymakers Summary did not faithfully represent the chapters. But he has never provided any supporting evidence for that statement – nor, to my knowledge, has anyone else who has quoted that statement originating from Lindzen.

It is important to note that IPCC Policymakers’ Summaries are agreed unanimously at intergovernmental meetings involving over 200 government delegates from around 100 countries. This agreement is only achieved after several days of scientific debate (only scientific arguments not political ones are allowed) the main purpose of which is to challenge the scientific chapter authors regarding the accuracy, clarity and relevance of the summary and most especially its consistency with the underlying chapters. Agreement at such a meeting has ensured that the resulting document, so far as is possible, is scientifically accurate, balanced and free from personal or political bias.

Reference was made in the programme to an article in the Wall Street Journal in 1995 about the 1995 IPCC report accusing the IPCC of improperly altering one of the agreed chapters before publication. This was a completely false accusation as was pointed out in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, September 1996, 77, pp1961-1966.

9. Action on climate change by developed countries may have a negative influence on development of the world’s poorer countries – POSSIBLY TRUE.
A strong non scientific point made towards the end of the programme concerned the possible effect of pressure from the developed world on developing countries to develop without use of fossil fuel sources of energy. There is something inherently unfair in such pressure that could hamper growth of developing country economies especially when rather little is being done by developed countries to reduce their own fossil fuel emissions. Further, the greater proportion of the damage from climate change will tend to fall on developing countries. The responsibilities of developed countries therefore are clear, first to reduce their own emissions as rapidly as possible and secondly to assist developing countries with resources and skills to develop their energy and other requirements in sustainable ways.

[Logan13]

Offcourse I do.

Since you are not a professional in a field related to climate sciences then by definition you are a layman.

Either is Gore................

[Benches505]

With all of thye crap we put into the air there has to be some degree of global warming induced by us.

[Kärnfysikern]

Either is Gore................

Well you cant have missed how full of shit I think Gore is. I havent even seen his propaganda movie.

[alphaman]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6Wr1hcIp2U

I have to admit I thought this was going to be rubbish. But Im watching it right now and its quite convincing.

Whoodawhat???

I just saw a puppy fly by my window! (don't want to offend anyone)

[Tock]

Me Tell!!!!
After man-made global warming is totally debunked, I want everyone to line up, kiss my ass, and admit that I was right..............
About EVERYTHING!!!!

They say that nobody can be wrong about everything, so if global warming is totally debunked, you'll have been right about one thing . . .
This just might be your issue . . .

[Logan13]

They say that nobody can be wrong about everything, so if global warming is totally debunked, you'll have been right about one thing . . .
This just might be your issue . . .

You keep telling yourself that, perhaps it makes you sleep better..............
silly boy

[Kärnfysikern]

seems like some scientists are not happy about the way the movie is edited
http://comment.independent.co.uk/com...cle2359057.ece


Carl Wunsch: I should never have trusted Channel 4

In the part of The Great Climate Change Swindle where I am describing the fact that the ocean tends to expel carbon dioxide where it is warm, and to absorb it where it is cold, my intent was to explain that warming the ocean could be dangerous - because it is such a gigantic reservoir of carbon. By its placement in the film, it appears that I am saying that since carbon dioxide exists in the ocean in such large quantities, human influence must not be very important - diametrically opposite to the point I was making - which is that global warming is both real and threatening.

[crazycrab]

The earth has been warming and cooling for millions of years. I do not buy that the last industrial 100 years has altered it in any way.

Does't Ale Gore stand to proffit Billions from a company he started years ago if he can convince the fed to start spending to prevent global warming. Follow the money

[Logan13]

The earth has been warming and cooling for millions of years. I do not buy that the last industrial 100 years has altered it in any way.

Does't Ale Gore stand to proffit Billions from a company he started years ago if he can convince the fed to start spending to prevent global warming. Follow the money

About time that someone talked about this. He did start up a company, and it is NOT a non-profit. Gore is a stroke, but we can not underestimate his agenda. He did invent the internet.........

[DNoMac]

The earth has been warming and cooling for millions of years. I do not buy that the last industrial 100 years has altered it in any way.

The longterm effects on the climate as a result of human behavior is hard to predict, but you really can't compare it to the climate changes that have occurred over the history of the Earth. The fluctuations in temperature of the last several hundred thousand years are a result of a variety of paleoclimatologists hypothesis. However, they do believe past climate changes aren't a result of increased CO2 emission (the current culprit). Most paleoclimatologists believe these longterm changes were the effect of the Earths orbit (precession), mountain-building, and continental drift. Thus, comparing the climate changes over the past 100,000 years to the changes occuring currently are quite different when you identify the causes for these climate changes.

[dece870717]

I'm ultra skeptical about this global warming. I've lived at my current city for 15 years and I got to say the weather is about the same. Hotter some summers, colder some winters. We had a cold ass winter this year and a few weeks ago it got to about 60's and then 2 days later it starts snowing. But so far todays been the warmest day at about 80. I don't want to be a conspiracy theorist sounding person but I think convincing a bunch of people that this is real will have more people fork over more rights to the goverment. And I don't think it's the goverments job to fix everything, I mean show me one thing they have fixed. And if they do fix something it usually costs 10 times as much as it should.

[DNoMac]

I'm ultra skeptical about this global warming. I've lived at my current city for 15 years and I got to say the weather is about the same. Hotter some summers, colder some winters. We had a cold ass winter this year and a few weeks ago it got to about 60's and then 2 days later it starts snowing. But so far todays been the warmest day at about 80. I don't want to be a conspiracy theorist sounding person but I think convincing a bunch of people that this is real will have more people fork over more rights to the goverment. And I don't think it's the goverments job to fix everything, I mean show me one thing they have fixed. And if they do fix something it usually costs 10 times as much as it should.

I'm not taking sides in this debate because I have not researched this enough, and I am by NO means a professional climatologist, however I do like to play the devil's advocate. You say you have lived in the same city 15 years and haven't noticed any changes? The world is several billion years old, 15 years is NOTHING on this type of timescale. Climate changes take a lot longer than 15 years to show significant changes (unless we're talking catostrophic events such as a meteor hitting Earth). You must also consider, even if you aren't noticing much of a change, the climate is VERY sensative. Small temperature fluctuations have large effects on the climate. Like I said, not saying one side is right or wrong, but you have to consider things like this before completely writing off the threat of global warming.