Great Climate Change Swindle, who is trying to swindle who?

[August]

Well, anyway. As I am beginning to come to terms with the (probable) fact that the modern capitalist-consumerist, military-industrial civilization is both blatantly unsustainable and totally unchangeable, I am willing to presume that a very large bunch of other brainiacs are about to reach the same conclusion. So, for a lot of people (and social groups) it is becoming necessary to defend this position: "since there really is nothing much we are proving able to do in order to make a change of lifestyle directions (a u-turn) in terms of dealing with the environmental damage that we (the modern humans) are causing, it is actually becoming important for all of us to simply start to accept the apparent fact of on-going (and unstoppable) mass extinction."

Or something in that nature. Point is: the whole world (nature, biosphere) is falling victim to bad human habits.

How about it? THE FEAR OF CHANGE.

[Buddy]

Originally Posted by August

Point is: the whole world (nature, biosphere) is falling victim to bad human habits.

- entropy of civilisation? (Entropy: "The negative decay and degeneration of matter.")

Some further interesting posts on this program:

William M. Connolley (aka The Stoat) is a climate modeller with the British Antarctic Survey http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=48. His view on 'The great global warming swindle!' is here:http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2007/0...ng_swind_1.php, mentioning several points and concluding with:

And most of the other nonsense you would expect got a brief play at some point

He's found a better version of the image I posted (obviously others had noticed a problem):

Compare it with this:


A new post entitled 'Cosmoclimatology’ - tired old arguments in new clothes (9 Mar 2007) http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=412 also sheds some seriously heavy scientific light on the topic, concluding with:

It is possible that GCRs do have an effect on climate through the modulation of clouds, but I don't think it is very strong. I also think that Svensmark's claims are wildly exaggerated, but most of my objection lies in the way the arguments have been presented in this A&G article. I have the impression that the A&G article comes from the same school as "The Skeptical Environmentalist", which also has been criticised for cherry picking references to make mere speculation appear as more solidly founded. To ignore aspects that don't fit the hypothesis is definitely not science. Neither is adjusting data so to provide a good fit without a solid and convincing justification.

[Buddy]

Solar Cycle Length and Global Temperatures

In 'The Great Climate Change Swindle' the following graph was presented:


Why does the red line stop in about 1975? Obviously someone doesn't want to reveal a problem... It took me a while but I eventually uncovered the reason.

As described by 'Danmarks Meteorologiske Institut', the presented image is the old version, before they realised that more recent data was actually more evidence against the sun being the cause of recent warming: http://web.dmi.dk/fsweb/solarterrest.../welcome.shtml
Old version:
New version:

While the curves do not match perfectly at any time, they start to diverge noticeably by the 1980's. We interpret this widening gap as evidence for an additional influence on the temperature - over and above what the Sun is causing. We think this is likely to be due to the anthropogenic greenhouse effect. We base this interpretation on such modelling work as that by Mitchell, et al. (Nature, 1995, vol. 376, p. 501) in which the combined effects of greenhouse gasses and aerosols have the property seen above - an accelerating temperature increase from about the 1970's.

This handy site put me on the trail: 'The Role of the Sun in 20th Century Climate Change' is discussed here: http://www.brighton73.freeserve.co.u...olar/solar.htm

And a mention in ordinary news from 3 May, 2000 (no wonder the presented graph is so hard to explain, it's totally historic!): http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/734983.stm

They found that, while the solar cycle still accounts for about half the temperature rise since 1900, it fails to explain a rise of 0.4 degrees Celsius since 1980.

So another piece of dodgy 'evidence' bites the dust ... watch this space ... (as soon as DeSmogBlog saw the list of 'experts' it knew what was coming, Channel 4 removed the names ... (http://www.desmogblog.com/channel-4-...of-its-experts). But let's just look behind what they were saying ... since many people will quite rightly be saying that there might just be some truth ...)

[August]

Originally Posted by August

Point is: the whole world (nature, biosphere) is falling victim to bad human habits.

It is silly to say that human activity is the one and only factor which is causing global warming / climate change. But those who are trying to blame everything on the sun, well? I wonder: what is their real agenda? I believe the agenda is: "We just don't want to make any changes to our lifestyles. Hell, we don't even want to try. We are not prepared to even think about trying! Now, we're prepared to do and say anything to prevent any of that from happening. Really! Simple as that."

I wonder: how is it possible to disregard / overlook the combination of population explosion, mass industrialization, and globalisation?

[zigglewigler]

The previous 'old' and 'new' charts do not disprove the effect of solar activity on the earth's climate.

The 'new' chart does not include a plot of solar activity, just actual and predicted temperatures.

The red line in the 'old' chart is solar activity, the red line in the 'new' chart is a measure of actual temperature on a different model.

If you look at the original solar/temperature chart, you'll see plenty of divergence over the decades. But the two plots catch up sooner or later.

Even if you were to present a chart showing increased temperatures accompanied by lessening solar activity, which is absolutely not what the 'new' charts shows, you'd be wrong to assume that the hypothesis was flawed, simply because the cause and effect is not instantaneous.

Similarly in this discussion, the 800 year lagging effect in the ice core 'records', between temperature rise/falls and Co2 rise/falls, has been curiously ignored.

When you've made your mind up, you've made your mind up.

Buddy wrote:

'Regarding global temperatures the program presented a totally incorrect image. It showed a rise from 1975 to what looks like 2006 of only 0.34C (measured off the snap below), whereas the graph included in the post above clearly shows about 0.6C rise which is getting on for double. Having stated the cooling period was 40 years, there are obviously only 35 years from 1940 to 1975... If they will fabricate like that what else is falsified?'

The program referred to four decades of cooling, not 40 years, which entirely corresponds with 35 years. They fabricated nothing there, you however have misunderstood the meaning of a decade or have yourself interpreted information for your own cause.

Anyone want to comment on how CO2 has such a dramatic effect when it is only constitutes 0.03% of the Earth's atmosphere?

And if mankind is responsible for less than 5% of CO2 produced annually, the rest thanks to Mother Nature, via volcanoes, oceans, animals and insects, rotting vegetation etc, just how pivotal can our contribution be?

[bruce]

Well regardless of the science behind it (having not seen the program I can't comment), it certainly seems to have convinced a whole lot of people that man-made climate change is a swindle.

[Buddy]

Originally Posted by bruce

Well regardless of the science behind it (having not seen the program I can't comment), it certainly seems to have convinced a whole lot of people that man-made climate change is a swindle.

The program is very well designed. Your words "regardless of the science behind it" are so true. For years the oid industry has been trying to stop us dealing with the problem. By presenting this programme these people can be seen for what they are, but only if people do actually look at the science. I've presented some stuff above, I'll post more.

Mean-while here is latest from the climate scientists on 'The Great Global Warming Swindle': http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...7/03/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 misled 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.

Different topics but same producer (Martin Durkin): http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=39

both subsequently complained that they were misled about the content and were not given a chance to reply to attacks on their positions (Pusztai's comments). Dr Ho said , 'I feel completely betrayed and misled. They did not tell me it was going to be an attack on my position.' ...

...They are far from the only ones to complain about Durkin's methods....

...we were totally and unequivocally misled as to the intent and content of that piece.' Durkin's proposal for the programme had earlier been rejected by the BBC because it 'ignored a powerful body of evidence contradicting his [Durkin's] claims'. A researcher hired to help Durkin make the Equinox programme resigned because, 'my research was being ignored. The published research had been construed to give an impression that's not the case. I don't know how that programme got passed.'

- so I guess Channel 4 just have lower standards...

[Buddy]

Originally Posted by zigglewigler

The previous 'old' and 'new' charts do not disprove the effect of solar activity on the earth's climate.

- no, the sun does have an effect. But since in about 1975 it's effect isn't enough to explain the warming. That's why one of the lines on the graph presented on TV stopped in 1975.

Regarding the 'old' and 'new' graphs. They are not actually replacements for each other, I should have said 'old information', and 'new information'. The new information clearly shows that the prediction veres off wildly from the original prediction (which did follow the temperature).

Originally Posted by zigglewigler

The 'new' chart does not include a plot of solar activity, just actual and predicted temperatures.

- so you can compare the projections, and see the missing line.

Originally Posted by zigglewigler

The red line in the 'old' chart is solar activity, the red line in the 'new' chart is a measure of actual temperature on a different model.

- I didn't choose the colours. It's fairly obvious. However, notice how the graph presented on the TV did not have a legend explaining the colours, and the sound track doesn't help much either. Niot very scientific at all...

Originally Posted by zigglewigler

If you look at the original solar/temperature chart, you'll see plenty of divergence over the decades. But the two plots catch up sooner or later.

- the early divergence (before 1975) is seen to be minor natural variation by most scientists. The major deviation after about 1975 is apparently seen as 'secret' by the presenters, and to main-stream science it shows how the sun cannot be the cause of the later warming.

Originally Posted by zigglewigler

Even if you were to present a chart showing increased temperatures accompanied by lessening solar activity, which is absolutely not what the 'new' charts shows, you'd be wrong to assume that the hypothesis was flawed, simply because the cause and effect is not instantaneous.

- would you like to reference a source here?

I'll sub-divide the post here to make further discussion easier.

[Buddy]

Hi again ZigleWigler!,

Originally Posted by zigglewigler

Similarly in this discussion, the 800 year lagging effect in the ice core 'records', between temperature rise/falls and Co2 rise/falls, has been curiously ignored.

When you've made your mind up, you've made your mind up.

- there is alot of rubbish to dig through, and I do like to sleep.

The CO2 lag presented relatively simply:http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/20...not-leads.html

So, CO2 did not trigger the warmings, but it did contribute to them, and according to climate theory and model experiments, Greenhouse Gas forcing was the largest factor in the ultimate change.

The CO2 lag as presented by climate scientists: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=13

So, in summary, the lag of CO2 behind temperature doesn't tell us much about global warming. But it may give us a very interesting clue about why CO2 rises at the ends of ice ages. The 800-year lag is about the amount of time required to flush out the deep ocean through natural ocean currents. So CO2 might be stored in the deep ocean during ice ages, and then get released when the climate warms.

[Buddy]

Originally Posted by zigglewigler

Buddy wrote:

'Regarding global temperatures the program presented a totally incorrect image. It showed a rise from 1975 to what looks like 2006 of only 0.34C (measured off the snap below), whereas the graph included in the post above clearly shows about 0.6C rise which is getting on for double. Having stated the cooling period was 40 years, there are obviously only 35 years from 1940 to 1975... If they will fabricate like that what else is falsified?'

The program referred to four decades of cooling, not 40 years, which entirely corresponds with 35 years. They fabricated nothing there, you however have misunderstood the meaning of a decade or have yourself interpreted information for your own cause.

Anyone want to comment on how CO2 has such a dramatic effect when it is only constitutes 0.03% of the Earth's atmosphere?

CO2 has a 'forcing' effect, not just 'feedback'. Consider the concept of a 'catalyst', a small quantity of something which causes a big effect.

Have you seen this: http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf

Global atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide have increased markedly as a result of human activities since 1750 and now far exceed pre-industrial values determined from ice cores spanning many thousands of years (see Figure SPM-1). The global increases in carbon dioxide concentration are due primarily to fossil fuel use and land-use change, while those of methane and nitrous oxide are primarily due to agriculture. {2.3, 6.4, 7.3}

Originally Posted by zigglewigler

And if mankind is responsible for less than 5% of CO2 produced annually, the rest thanks to Mother Nature, via volcanoes, oceans, animals and insects, rotting vegetation etc, just how pivotal can our contribution be?

- would you like to quote a reference?