Previously there was a good deal of discussion on the reader blog concerning a British documentary critical of global warming proponents called The Great Global Warming Swindle. Now the entire 74 minute documentary is available online.
Watch it below, and then send this link to a friend.
Must see TV: This is a show that will destroy the socialists if it gets seen.
What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity? I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.
I just with they would have done a more careful job with their facts checking.
There are plenty of scientists who could have done a fair and neutral facts checking for them to remove the more obvious warts.
It’s a one-sided propaganda piece. It is rebutted here:
it just repeated the usual specious claims we hear all the time.
And here:
The problem with The Great Global Warming Swindle, which caused a sensation when it was broadcast on Channel 4 last week, is that to make its case it relies not on future visionaries, but on people whose findings have already been proved wrong.
The film’s main contention is that the current increase in global temperatures is caused not by rising greenhouse gases, but by changes in the activity of the sun. It is built around the discovery in 1991 by the Danish atmospheric physicist Dr Eigil Friis-Christensen that recent temperature variations on Earth are in “strikingly good agreement” with the length of the cycle of sunspots.
Unfortunately, he found nothing of the kind. A paper published in the journal Eos in 2004 reveals that the “agreement” was the result of “incorrect handling of the physical data”. The real data for recent years show the opposite: that the length of the sunspot cycle has declined, while temperatures have risen.
Here’s what one of the scientists appearing in the film had to say after he saw it:
There is nothing in the communication we had (much of it on the telephone or with the film crew on the day they were in Boston) that suggested they were making a film that was one-sided, anti-educational, and misleading. I took them at face value---clearly a great error.
Both sides defer to easily stigmatized tarts. Sad.
I agree that GWS gives a pretty poor account. I thought some of the points made by Critchton were much crisper. On the other hand, we can always rely on the RealClimate folks to propagandize for the Global Warming Enthusiasts Club (as well as many so-called scientific documents that have ended up shilling for the GWEC) , so I suppose some tit-for-tat is in order.
I suppose some tit-for-tat is in order.
True, neither side is going to believe what they don’t want to either so I guess my complaints are unfounded… its just so goddamn frustrating to see it getting battered around like this. Its like watching a two ugly naked chicks wrestling in a kiddie pool full of jello. I’d be a lot more fun if they were hot chicks.
RealClimate is NOT a propaganda site. Its entries are written by climate scientists and it allows anyone with dissenting opinions to comment.
Could you please link to specific examples of what you think is propaganda on their site?
I suppose some tit-for-tat is in order.
So it’s OK to spread misinformation if it supports your underlying agenda? Nice.
RealClimate is NOT a propaganda site. Its entries are written by climate scientists and it allows anyone with dissenting opinions to comment.
Bullshit. They heavily censor opinions.
They heavily censor opinions.
What are you talking about? Do you have any basis for saying that, or is this just a baseless smear?
At least we all seem to agree that “Global Warming Swindle” plays fast and loose with the facts. It’s disappointing so many of you think that’s ok.
There just isnt enough science fact to justify the hype.
Will asked, What are you talking about? Do you have any basis for saying that, or is this just a baseless smear?
Just ask Steve McIntyre of climateaudit.org what often happens when he tries to post there.
But go ahead and hang your hat on a website that prominently features Michael Mann of the “hockey stick graph” infamy and William M. Connolley, who silences anybody who doesn’t buy into the AGW paranoia at Wikipedia. Just don’t kid yourself that they’re infallible because they’re scientists.
Just because they’re scientists doesn’t mean their opinions are unbiased or that they play the issues down the middle. Far from it.
I actually find the majority of the commentary on that site off putting because of the vociferous nature of their commentaries and the number of ad hominems labeled at “non-believers”.
I’ve just watched the film for the first time and am inclined to say that it gives a compelling case for (at the very least) re-examining the issues involved. of course, it is in the nature of TV documentaries and the MSM to hype the point they are trying to make, so it can be taken with a pinch of salt, but the same applies to man-made global warming programmes and articles too.
Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric.
And you thought Michael Moore was bad
http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/climate_change/article2347526.ece
Speaking of twisting truth, lets examine algores movie:
What follows is a very brief summary
of the science that the former Vice
President promotes in either a wrong
or misleading way:
13
• He promoted the now debunked “hockey stick” temperature chart in an attempt to prove
man’s overwhelming impact on the climate
•He attempted to minimize the significance of Medieval Warm period and the Little Ice
Age
•He insisted on a link between increased hurricane activity and global warming that most
sciences believe does not exist.
•He asserted that today’s Arctic is experiencing unprecedented warmth while ignoring
that temperatures in the 1930’s were as warm or warmer
•He claimed the Antarctic was warming and losing ice but failed to note, that is only true
of a small region and the vast bulk has been cooling and gaining ice.
•He hyped unfounded fears that Greenland’s ice is in danger of disappearing
•He erroneously claimed that ice cap on Mt. Kilimanjaro is disappearing due to global
warming, even while the region cools and researchers blame the ice loss on local land-use
practices
•He made assertions of massive future sea level rise that is way out side of any supposed
scientific “consensus” and is not supported in even the most alarmist literature.
•He incorrectly implied that a Peruvian glacier’s retreat is due to global warming, while
ignoring the fact that the region has been cooling since the 1930s and other glaciers in
South America are advancing
•He blamed global warming for water loss in Africa’s Lake Chad, despite NASA
scientists concluding that local population and grazing factors are the more likely culprits
•He inaccurately claimed polar bears are drowning in significant numbers due to melting
ice when in fact they are thriving
•He completely failed to inform viewers that the 48 scientists who accused President
Bush of distorting science were part of a political advocacy group set up to support
Democrat Presidential candidate John Kerry in 2004
Now that was just a brief sampling of some of the errors presented in “An Inconvenient
Truth.”
He promoted the now debunked “hockey stick” temperature chart in an attempt to prove
man’s overwhelming impact on the climate
In fact, the Hockey stick has not been debunked. See here.
Of the two studies commissioned by US congress in 2006, one by the NRC, concluded that though there were statistical shortcomings they were small in effect. The other by the CECR, faced heavy criticism for, among other things, a lack of peer review.
He attempted to minimize the significance of Medieval Warm period and the Little Ice
Age
It is popularly accepted that the medieval warm period was caused by increased solar activity and the little ice age was caused by decreased solar activity and the effects of volcanic eruptions.
He insisted on a link between increased hurricane activity and global warming that most
sciences believe does not exist.
Increased ocean temperatures lead to the formation of more storms and higher sea levels would make the impact of storm surges, of even small storms, worse.
I did a quick search under “hurricanes global warming” and found that most scientists thought the frequency of storms would increase. If you do mean “most sciences”, then my answer would be “What the hell would a mycologist or an anthropolgist know about climate modelling?”
He asserted that today’s Arctic is experiencing unprecedented warmth while ignoring
that temperatures in the 1930’s were as warm or warmer
Again due to increased solar activity.
He claimed the Antarctic was warming and losing ice but failed to note, that is only true
of a small region and the vast bulk has been cooling and gaining ice.
Increased precipitation in the Antarctic is in fact a symptom of global warming, this would account for both the colder temperatures and the growing ice. The ice sheets around Antarctica are melting faster.
He hyped unfounded fears that Greenland’s ice is in danger of disappearing
He didn’t say within our lifetime, Greenland’s ice is in rapid retreat. Here.
He erroneously claimed that ice cap on Mt. Kilimanjaro is disappearing due to global
warming, even while the region cools and researchers blame the ice loss on local land-use
practices
How can local land use cause a glacier to melt? This is farcical! Are the local farmers setting fires under the ice?
Any assertions of sea-level rise were attributed to the Greenland (and possibly Antarctic) ice sheet melting and due to the increased thermal mass of the oceans. Sea levels do change and that is consensus!He made assertions of massive future sea level rise that is way out side of any supposed
scientific “consensus” and is not supported in even the most alarmist literature.
He incorrectly implied that a Peruvian glacier’s retreat is due to global warming, while
ignoring the fact that the region has been cooling since the 1930s and other glaciers in
South America are advancing
The growth of glaciers has been linked to global warming, through increased precipitation.
•He blamed global warming for water loss in Africa’s Lake Chad, despite NASA
scientists concluding that local population and grazing factors are the more likely culprits
Although these two scientists did say that local irrigation et cetera was responsible for it’s water loss, they said this was compounded by successive weaker monsoons.
He inaccurately claimed polar bears are drowning or starving because they can’t huntin significant numbers due to melting
ice when in fact they are thriving
Not true. See the Polar Bears International website.
He completely failed to inform viewers that the 48 scientists who accused President
Bush of distorting science were part of a political advocacy group set up to support
Democrat Presidential candidate John Kerry in 2004
There were 4000 scientists and 48 Nobel Laureates. See this article.
They were part of The Union Of Concerned Scientists which is independent of any political party. UCS here.
Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric.
MOFAL, I don’t have time for detailed responses right now (by that I mean including up-to-date links):
I agree that the hockey stick hasn’t been debunked, though there are serious questions about its accuracy (as noted by the NSF panel that looked at its methodology), especially if taken further back than 400 years. There is nothing particularly controversial about its findings for the last 400 years though, so restricting it to the last 400 years basically yanks out its teeth.
Your comments about the Medieval Warming Period and Little Ice Age tend to support the notion that the current warming trend may be natural, since other large scale warming and cooling trends have also occurred. Your comment about the Sun warming up makes no sense, because we have no direct data of solar luminance and because the proxies are suspect due to interactions among them. Probably that’s true, but we don’t have a good explanation for the warming trend at the start of the 20th century either, so it may be other factors that haven’t been identified yet.
Regarding hurricanes, we don’t have any models that can even predict when a hurricane will form, let alone be able to definitively state whether there will be more or fewer due to global warming. There are loud-mouthed scientists who claim a dramatic link. They’d have to explain why some of the most energetic hurricane seasons were in the first half of the 20th century though. (Good luck with that, they don’t even have a predictive model.)
I’ve been corrected on this myself, the ice fields (not “sheets") around Antarctica are melting, but these have no effect on sea level, since they are floating. The interior is gaining ice due to global warming. Algore claims that they all are melting and that we will have catastrophic floods. More detailed: the Western Antarctica Ice Sheet (which is a marine sheet resting on the ocean floor) is expected to disappear over time, due its contact with the ocean, and estimates I’ve seen indicate a 5-m rise in sea level over the next 1000 years due to that. In the mean time, the Eastern Antarctica Ice Sheet is expected to continue to grow, partially balancing out the ice loss from the WAIS. Not exactly a catastrophic flood in any case.
You are mistaken about Greenland: the preponderance of data (including the most recent) indicate that Greenland’s interior ice fields are growing, not shrinking. Again the effect is due to global warming… but is global warming due to human activity alone? So that begs the question.
Re: Kilimanjaro: If you don’t understand the link between land use and regional temperature and precipitation, perhaps you need to do some more reading. Deforestation has dramatically decreased regional rainfall, which is the main reason that Kilimanjaro’s ice cap is disappearing.
Regarding polar bears—even your website admits that the population has quadrupled in 50 years. Of course, they try and hand-wave it away. If you find that convincing, well… more power to you. In the end, it is only an assumption that loss of shelf ice negatively impacts polar bear population, and one unsupported by the data. And that is a fact.
Finally, if you think the UCS is nonpartisan, well, you need a brain transplant.
The message in this documentary is quite clear and presented with details deliberately ignored from the narrative of the socialist minded global alarmists.
It is a must see and should be presented on American television. Anything less is a statement of cowardice on behalf of the main stream media.
The real danger to humanity is the left and this new geo political movement.
There seems to be general agreement that the movie is flawed and distorts the truth. Its main arguments have been discredited, yet Mickey says:
It is a must see and should be presented on American television.
Mickey is another global warming skeptic who puts his agenda ahead of honest discourse. He has plenty of company:
A House committee released documents Monday that showed hundreds of instances in which a White House official who was previously an oil industry lobbyist edited government climate reports to play up uncertainty of a human role in global warming or play down evidence of such a role.
Mickey is another global warming skeptic who puts his agenda ahead of honest discourse. He has plenty of company:
According to Democrats who may be playing partisan games.
So much for your “honest discourse” Will.
The real dishonesty here is to call people who wisely refuse to swallow whole an unproved hypothesis, “deniers” or “skeptics”. As is usual with lefties, anyone who doesn’t buy one of their BS propaganda stories is somehow flawed, when the burden of proof is on the one who is pushing the hypothesis. If human-caused global warming were scientifically proven, there would be no reason for a “consensus”, nor would a media blitz and a propaganda movie be necessary. It is simply unproven, and no one should accept it as anything resembling truth, much less take any action at all to deal with this hypothesis.
Hope and change, in a free world, are the private possessions of motivated individuals.
Will,
The “left”, to include the eco political man made global warming alarmists like yourself have NEVER welcomed any discourse. You dictate.
Man made global warming is a blatant lie. The entire premise of the GW agenda is to squelch discourse.
Stop pretending to be the benevolent victim of the big bad capitalists. This entire movement has been exposed for what it is. Anti Capitalistic, Marxist Bull Shit!
The lack of true science, manipulation of data and false allegation on behalf of this fraudulent theory is astounding.
There are two primary players in the man made global warming school of thought and they are liars and useful idiots. Take your pick where you personally belong. The remainder of the sane world is tired of this nonsense.
Will, I agree GWS distorts the truth, though ironically not nearly as badly as that flat-out wrong embarrassment “An Inconvenient Truth”.
A House committee released documents Monday that showed hundreds of instances in which a White House official who was previously an oil industry lobbyist edited government climate reports to play up uncertainty of a human role in global warming or play down evidence of such a role.
Typical fair from Will. He tries to change the topic while using an ad hominem to establish a relationship that may, or may not, exist.
By the way, here is Will’s star witness.
According to Democrats who may be playing partisan games.
No, not “according to Democrats”. This is not an allegation, it’s a documented fact, with confirmation straight from the horse’s mouth:
Philip A. Cooney, who left government in 2005, defended the changes he had made in government reports over several years. Mr. Cooney said the editing was part of the normal White House review process and reflected findings in a climate report written for President Bush by the National Academy of Sciences in 2001.
They were the first public statements on the issue by Mr. Cooney, the former chief of staff of the White House Council on Environmental Quality. Before joining the White House, he was the “climate team leader” for the American Petroleum Institute, the main industry lobby.
So Will, do you have an example where Cooney egregiously edited a document?
I remember him editing a document to making it refer to the Big Bang as a theory. Well, duh. Editors are supposed to catch that sort of thing.
In any case, these are government reports, and hence political in nature to start with, so I don’t see the point about one more or less person taking a hack at them. I would object to him lying, but removing speculation from a report (one of the examples given by the NYT).
I’m pretty sure that Will wouldn’t have objected if the person doing the editing was a pro-global warming advocate. So the question is, why not?
The truth is, for the left, the stated reasons for raising objections are never the real ones. It all has to do with wanting to control the debate, and preventing any dissenting voice from ever being heard.
Here is some interesting commentary on this subject by Roger Pielke.
Will
I have one agenda, the truth.
Cherry picking your data is scientifically dishonest regardless of how good your intentions may be. There is no argument over Global Warming as a legitimate area of study, yet there remains a lot more faith involved in this science than many would acknowledge. Scientific truth is not determined by a vote. When it comes down to Global Warming it all depends on how fragile you believe the climate system is. The IPCC and many GW zealots have a habit of drifting their data and selectively changing the rules to extrapolate a result from their climate models.
When you create a weather model, the following is a basic list of some of the factors that must be included (by no means an exhaustive list):
Solar flux
Gravity, Pressure
Temperature
Density
Humidity
Earth’s rotation
Surface temperature
Currents in the Ocean (e.g., Gulf Stream)
Greenhouse gases
CO2 dissolved in the oceans
Polar ice caps
Infrared radiation
Cosmic rays (ionizing radiation)
Earth’s magnetic field
Evaporation
Precipitation
Cloud formation
Reflection from clouds
Reflection from snow
Volcanoes
Soot formation
Trace compounds
And many, many others
Even if mathematics could be developed to accurately model each of these factors, the combined model would be infinitely complex requiring some simplifications. Simplifications in turn amount to judgment calls by the modeler.
As with all models, it is perilous to ignore factors in the absence of complete experimental data which might otherwise have a significant effect.
Perhaps most critically, the role of solar activity in climate seems to be understated in many numerical global climate models.
Science already knows that global weather patterns stabilize the natural warming effects on climate that have taken place for millions of years. Unless we know how the greenhouse-limiting properties of precipitation systems change with warming, we don’t know how much of our current warmth is due to mankind, and we can’t estimate how much future warming there will be, either. To solve the global-warming puzzle, we first need to accept input from ALL science and not limit our perspective to those studies that reinforce a very narrow perspective such as the politically motivated man made CO2 scenario.
Mickey, that was a good start.
I would also include the biosphere, because that is one of the more important forcing terms (the origin of the so-called “missing carbon sink” problem). Look for articles by Inez Fung, who has been quite prolific in that area, and I think generally well-thought-of in her field.
But your list illustrates just how big a field this really is, and why somebody with the label of “climate scientist” couldn’t be expected to be an expert in all of these areas.
“climate scientist”
How about Senator Clinton? Shouldn’t someone who “married upward” onto the social ladder, and was allegedly and presciently named after Sir Edmund Hillary be considered a ”climb it scientist”?
Trolls. It’s what’s for breakfast!
And then I eat their lunch.
groan
Thanks Proof,
Carrick, my post was a point by point analysis and evaluation of Mickey’s, highlighting that the debate on many of his points is not closed, as he professed. I do not hold the view that anything is certain in the man-made GW debate, but wanted to point out that what Mickey claimed to be fact, or lies was not necessarily the case.
You said:
Your comment about the Sun warming up makes no sense, because we have no direct data of solar luminance and because the proxies are suspect due to interactions among them. Probably that’s true, but we don’t have a good explanation for the warming trend at the start of the 20th century either, so it may be other factors that haven’t been identified yet.[/quote
] Okay, no direct data of solar luminance, but we do have over four hundred years of observed sun-spot activity and as we know, increased sun-spot activity is an indication of a warmer sun. This can account for both warmer and colder periods in our history, including the the early 20th century. Is this data suspect? Well, it could be, but the sun’s activity was studied even before anyone knew its importance.
The GSW suggested increased solar activity as an alternative theory to explain global warming.Increased solar activity also, therefore, is a possible cause of the increased hurricane activity early last century.
In terms of Greenland’s melting or growing, this
After gathering data on Greenland for more than a decade, ESA scientists have reported that the island’s ice sheet is actually growing at its interior. Data collection began in 1991 with the radar altimeter instrument on board ESA’s ERS-1, followed by ERS-2, and most recently Envisat, which has 10 instruments to measure various properties of the Earth from orbit. Greenland’s ice sheet seems to be thickening at a rate of 6.4 cm (2.6 inches) a year above altitudes of 1,500 metres (5000 feet). Below that altitude, the ice sheets are decreasing in thickness.Found here.
It seems that yet again omission is responsible for the “facts”.I searched under “deforestation Kilimanjaro” and all the links suggested that deforestation AND global warming are to blame.
I’m willing to accept that polar bears may not be endangered, however WWF think the population is in rapid decline, see here.
However, this suggests otherwise, although it is a childrens fact-sheet and I don’t have an indication of its age.I’d never heard of UCS before this post. The point I made was as a counter to Mickey’s claim that
. I merely googled the issue, found that it was 4000 scientists and 48 Nobel Laureates, then looked up UCS and quoted from their site. All the data on this issue, that I found, contradicted what Mickey had said. I picked the hole in his claim.48 scientists had accused President
Bush of distorting science (and) were part of a political advocacy group set up to support
Democrat Presidential candidate John Kerry in 2004
Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric.
Solar radiation and solar luminance are two entirely different things. Nice attempt to muddy the water.
This is a point in fact at how the alarmists spin.
Here ya go Mano....I can teach you to google if it will help.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/02/11/warm11.xml
or this
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=fee9a01f-3627-4b01-9222-bf60aa332f1f&k=0
or this
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=67ac2d90-ec56-4460-a831-75aacc20670d
or this
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/archives/story.html?id=975f250d-ca5d-4f40-b687-a1672ed1f684
or this
Mickey,
Solar radiation and solar luminance are directly linked, no?
Quoting false data is a much better way to muddy the waters, wouldn’t you agree? Which is why I felt it necessary to debunk your claims. I have said repeatedly that I do not accept that man is entirely responsible for global warming and have always been willing to enter into civilised debate on the issue. I am also happy to acknowledge errors I make. Please don’t lower the tone by suggesting ignorance on my part.
Your first two links go to articles about the same book, which explores an alternative theory to man-made global warming. I have never disputed that it is MMGW is only a theory.
Your third link goes to an article that explains that the sun’s brightness (or luminance) can account for global warming (and cooling) from the mid-19th century until 1980, but not beyond then.
Your fourth links to an article which explains the work on an experiment to determine the link between solar luminance and cloud formation. I would like to see their results, when published. It also highlights the lengths to which some global warming zealots (and in particular the IPCC) will go to stifle debate. Yes, I know they do it and I don’t approve.
Your last link is a synopsis of a paper about the relationship between the sun and global surface temperature since 1600. They suggest that the sun is responsible for 50% of global warming since 1900.
All valid theories, including MMGW.
Solar radiation and solar luminance are directly linked, no?
Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric.
Didn’t mean to repeat that question.
Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric.
The British Antarctic Survey have posted a response to the GWS, here.
Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric.
MMGW is only a theory.
Actually, it’s an hypothesis.
Hope and change, in a free world, are the private possessions of motivated individuals.
MOFAL: There isn’t a direct relationship between solar luminance changes and solar radiance. This is because of complex feed back term. Take for example, water vapor. This can either act as a greenhouse gas or as clouds as a source of global cooling.
Thanks for the BAS link, but much of what they stated were personal opinions. I agree with them about the use of erroneous data and with the specious argument given by the GWS about CO2 not being a driving term for global warming, on the other hand.
One of their opinions that I disagree with is the claim that the increase in CO2 at the start of the 18th century is due to human activity. While it may be true, it is totally unsubstantiated at this point. (That’s a bit like the RealClimate guys claiming that the 1998 ENSO event that led to the warmest year on record was due to global warming—we don’t know that.)
My other big gripe is conflating the time constant for Antarctica ice to absorb CO2 with the global CO2 time constant. (The former is about 800 years or so, the later is probably closer to 40 years, with the main driving terms being the ocean and the biosphere.)
Mano, You are inserting the term “luminance” into the dialogue, not the research.
Linking solar radiation and luminance is apples and oranges. They are not the same thing. Luminance is the measurement of brightness; it has no correlation to solar flare ups. The measurement is in radioactive infrared rays, not luminosity.
As the sun gets closer to becoming a red giant, it will give off less “luminosity” but it will become much hotter. The heat factor and the luminosity factor are not equal entities.
And there is plenty of research that links warming to solar activity of the sun. The Anthropogenic CO2 factor is the theory in question here.
Carric is more accurate about the oceans and biosphere.
There simply is too much volume of water in the oceans to be effected from a simple one degree rise in air temperature to cause ice cap melting. The oceans are being warmed by the sun along the equator and ergo, as it circulates the warmer water is melting the ice. This process has been building for decades to reach this point The CO2 rise is due to the warming oceans which is also due to the sun.
Additionally, this warming effect is primarily isolated to the northern hemisphere, not globally.
Although technically, luminance refers only to the radiative power associated with visual light, in astrophysics and many other disciplines, luminance is used interchangably with “irradiance”. While irradiance is technically more accurate, the astrophysics literature is replete with examples of the usage of “solar luminance,” for example here.
Regarding my comment “There isn’t a direct relationship between solar luminance changes and solar radiance,” I realized that I was using the wrong term. I was thinking “total radiative power” when I said “solar radiance”, which is a completely separate concept.
The concept I was trying to communicate is: There is no simple relationship between total radiative power from the Sun and the amount of energy absorbed by the Earth from that change in radiative power.
Regarding global warming and solar activity, I would say it is a completely open question what role solar activity has with respect to the recent terrestrial warming. And my earlier point is we only have direct measurements of solar irradiance (I’ll stick to the more technical term) only for the last few decades.
What we know is that the Sun’s irradiance is there is no direct correlation to the Earth’s temperature. See for example, this:
Certainly this looks very different that the warming trend we’ve had since the mid-1970’s.
While you’re explanation may be the correct one, it would obviously have to include some atmospheric physics to explain why satellite irradiance measurements don’t correspond to the amount of heat absorbed by the Earth over time, and why there is no trend for irradiance but an upwards trend for global mean temperature.
If you have links to direct measurements that I’m not aware of, I’d be very interested in seeing them.
Is this any good. No direct measurements there, just another theory.
This links to a pdf file of a paper researching solar irradiance and it’s link with climate change. The conclusion is that it can only account for 50% of warming since 1970, though it can account for warming (and cooling) prior to this year.
Or
another linking reconstructed solar irradiance since 1874 to temperature changes.
R108, theory noun a set of hypotheses related by logical or mathematical arguments to explain a wide variety of connected phenomena in general terms. Sounds like MMGW to me, as it is not just down to CO2 , this is just used as the accepted main cause.
Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric.
Of course, Carrick, direct measurements of solar irradiance are only available from 1978 and as the current warming had already started, it is not easy to compare the results with ‘normal’ climatic changes and solar irradiance.
Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric.
MMGW is still an hypothesis. A theory is an hypothesis with some evidence, but not enough to constitute proof.
Hope and change, in a free world, are the private possessions of motivated individuals.
So nobody has submitted any evidence (though not enough to constitute proof)?
Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric.
Robert108, I would use the words slightly differently than this, though some people use it to mean a hypothesis.
The way I like to use the words, a theory is a predictive model whose premises are based upon prior scientific observations. A hypothesis is then a testable prediction of that theory.
MOFAL, pretty interesting reconstructions. My biggest problem with these indirect measurements is we really don’t have any great way to test them, as they rely on multiple, non-overlapping proxies, and natural climatology (that is unforced by human activity) is poorly enough understood that the assumptions that go into the reconstruction could easily be violated, especially when we have a nonlinear forced system such as is present post 1980.
Your first source (hardly unbiased btw) makes a valid point here:
Indeed, it could already be happening. Of the 1.5° F in warming the planet experienced over the last 150 years, two-thirds of that increase, or one degree, occurred between 1850 and 1940.
This is a point I (incessantly) make: The MMGW crowd loves to point to the changes since 1850 as if they were all man-made. Looking at Fig. 4 of Solanki 1998 makes it clear (assuming you can believe his results), that most of the warming was natural, at least until 1980:
Based on similar considerations, I usually quote about 0.2°C as (IMO) the component of GW associated with human activity out of a total 0.6°C.
Although according to the above graph, it’s more like 0.1°C.
Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric.
One thing I omitted is that although temperature and irradiance track each other from 1900 through 1940, none of the climatology models can get enough temperature change from the “known” variation in solar irradiance.
See for example, this:
The model result comes nowhere close to reconstructing the observed temperature changes from 1910 to 1945. Probably what this means is there is a nonlinear relationship between solar irradiance and temperature that is not captured by the current climate models. That also, of course, makes suspect the claim that only a greenhouse gas effect can give rise to the late 20th century temperature rise.
MOFAL:
Although according to the above graph, it’s more like 0.1°C.
The point I make about that isn’t so much that we are in a crisis now, but that we need to act to prevent a crisis. I agree with that even if I am dubious about the claims of how much of an impact that we’ve already had.
On the other hand, as I’ve pointed out in the past, the developed nations including the US are already acting by improving their CO2 efficiency. The big problem is the developing nations, the same ones that are excluded by that sorry excuse the Kyoto Protocols. Here is the fundamental problem: 
The developing nations are the primary driver for the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere, yet are excluded by Kyoto because of the economic damage it would do to them. That makes Kyoto in practice little more than an economic redistribution package, since it acts to dampen economic activity in developed countries. The actual impact on atmospheric CO2 on the other hand, will be too small to even measure. That is why the Copenhagen Consensus ranks 16th worst of the 17 global projects it considered.
Carrick did you see that study about the Scandahoovian scientist that thought that variances in the solar wind had a large effect on global temperatures?
What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity? I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.
variances in the solar wind had a large effect on global temperatures?
The planets act as a natural “wind break” for the solar wind.
Environmentalists (Al Gore in particular) see this as the “breaking wind” theory of global warming!
Trolls. It’s what’s for breakfast!
And then I eat their lunch.
TW:
Carrick did you see that study about the Scandahoovian scientist that thought that variances in the solar wind had a large effect on global temperatures?
Yep. The only problem with it is the data are pretty limited, so we really can’t do any good long-term trend studies on it. Also there is some question about which data are the right ones to look at. (The RealClimate guys looked at the pattern of high-energy cosmic-ray particles reaching the ground. I would claim you want to look at low-energy charged particles impinging near the magnetic poles....)
so....more study is needed?
What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity? I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.
’Fraid so… I don’t think the question will be fully answered, scientifically for several decades. Part of the problem is that even today, after all of the hype, we aren’t getting all of the data that is needed to monitor our environment to make any definitive conclusions with.
In fact, I would say the hype is part of the problem because it raises the natural question… “If you’ve already proven there is a problem, why is there any need for further study?”
In fact, I would say the hype is part of the problem because it raises the natural question… “If you’ve already proven there is a problem, why is there any need for further study?”
I am not a scientist so I don’t follow everything. However when I see how hard the global warming activists are working lying to us I have to assume that their whole premise is a lie.
What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity? I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.
Which is why I react so strongly against lying assholes who exaggerate the threat of global warming to benefit their personal agendas.
Really, I would like to see everybody as well-informed as they can be on the basic facts, have the experts in the field present our range of options for action to take (if any), then decide as a group what action should be taken.
You’re right Carrick, but it seems that the lies get bigger and bigger.
What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity? I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.
They feel there is a need to convert the skeptics to their cause.
How long before we have government or UN ‘inquisitors’ enforcing environmental policy? Certainly, scientists calling for increased debate on the issue are facing discrimination and funding cuts from their peers and policy makers who follow the consensus, but I can envisage a time when people are prosecuted for their questioning of MMGW.
Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric.
Carrick, your observation that the 0.2°C temperature change could be attributed to humanity’s activities is valid. Could this be affected by global dimming? The factors involved in this debate are numerous, but this could hide higher than indicated temperature changes. As we clean up the burning of fossil fuels (and as the Eastern nations develop, they will probably do the same), the effects of GW may become stronger.
Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric.
Global Cooling????????
This year has been the coldest April in 113 years.
Ironically last year (April 2006) was the very hottest
April on record ever.
http://www.agweb.com/get_article.aspx?pageid=135336&src=gennews
Since carbon dioxide levels are about the same, what
else could be causing this?
Well according to skeptics of CO2/Global warming
theories, Earths climate changes are directly related
to solar activity and sunspot levels more than CO2
levels.
See this site for background info:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3869753.stm
So based on that, I thought I would take a look to see
how the solar activity and sunspots levels from April
2006 (the hottest April on record) compares to the
current solar activity and sunspot levels from this
April 2007. Here is what I found:
April 2006 (the warmest April ever on record):
http://www.dxlc.com/solar/old_reports/2006/april/indices.html
April 2007 (so far the coldest in over 100 years)
http://www.dxlc.com/solar/indices.html
Notice a pattern in sunspot activity???????
Pretty amazing isn’t it.
Anyway if you are still going, don your winter coats,
hats and gloves and go out there and join the protest
against Global warming amist the coldest April we have
had in over 100 years.
And just how is Halliburton manipulating the sunpots?
What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity? I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.
Well Dell, maybe this April has been the coldest for you for 113 years, but for us (in the UK) this is the hottest in living memory, with temperatures normally attributable to June and early July.
Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric.
Well Dell, maybe this April has been the coldest for you for 113 years, but for us (in the UK) this is the hottest in living memory, with temperatures normally attributable to June and early July.
Dammit.
So that’s where it’s gone.
You Brits have been stealing our heat.
...for great justice
The message in this documentary is quite clear and presented with details deliberately ignored from the narrative of the socialist minded global alarmists.
Romking11, I know plenty of Liberals, Centrists AND Conservatives who have bought into the MMGW theory (without realising it is [only] a theory). Read through all the comments and links posted (by non-trolls) on this and related threads here at Say Anything, for a reasoned debate on the issue. Pay particular attention to Carrick’s posts - the man knows his bacon.
Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric.
