Ch4: Great Climate Change Swindle

Did anyone watch it?

I was very impressed, my expectations were very low as I thought it would just be 90mins of rantings from the fringe of the scientific community.

I found the comments from the "greepeace" co-founder and former "New Scientist" editor very interesting. The data presented on the correlation (or lack of) between CO2 levels and global warming was very well presented.

I really liked the old TV clips from scientific programs in the 70's where all the data then was forecasting an ice-age (i.e. decreasing tempertaures since the 1940's).

This program has left my mind spinning to be honest.

 

Actually thats a myth - only one study in 70s predicted an ice age and it was blown out of all proportion. Mistakes were found in the analysis and the claim was retracted soon after.

Also a lot of the criticisms on the correlation were based on earlier studies thatdidnt take all factors into account. The most recent studies are pretty incontrovertible which is why even the US government is stopping its claims to the contrary. Studies now show a link between human activity and global warming as far back as 6000 bc when the rise of agriculture too place. In addition during the medieval plagues, the plaugue of 500 ad and the amerind small pox epidemic co2 levels world wide go down so does the tempereture - the correlation is extremely strong.

 

I still have issues when the media continually go on about the "computer predictions" for temperature changes over the next 50-100 years. The range of predicted values is so wide that it seems to make the exercise futile to a large degree.

I have seen first hand how computer modelling is seriously effected by the inital input conditions.

My problem is that I don't trust the media and don't have the time to study all the "proper" scientific data on the subject. I really need to research the IPCC report more as since that has been issued, the media have been frothing at the mouth to get climate change into the news bulletins.

Interesting discussions re. the program going on here as well...http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=547233&page=1&pp=25

p.s. Just one thing on the media's handling of "scientific" topics...does anyone remember bird flue? - I thought we were all meant to be dead from that by now!!

 

Whatever way you look at it and without being too sensationalist, we're definitely in the autumn of industrial human civilization.

IMO.

 

The range is wide but it is all up - also important is that the range is narrowing over time. The proof is also conclusive - satellites now show their is an energy imbalance between absorbption and radiation so the earth is definaitely warming up and its pretty clear all our co2 and methane is responsible.

Bird flu is still around. There is a difference between the newspapers articles and science! Flu will come again - the question is when not if.

 

Here in Russia the Academy of Science, the largest fundamental research organization in the world, does not agree at all with the supposed 'consensus'.

Scientists from various institutions, meterology, physics, space, geological and others are often debating the issue on TV. There are some who agree with the Western mainstream media view that we are undergoing accellerating warming due to human causes, but the majority view here is that the primary factor is the solar cycle. Many forecast significant cooling beginning in around 20 years as they see solar activity peaking now and beginning to drop off.

Not having a strong contingent of capitalism-hating greens, there are also interesting debates on the effects on Russia. The majority seem to see global warming as being positive for European Russia and the Far North, while essentially making most of Siberia uninhabitable (spring floods turn much of it into impassable swamp now and this would get worse).

I have also seen several academy scientists assert on TV that they are forced to sign up to statements in support of global warming under threat of having EU/international grant funds withdrawn.

As for the statistical models, those of us in the finance industry get to have a good laugh everytime they use those to 'prove' something.

 

Hi,

I used to work as a researcher in nonlinear forecasting of the solar cycle. This view is incorrect and the solar variation (which is 11 years long anyway) can in no way explain the variation which has now decoupled from natural cycles where it was previously extremely highly correlated for all observable historical time series. In addition solar cycles peaked in intensity many decades ago while temperature has accelerated since that time...

The russian academy of science is espousing this view for political reasons as russia doesnt want to face up to the cost of prevention - much as america used to.

I now work in finance which is completely different - you cannot compare phsyical with financial data - for the former we have physical models and theories and some data sets going back tens of millions of years, not just statistical models. Also financial markets adapt according to the perception of those markets and physical time series do not.

That warming is occuring is no longer up for debvate since the launch of new mearuements satellites over the last couple of years - net energy absorbed is greater than energy reflected so there is resultant heating which is accelerating. Noone is now able to seriously contest this finding which is why the US even gave up claiming black was white.

Nick

 

To put it down to solar cycles and natural variation is just foolish imo. Plenty of people seem to delight in doing this whilst smugly claiming we're all fools for believing the hype.

I think even when you use simple common sense the answer is the same as the science. Things have got worse since man industrialised the Earth. You can't expect to be able to burn pollutant producing fuels non stop accross the planet for hundreds of years and see no repercussions.

If someone asked you if you thought the amount of pollutants produced by mankind would eventually have an effect on climate, I don't think anyone would answer 'No'.

When you look out of your window and see all the fuel thats being used, in houses, offices, cars etc. Its easy to forget that that same scene is being replicated all over the planet. And in places like Mexico city or the megalopolis' of China the scale is mind boggling. So to claim that nothing needs to be done is ridiculous.

 

Indeed - and researchers have subtracted solar variability anyway - which has a clear signature in historical records which cannot explain the current increase - particularly as it has been deceasing for the last half century starting at the point global warming (and co2) started to massively increase. It is still decreasing now and people latch onto the fact to maintain plausible deniability with the population in certain parts of the world however they forget to mention the decrease started in the 50s and not right now!

 

Keep it up..... I'm reading all this with interest.

The one thing that threw me when watching the program was the correlation between CO2 and global warming. The program seemed to indicate that just because there is a correlation between CO2 levels and temperature, that doesn't necessarily mean that one causes the other. That's the bit I found interesting.

Maybe the program was putting their own spin on it but the numbers quoted for CO2 emissions from man versus those from nature where an eye-opener.

 

seems to me the issue lies in presentation, if you don't believe,you don't believe, and asking these people to do something about it for the generally regarded reasons is a waste of time.

the green lobby would be much better off appealing to peoples selfishness and greed to get them to cut down CO2 emissions etc. sell them on the idea of saving money and resources for future generations, you don't need to change their opinions on GW to do that, and the results will be the same, reuced emissions..


sell those who will buy it the green messgae, but also sell greed to achieve the same ends to those who won't.


i was surprised there was very little mention of global dimming, something which has to go hand in hand with GW.

 

What annoys me is all the potential there is out there to make things better without just taxing people as the government seems to do. Theres lots of potential ideas around the world that could save us tonnes of carbon but it never seems to get implemented. I've no idea why we're currently tearing up Wales to make way for a new LNG pipeline when surely if we covered every roof in solar panels, harnessed some of the wind, waves, tides, rubbish and animal waste that exists in the country we'd be laughing. If the government got behind the scientists and backroom engineers to make these things happen we could move forward. As it is its left to individuals to do it off their own back, and then when they find an answer the government just jumps on their back about it. Prime example is running vehicles off second hand chip fat. Instead of looking at a way it could help the fuel demands in the country, old GB just sticks tax on it to make sure no one gets away with not filling the government coffers.

Then theres all the things you can get people to do to save energy. Building regs could be made more strict to ensure that any new build had capacity for microgeneration, came fitted with solar panels and enough insulation for starters. I don't think anyone would argue that that was a good use of money.

 

Instead of looking at a way it could help the fuel demands in the country

How many gallons do you think would be available to convert to fuel if every chip shop in the country gave up their used chip fat?

 

true - but everytime a set of wind turbines to be setup are proposed - the locals are always against it and the idea gets binned - at least that happens where i live...

I guess it's all down to Nimby...

 

I don't know Bob...not alot I expect. But I was using it as an example to show how it seems that the government dissuades people from coming up with solutions to problems. There's alot of innovation and knowledge in this country and I think that if ideas were nurtured then we'd get alot done.

Mr Cat...the nimby attitude is pretty bad but then if it was explained to people that we're going to try and make a positive difference through using sustainable resources I don't think people would object if the proposal was reasonable. We have pylons all over the place out of necessity so how about a turbine every x square miles of populated area? Roof space is the worst waste. Who would mind if every roof had a solar panels all over it. You have to make people see its to their benefit and directly provides their houses with energy so how about other kinds of community energy production? Small scale anaerobic digesters for garden and kitchen waste serving a small number of houses for example. The options are many if people are made to take responsibility for their own needs and we set the boffins loose on making it happen.

 

trouble with onshore wind farms is that they are noisy as feck. especially if you live downwind of them.

i understand that complaint.

but claiming they ruin the view is just plain rubbish.

my parents live next to an offshore site and they look awesome.

 

I read that Manchester City are to build a wind turbine that according to the press release will provide all the power the City of Manchester stadium needs. Given the pitiful outputs of the domestic ones you can buy, grossly underperforming their advertised performance, I will be interested to see if it does what it is supposed to.
I do not find them an eyesore though. They are all over Brittany in France and look quite attractive in their stark simplicity on the horizon.

 

I don't wholy dislike them myself but I think it is a matter of opinion

 

maybe i'm biased,wind powers all my sporting actitivities..

 

Anyone into hifi is likely to have an interest in physics generally(myself included).

If you were a biologist/rambler (whatever) you might feel differently.