The Great Global Warming Swindle

[parmenides3]

What sort of language is "it blows yet another false prop out from under the feet"? It is the language of dogma and ideology. The paper has no significance yet, and like most of the papers published probably never will.

I apologise for the unncessarily polemical tone of this phrase. My point is that sceptics have persisted in the argument that the lag of CO2 behind temperature as indicated by the ice-core records, shows that CO2 does not force climate: you are probably aware that this argument is fallacious, and would be irrelevant to the current situation anyway, as CO2 does warm the atmosphere. This is why I referred to it as a 'false prop'.

As far as the paper is concerned, I don't want to assume that it will be published with its current conclusions, but there are no comments so far which would appear to seriously undermine it. As to its future significance, if it furthers our understanding of the relationship between CO2 and temperature in the past, then it is significant. If it also happens to disprove the assertion that CO2 lags temperature, it has a secondary significance in that it no longer permits the use of this claim to support the broad 'sceptic' view of GW.

Please do not make the assumption from my hasty words that I am dogmatic or ideological about AGW; I trust that a reading of some of my other posts will show that this is not the case.

P

[Gray-Wolf]

http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/...icle2355956.ece

It just goes to show people 'stop looking' when they've seen what they would like too.

Climate change is scary, change, at any level ,is scary (a step into the unknown) so I can picture grown men appeasing their 'child inside' with 'there, there, it's all wrong, don't you upset yourself' and grasping at anything that adds 'adult' sophistication to their 'needs'.

Tut, Tut programme makers I say!

P3, surely it is 'natural to expect a certain 'delay' in both temperature responses to increased CO2 but also in the planets response to the accumulation of CO2. I'm not being 'lovelockian' about the planets response to change, just working with our 'current' understandings of the system. The planet has always sought to 'balence out' change (increased albedo from cloud tops /increased snow events) but if the 'input of CO2 doesn't end ,but instead accellerates, then 'the old' mitigations fail and change accellerates also (the old 'hockey stick' again)

CO2 will be found to be 'in the same time frame' as warming as soon as our measurements are sophisticated enough to measure it (though the 'initial phase will be lessened as the planet 'captures as much of the extra CO2 as it's systems allow) IMHO.

Edited March 14, 2007 by Gray-Wolf

[Osbourne One-Nil]

Wow....I'm not going to read through all 30 pages of this, and perhaps this has been mentioned before, but I heard a review about this program yesterday, and the reviewer said something along the lines of inconvenient if right, disastrous if wrong. Summed it up for me.

[Devonian]

Careful GW

You're iminent collapse of the Antarctic ice is looking very very very impossible?! looks like you are wrong with Greenland too

I am not worried about 10% of antarctica warming..I am worried of 90% cooling. I am worried about the solar minima [Gleissberg] where 0.1% change in irradiance is equivalent of doubling CO2 now...so an anticipated 0.3% reduction sends shivers down my spine

Slight problem BFTP, .1% change in the Sun isn't equivalent to a doubling of CO2...

.1% of the Sun's output is about 2w/m2 of total solar output change (but remember of the ~1360w/m2 total output only ~342w/m2 (about a quarter) is the average any part of the Earth at top of atmosphere recieves so the figure is more like a TOA change of about quarter of 2w/m2 - ~.5w/m2) . Also, the Sun fluctualtes by .1% it does NOT increase by .1% each cycle (if it did we'd have fried long ago) otoh, the increase of ghg's is allready about 2.5w/m2 (and CO2 hasn't doubled yet).

It's NOT the Sun wot did it.

Edited March 14, 2007 by Devonian

[Michael Winston]

Just to throw petrol on the fire, here's a link for tomorrow night if you can get the channel.

National Geographic

Hope its not too controversial!!

All the best,

Mike.

edit: sorry, link not working: cut 'n paste this ........... http://nationalgeographic.co.uk/watch/prog...id_program=9005

Apologies, all.

(another) edit: that link works!!

Edited March 14, 2007 by Winston

[Gray-Wolf]

Wow....I'm not going to read through all 30 pages of this, and perhaps this has been mentioned before, but I heard a review about this program yesterday, and the reviewer said something along the lines of inconvenient if right, disastrous if wrong. Summed it up for me.

The more we hear about the 'making' of the programme the more it appears that the 'swindle' in the title refers to the programme itself. why present 'fudged' (programme makers term) graphs/stats when the current info is already openly available to all? Why 'take out of context' statements to drive home your points if you could do the same 'within context'?

I mean, if you asked me "if it wasn't CO2/human influence warming the planet what would you say it was?" and I replied " well, in that case I'd strongly suggest we looked into natural forcing, especially the sun, to find the culprit" and you only displayed 'I'd strongly suggest we looked into natural forcings...especially the sun....to find a culprit.' what would the public think???

EDIT; and for the question earlier, yes the amount of ice below sea level (on the WAIS) can't be included and ,as I understand it, ice depth varies. At the ice cliff edges of the Ross ice sheet it protrudes upwards, above the water, 200ft but further inland it can be up to 2km thick (depending on topography).

Edited March 14, 2007 by Gray-Wolf

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

It just goes to show people 'stop looking' when they've seen what they would like too.

CO2 will be found to be 'in the same time frame' as warming as soon as our measurements are sophisticated enough to measure it (though the 'initial phase will be lessened as the planet 'captures as much of the extra CO2 as it's systems allow) IMHO.

Worth looking at Jaworowski and look at his findings. Very interesting findings he has put forward. He states that even prior to last century's warming co2 levels of 360ppm were found. As usual this has been trashed by AGW lobby/IPCC but i think a few surprises may come out.

interesting stuff indeed

BFTP

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

:)P

Edit: Blast: please read the ACIA report, or the ICARP. Even the executive summary. I have. Read anything about the cryosphere. Then tell me I'm wrong about GW. Why is everyone else wrong about this, but you know better? :)P

P

Top people in their field have stated what is wrong contrary to other views and I am happy to go along with their scientific views...the simple fact is, and it is simple...CO2 has been higher and the globe has been warmer and something made us cool...so there is a much bigger player that clearly overrides this CO2 issue. So far nothing you have posted has been good enough to override the counter for me.

BFTP

If there's ice on the floor then the incoming solar radiation isn't absorbed by the earth as much, it is reflected as shortwave radiation; CO2 doesn't absorb shortwave radiation. CO2 only has impact where the SW radiation is absorbed by the ground, and when the ground heats up it emits LW radiation. Why is it cooler? More ice? There is a phenomena where a warm cup of water freezes quicker than a cold one. Perhaps something along those lines?

VP

Thanks mate for that explanation, I was being a little cynical in my request...what I should also have added is that the ice extent was greater back in the 30s too by a fair bit. The projections are not going according to plan, that's what I'm saying and with CO2 the great AGW player the arctic should not be cooler now than in the 30s IMO, the most important ice continents shouldn't be cooling with thickening ice levels...remember cooling and thickening so more snow from warmer temps doesn't hold up on these areas.

BFTP

P

Top people in their field have stated what is wrong contrary to other views and I am happy to go along with their scientific views...the simple fact is, and it is simple...CO2 has been higher and the globe has been warmer and something made us cool...so there is a much bigger player that clearly overrides this CO2 issue. So far nothing you have posted has been good enough to override the counter for me.

BFTP

VP

Thanks mate for that explanation, I was being a little cynical in my request...what I should also have added is that the ice extent was greater back in the 30s too by a fair bit. The projections are not going according to plan, that's what I'm saying and with CO2 the great AGW player the arctic should not be cooler now than in the 30s IMO, the most important ice continents shouldn't be cooling with thickening ice levels...remember cooling and thickening so more snow from warmer temps doesn't hold up on these areas.

Also not long to go...and this will convince me...to the Gleissberg minima which should [as a natural cycle follower] bring significant cooling. This should be globally evident by 2015. If the minima is happening on scale anticipated and we carry on warming then i'll accept...until then no.

However, I am not a big pollutant...I recycle, I use the bus or walk, one car family, switch off lights leave nothing on standby and fly once a year

BFTP

Edited March 14, 2007 by BLAST FROM THE PAST

[7andY]

The proportion of the West Antarctic Ice Shelf that is below sea level* will not contribute to a rise in sea level. Only the part of the Shelf that is above sea level can. That is because the melt water would first fill up the below sea level part of the West Antarctic "de-iced" Shelf.

*Is any proportion of the West Antarctic Ice Shelf above sea level; if so, what proportion? 50% 20%?

Basic physics. For a body to float it must displace it's own weight of water, and this includes floating ice. As the ice melts into water, it contracts (yes, water expands as it freezes - burst pipes in winter anyone?) and occupies the space that it displaced, having a Specific Gravity of 1 (ice has a SG of 0.9168 - that's why it floats - and why 9/10 is below the waterline).

Melting floating ice will not contribute to sea level changes.

QED - no more please. Go read your Physics textbooks if you don't believe me.

Another little nail in the GW lobby coffin for those who try to use this one!

7&Y

[Devonian]

Worth looking at Jaworowski and look at his findings. Very interesting findings he has put forward. He states that even prior to last century's warming co2 levels of 360ppm were found. As usual this has been trashed by AGW lobby/IPCC but i think a few surprises may come out.

interesting stuff indeed

BFTP

It was trashed because, wait for it......, it was demonstrably trash. Simple really . If it was 'reliable' (as in 'TGGWS reliable') why didn't Mr reliable himself (Martin Durkin) use it?

Edited March 14, 2007 by Devonian

[Crepuscular Ray]

Melting floating ice will not contribute to sea level changes.

Another little nail in the GW lobby coffin for those who try to use this one!

7&Y

AGW scientists have never claimed that melting floating ice will contribute to sea-level changes; it's a media misunderstanding/hype/distortion. Their concern is for the vast amounts of water stored in ice sheets on land, glaciers, tundra, etc.

[Bobby]

Basic physics. For a body to float it must displace it's own weight of water, and this includes floating ice. As the ice melts into water, it contracts (yes, water expands as it freezes - burst pipes in winter anyone?) and occupies the space that it displaced, having a Specific Gravity of 1 (ice has a SG of 0.9168 - that's why it floats - and why 9/10 is below the waterline).

Melting floating ice will not contribute to sea level changes.

QED - no more please. Go read your Physics textbooks if you don't believe me.

Another little nail in the GW lobby coffin for those who try to use this one!

7&Y

Strawman. No scientist has ever said that floating melting ice will raise the sea level. Melting ice in land though will raise the sea level.

[VillagePlank]

Slight problem BFTP, .1% change in the Sun isn't equivalent to a doubling of CO2...

.1% of the Sun's output is about 2w/m2 of total solar output change (but remember of the ~1360w/m2 total output only ~342w/m2 (about a quarter) is the average any part of the Earth at top of atmosphere recieves so the figure is more like a TOA change of about quarter of 2w/m2 - ~.5w/m2) . Also, the Sun fluctualtes by .1% it does NOT increase by .1% each cycle (if it did we'd have fried long ago) otoh, the increase of ghg's is allready about 2.5w/m2 (and CO2 hasn't doubled yet).

It's NOT the Sun wot did it.

That is under the hidden presumption that the sun's effect is linear; which has not been proven one way or the other . . . . . .yet

[Admiral_Bobski]

There is an open paper currently in 'Climates of the Past discussions' (awaiting publication, open to comment from outside) which is suggesting that the assumption that temperature leads CO2 in the ice core record is wrong. Originally, the case went that T leads CO2 by 800 years, with an uncertainty of ~600 years (sometimes also quoted as plus or minus 800!). This paper is offering an explanation of why this is probably a mistake, and concludes that it is possible that CO2 runs parallel with, or might even lead, temperature, in the ice-cores.

I must have a look at that paper - I also wonder where you got the figure 800 years +/-600(or 800), because I've never read that. I have frequently read 800 years +/-200 years. Here's the abstract for one such paper which asserts this:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.f...p;dopt=Abstract

This is not a done-and-dusted conclusion; the paper is still under revision; the authors may be overlooking something, or misinterpreting the data. But it is a very interesting development in the field of palaeoclimate. If the authors turn out to be right, it blows yet another false prop out from under the feet of those who argue that CO2 doesn't matter (I'd also say that the argument using this is erroneous, anyway).

Interesting use of words there - it would only be a "false prop" if the fact is, in reality, false. Since it is commonly accepted in the scientific literature that this "prop" is true, I would hardly call it a "false prop". (Or was the use of the term a Freudian slip?)

I also wonder how you can say that it is an erroneous argument when I still haven't seen a satisfactory explanation for why the temp/CO₂ trend doesn't become exponential when the CO₂ "takes over".

From Devonian:

It's NOT the Sun wot did it.

Do you actually have any proof that this is true?

CB

[jennyberki]

Enjoyed the programme but it didn't convince me that CO2 from human activity isn't playing a role in GW.

What was the African doctor with the single solar panel trying to prove? Has George Bush decreed that he can't buy a generator to power the clinic? And if he can't afford a generator, how about installing more solar panels? That at least would allow him to plug in the light and the fridge at the same time.

[crimsone]

There was one little experiment some time back that compared the melting of "clean" floating water-ice with the melting of very, very salty floating water-ice. I've forgotten what the result was. I seem to recall that either through the experiment, or criticism/further work on it, it wasn't regarded to have too much significance.

(or for that matter - was the experiment about the melting of floating "clean" water-ice on either salty or non-salty water? I can't remember that either! ...

... There was an experiment - it involved ice, clean water, and salt. )

Edited March 14, 2007 by crimsone

[Admiral_Bobski]

Enjoyed the programme but it didn't convince me that CO2 from human activity isn't playing a role in GW.

What was the African doctor with the single solar panel trying to prove? Has George Bush decreed that he can't buy a generator to power the clinic? And if he can't afford a generator, how about installing more solar panels? That at least would allow him to plug in the light and the fridge at the same time.

The point, I think, was that external pressure had limited his options for power (I'll double-check the programme to check this section), but he clearly says that he couldn't get another solar panel because he couldn't afford one!!

EDIT - While Solar Power may be becoming more efficient and relatively cheaper (here in the Western World), it is still far too expensive for those is less well-off nations and the Third World.

CB

EDIT - (George Bush hasn't decreed that I can't buy a Ferrari, but that doesn't mean I can just nip down the shop and pick one up...)

Edited March 14, 2007 by Captain_Bobski

[jennyberki]

The point, I think, was that external pressure had limited his options for power (I'll double-check the programme to check this section), but he clearly says that he couldn't get another solar panel because he couldn't afford one!!

EDIT - While Solar Power may be becoming more efficient and relatively cheaper (here in the Western World), it is still far too expensive for those is less well-off nations and the Third World.

CB

EDIT - (George Bush hasn't decreed that I can't buy a Ferrari, but that doesn't mean I can just nip down the shop and pick one up...)

I'd missed the bit about him not being able to afford another solar panel...

But did he buy his single solar panel because he had no alternative, or because it was the best option?

[Admiral_Bobski]

I'd missed the bit about him not being able to afford another solar panel...

But did he buy his single solar panel because he had no alternative, or because it was the best option?

Fair enough I'll watch the show again to see if I can find out why he went for solar in the first place, but the impression that I got was that he was advised to get solar (possibly because of impracticalities of obtaining fuel for a regular generator...?). Another impression that I got was that he had been given the impression that solar power would be rather more efficient than it actually turned out to be.

CB

[crimsone]

I'd guess (perhaps incorrectly?) that solar panels are like anything else commercially sold in the world - the more you pay, the better the quality.

[jennyberki]

I'd guess (perhaps incorrectly?) that solar panels are like anything else commercially sold in the world - the more you pay, the better the quality.

Hear, hear.

And if your clinic's in Africa, with no mains electricity, a solar panel (even an inefficient one) seems the best option. Would be interested to know whether solar panels are cheaper than generators though.

[Admiral_Bobski]

Hear, hear.

And if your clinic's in Africa, with no mains electricity, a solar panel (even an inefficient one) seems the best option. Would be interested to know whether solar panels are cheaper than generators though.

Perhaps, in the long run (over dozens of years), but up-front costs are significantly higher... It's those up-front costs that are such a problem for people in poorer countries. It's like your car tax - do you pay £165 in one go for 12 months' tax, or £90 twice for two six-month licences? I pay the lower sum twice because, even though it works out more expensive over the year, the smaller sum is affordable while the higher sum isn't.

CB

[Bobby]

I personally think solar panels are a waste of time for much of the world. Far too expensive, and imagine all the oil (CO2) on that goes into their production. How long will it take for them to recoup the carbon costs so to speak? I be it's a long long time.

[VillagePlank]

As I understand it solar technology has a return on investment of around 10 years.

[Michael Winston]

More food for thought here.................

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/robertpeston/

Regards.

Mike.

Edited March 14, 2007 by Winston