The Great Global Warming Swindle

[7andY]

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.

...ummm where in my post do I accuse scientists of using this argument. I don't, because I know they won't. It was aimed at those (non-scientists) that try to use it.

And yes, all the land based ice & snow, and some of the grounded sea ice would contribute to sea level change.

Cheers, 7&Y

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. )

...sea ice is 'clean' water - there is no salt in it. It precipitates out as the water freezes. This is shown by the increased salinity in the layer of water just below the ice.

In fact, the Saudis had a plan to tow icebergs into harbour, allow the water to melt, and, fresh water being lighter than sea water, it would float on the top, and pump the stuff off...

Turned out to be cheaper energy-wise to just de-salinate sea water!

Cheers, 7&Y

[Michael Winston]

Here's more food for thought from the BBC.....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6449059.stm

Regards,

Mike.

[biffvernon]

David Milliband has put a lengthy comment on the CH4 programme on his blog:

http://www.davidmiliband.defra.gov.uk/blog...03/14/5960.aspx

[Mondy]

11. The scientific process is biased.

The IPCC is the most authoritative voice on climate change

Don't even get me started....check back a previous post of mine which compares the IPCC to GIGO.

It says at the bottom[on this particular blog] to 'post a comment'...you betcha i will.

[Admiral_Bobski]

David Milliband has put a lengthy comment on the CH4 programme on his blog:

http://www.davidmiliband.defra.gov.uk/blog...03/14/5960.aspx

I've got a couple of responses to his comment (I may have more later ) which I shall outline below. Firstly, here's a graph I posted up way, way back in this thread, which should help support my responses...

4. "Most of the 20th century warming occurred before 1940, when carbon dioxide emissions were still relatively low."

This first statement is not correct. Global temperatures did rise during the first few decades of this century, but much of the warming seen this century has occurred since around 1970 (0.4°C of the total 0.74°C warming). Global temperatures have risen almost continuously since 1950. The linear growth rate in temperature during the past 50 years is nearly twice that of the last 100 years. While the IPCC concluded that much of the warming over the past 50 years is very likely due to greenhouse gases, the cause of the warming in the first half of the century is not clear. Current thinking is that it was likely a mixture of natural and human factors.

I would agree with DM's first comment - although temps rose from around 1910-1940 by almost 0.6°C, the subsequent drop means that you can't use that peak as a baseline from which to measure current temperatures. However, it's quite plain from the graph that between around 1970 and the last data point the temperature has risen by 0.6°C - that is to say the latter 20th Century warming has been well nigh identical to the early 20th Century warming, both in terms of magnitude and in terms of duration. I'm not quite sure what he means by the "linear growth rate...during the past 50 years is nearly twice that of the last 100 years", but it's a spurious comment of no consequence. Since the 1970-present warming is virtually identical to the 1910-1940 warming, it would seem perfectly acceptable to attribute the same cause to both phases of warming.

7. "There is no evidence that human emissions are causing the current warming trend."

This is not true. As stated in the recent IPCC report, a growing body of evidence demonstrates that increases in greenhouse gas concentrations, due to human emissions, have caused most of the warming observed over the past half century. Both the spatial patterns and trend of warming can only be explained by the inclusion of human emissions. It is very unlikely that the rapid increase in global temperatures seen over the past half century could be caused by natural factors alone. For example, the most recent report of the IPCC concludes that the warming effect of human emissions is around ten times that of solar variations.

Referring back to the previous point, the "rapid increase" of the past 50 years is, in fact, no more rapid than that of the first 50 years of the 20th Century (as shown by the overlaid (black) line on the graph above). Once again, though, this comes back to the question risen many times on this (and other) thread(s) of "have the various forcings been attributed their correct magnitudes?"

11. "The scientific process is biased."

The IPCC is the most authoritative voice on climate change. Its assessments represent the consensus of thousands of scientists worldwide, based on peer-reviewed research. Objectivity is ensured by the broad and open review process and shared responsibility for the report. No one government, organisation or individual has sole responsibility for any part of the report.

Here he has wrongly equated the statement "The scientific process is biased" with "The IPCC's process is biased" (although one could make a case for the IPCC's process being biased, but that's beside the point!). Not only that but he's sidestepped the issue completely by claiming that the IPCC are unbiased because all the papers are peer-reviewed. Of course, the complaint he is referring to is actually talking about the peer-review process itself! If people are complaining that the peer-review process is flawed, you can't refute that comment by saying "but all the papers are peer-reviewed".

Anyway, that's enough for now. I'll get back to it at another time.

CB

[Mondy]

C-Bob..you're stuff is good. I just rant! LOL

However.. (a word used by Mr Milliband repeatedly in his statement)

Several people have said to me that they couldn’t quite believe what they were being told in Channel 4’s programme last week on climate change – and I promised yesterday in my interview on the Today programme to put the facts on my blog. Below I have set out what Defra scientists say about the 11 main allegations in the programme. You can read for yourself what the International Panel on Climate Change say or the statement of the Academies of Science of the 11 largest countries in the world.

That is a remark made by a GW believer, giving not one ounce of thought to a sceptic/denier onlooker.

This a member of Parliament playing into the hands of people who are less inclined to research themselves whether or not his diatribe is true/false or inbetween.

I'm actually fuming at reading this, so will return later. Is he some kind of yes-man or something?

[biffvernon]

Try reading the interpretation of Milliband's motives on PowerSwitch:

http://www.powerswitch.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3875

[Admiral_Bobski]

C-Bob..you're stuff is good. I just rant! LOL

However.. (a word used by Mr Milliband repeatedly in his statement)

That is a remark made by a GW believer, giving not one ounce of thought to a sceptic/denier onlooker.

This a member of Parliament playing into the hands of people who are less inclined to research themselves whether or not his diatribe is true/false or inbetween.

I'm actually fuming at reading this, so will return later. Is he some kind of yes-man or something?

Thanks, Mondy! I do try

You're right, of course - his blog post is exactly the kind of thing you'd expect Miliband to say, so (as many pro-GWers have said of the Swindle programme) no surprises there then...

I'm going to have another read of it and see what else I can pick holes in - the three comments above were just the most obvious ones.

CB

PS - Before anyone says anything about picking holes, let me just say that a self-consistent theory formed entirely of logical conclusions from facts shouldn't have any holes in it to be picked in the first place

[Mondy]

Defra reserves the right not to publish comments that contravene any of these rules.

Guess my comments aren't getting past the swear filter on his blog...

[Admiral_Bobski]

Guess my comments aren't getting past the swear filter on his blog...

Take deep breaths, count to ten, then post!

CB

[gmoran]

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'.

The fact that the ice core records don't demonstrate CO2 affecting global temperatures, is exactly what should be expected, and neither supports nor refutes AGW. Some of the arguments given to "explain away" this anomaly by AGW proponents are somewhat contrived, and as mentioned unnecessary. I don't expect this paper to show C02 leading temperatures, because under "normal" circumstances this shouldn't occur. Sceptics are correct to raise the issue, not because it disproves, but because it has been used a number of times to "prove" the link with AGW. The main evidence supporting AGW is that it is the only credible agent that explains the rise of the last 50 years, which has outstripped that possible by solar irradiance. Some healthy scepticism in the AGW arena should be welcome, proponents are far too dogmatic, and too reliant on models when we struggle to put accurate numbers on the basic mechanisms involved. A complete denial of AGW however seems as mad to me as the idea that we are likely to see a rise of 6 degrees nearing the end of the century.

[HighPressure]

I got to say that once you get government ministers such as Milliband speaking up against programmes such as this, its got to be worrying for the pro camp as it really gets my back up. He has no knowledge or qualifications in the subject and is only saying what his advisers tell him to. The other worrying thing is that this government like any government needs to collect taxes to fuel its spending, and this particular one has been looking to take advantage of anything it can since 1997. It has not promised to put all green or environmental taxes back into fighting AGW but does have revenue gaps in other areas which need ever increasing funds, so one could say 'AGW that will do nicely thank you'.

Quoting idiots like Milliband don't half do the 'Swindle' supporters cause a massive power of good.

[Mondy]

Take deep breaths, count to ten, then post!

CB

On further reading in Milib(L)ands blog, I give you this gem: http://www.davidmiliband.defra.gov.uk/blog...03/13/5866.aspx

Blog reader Andrew Stuart puts this post up. He included this at the beginning of his reply:

I watched the Channel 4 documentary 'The Great Global Warming Swindle' - I know you (David) haven't seen it yet, from your comments on Today this morning.

Indeed. Has Miliband actually seen the docu yet? I'd hate to think he'd be inclined to demolish its contents without watching it and subsequently enlist a person to do his dirty work (spiel) for him..

[Iceberg]

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

Care to back that comment up with anything, I'll gladly agree with it if you can otherwise my view is that it's plain wrong.

I got to say that once you get government ministers such as Milliband speaking up against programmes such as this, its got to be worrying for the pro camp as it really gets my back up. He has no knowledge or qualifications in the subject and is only saying what his advisers tell him to. The other worrying thing is that this government like any government needs to collect taxes to fuel its spending, and this particular one has been looking to take advantage of anything it can since 1997. It has not promised to put all green or environmental taxes back into fighting AGW but does have revenue gaps in other areas which need ever increasing funds, so one could say 'AGW that will do nicely thank you'.

Quoting idiots like Milliband don't half do the 'Swindle' supporters cause a massive power of good.

What's laughable is that the sceptics are reduced to attacking easy targets that tbh are nothing to do with AGW or the theory in order to try and score points.

If people are complaining that the peer-review process is flawed, you can't refute that comment by saying "but all the papers are peer-reviewed".

Anyway, that's enough for now. I'll get back to it at another time.

CB

This mildly peeves me. There is no evidence to suggest that the peer review process is flawed, it's like an 18 year old complaining that he didn't get his A-level because he didn't understand the question.

Let's blame the world, the press, westminster, the corrupt scientists, the process and everything else under the sun. Simple because some theories on the sun arn't accepted.

If you can't explain your research, back it up and replicate it then why on earth should anyone believe it.

[Gray-Wolf]

I too imagine that the 'peer review' system is not the 'level playing field' it should be for all papers.

if you are in a contentious area of research then you paper will get a more 'studied' appraisal than if you are purely reinforcing accepted concepts. Too many times, when a theory has fought it's way into acceptability, do we find that 'flawed papers' have been reviewed and accepted without the rigorous testing you would imagine.

In saying this I have no suggestions for improvements but would ask people to be aware of this type of 'cherry picking' within the science community. Any 'contentious paper' thats makes it through the review process must be good as it has taken twice the bashing that non-novel papers do!

[Iceberg]

The peer review process is there to ensure that any science used is correct, occasionally there are mistakes but not very often at all.

A contentious paper should be review more rigourously surely ?.

Talking to people that do peer review papers I find that they are very fair in what they do.

I can't think of many, if any papers that have been peer reviewed which have been wrong, yes some have been proved wrong afterwards when more evidence is uncovered but that's a different matter.

[gmoran]

Care to back that comment up with anything, I'll gladly agree with it if you can otherwise my view is that it's plain wrong.

Not the same thing as BFTP was talking about but BBC Antarctic Warming, and certainly there is a lot of information out there suggesting the models can't be relied upon; which isn't particularly surprising, the models should be hard pressed to prove anything. AGW is backed up by a lot more than climate models.

Lots of information out there suggesting Antarctica isn't behaving as the models expect, but as always we need to be careful we don't cherry pick to suit our own preconceptions: it's unlikely a single paper or study will prove something one way or the other.

While I think it is difficult to argue against CO2 induced AGW, there is still lots of uncertainty, as in all things the devil will be in the detail, and some healthy scepticism for some AGW extremes is as it should be.

[Gray-Wolf]

Not the same thing as BFTP was talking about but BBC Antarctic Warming, and certainly there is a lot of information out there suggesting the models can't be relied upon; which isn't particularly surprising, the models should be hard pressed to prove anything. AGW is backed up by a lot more than climate models.

Lots of information out there suggesting Antarctica isn't behaving as the models expect, but as always we need to be careful we don't cherry pick to suit our own preconceptions: it's unlikely a single paper or study will prove something one way or the other.

While I think it is difficult to argue against CO2 induced AGW, there is still lots of uncertainty, as in all things the devil will be in the detail, and some healthy skepticism for some AGW extremes is as it should be.

One of the inviting features of Antarctic studies is just that there is so much yet to understand down there. The stratospheric effects of the ozone hole ,and the consequent warming caused by it, the sub ice/glacial water erosions and outflows, the mechanism of rapid collapse (as seems common within all major ice sheets/end of glacial periods to name but a few.

The wealth of papers over the past 2yrs which again remind us of how much more study is needing to be undertaken before we can fully appreciate the mechanisms is less than assuring.

Most papers for the last few years have pointed towards much greater dynamism below the ice sheets/shelves and that these processes are starting to be viewed as fundamental to rapid de-glaciation of sheets/shelves which also is a worry (when coupled with our lack of understanding of the mechanisms at work there and the time scales they operate within).

[Mondy]

Doesn't look so hot, does it?

And then we have sea level rises..

3 million years ago were 20 meters higher than today.

Less of the religious scaremongering chaps. It's annoying

[Gray-Wolf]

3 million years ago were 20 meters higher than today.

Less of the religious scaremongering chaps. It's annoying

Mondy ,during the Eemian they (sea levels) were 4 to 6m higher than today and that is only a 2c difference in temp on todays (only 125,000yrs ago at it's warmest) so how does that nesh with the IPCC sea level rise of up to 70cm with a temp rise of between 2 and 5c?

[Mondy]

On a lighter note...

A North Pole expedition meant to bring attention to global warming was called off after one of the explorers got frostbite.

http://www.wibc.com/news/article.aspx?id=1075085

[Michael Winston]

Mondy ,during the Eemian they (sea levels) were 4 to 6m higher than today and that is only a 2c difference in temp on todays (only 125,000yrs ago at it's warmest) so how does that nesh with the IPCC sea level rise of up to 70cm with a temp rise of between 2 and 5c?

Has anyone factored in continental drift into this?

A genuine question - I'm curious to know.

Regards,

Mike.

[Roo]

Talking to people that do peer review papers I find that they are very fair in what they do.

Exactly! I work for one of the leading archaeological peer reviewed journals, and we have an editorial board of twenty professors from a variety of fields who can each call on a further broad panel of 50 experts each. Each paper is sent to at least 5 reviewers before it is considered for publication, and it is an active decision to make each of these reviewers as diverse in their views as possible (after all academia wouldn't be half as interesting if everyone said exactly the same thing!)

We will publish ALL research which can be backed up with sound and visible research techniques: if their thought and evidence trail is not transparent it does not go in. We, and most of the other journals I know of, have published some extremely contentious research. However, it has always been academically valid as it shows a defined path of experiment and decision making.

To rubbish the peer review process without evidence or knowledge is very short sighted.

[RedShift]

Has anyone factored in continental drift into this?

A genuine question - I'm curious to know.

Regards,

Mike.

Well, for 125 kyr ago the Earth’s tectonic plates were largely in the same position as they are today. But going back further in time they were obviously different which makes comparisons of the present ice age to previous ones like chalk and Wensleydale. Tectonics do play a big role in the Earth’s climate, and with the right combination of suitable tectonics and Milankovitch cycles you get an ice age. Some of the tectonic ingredients which probably kicked off this ice age are; 1) It seems to have an ice age you need a large isolated landmass over a Pole. A few (can’t remember exactly when for now) millions years ago Antarctica separated from South America, forming Drake’s Passage – this isolates Antarctica and allows cold circum-Polar water currents. 2) The rise and rise of the Himalayas (and to a lesser extent, the Alps) these ‘new’ mountains exposed a huge amount of silicate rocks to the atmosphere. As these rocks chemically weather they draw down CO2 from the atmosphere via reactions like CaSiO3 (a pyroxene if anyone is interested) + CO2 = CaCO3 (calcite) + SiO2. The Himalayas also kicked off the monsoon, which creates more rainfall, which creates even more rock weathering, which lowers CO2 in the atmosphere…..etc.

There are also some ideas about sea-floor spreading rates. Large amounts of CO2 are generated at mid-ocean ridge volcanism sites. At the start of the break up of the super-continent Pangea which started sometime in the Jurassic, volcanism on earth was far higher than now. Continents were splitting up quickly by large sea floor spreading rates – which raises sea levels too (if you generate a large amount of new crust at an ocean ridge – the water has to go somewhere, it goes up). So during the Cretaceous, sea levels were way higher as a result of both lots of CO2 and the water being ‘pushed up’ by active mid ocean spreading. Since then, the continents have taken on their present position and volcanism has died down a little. The Earth is relatively quiet.

It all goes to show the Earth as one big system - tectonics, biosphere, atmosphere - they all infuence each other. It never ceases to amuse me how some on here reckon we are arrogant to think we are capable of altering the composition of the atmosphere - hence climate.

Why, for example, is there oxygen in the atmosphere? It wasn't there in the very early Earth's atmosphere and without it life (or photsnththetic life anyway) wouldn't be there at all as all the rocks on the earth's surface would eat it up. It seems that a bunch of bactaria - the cyanobacteria put oxygen there in the first place. So if a population of photosynthetic bacteria can alter the atmosphere.....we sure can.

How Lovelockian of me!

[Mondy]

We will publish ALL research which can be backed up with sound and visible research technique

But, but Roo! Have a read of Melanie Philip's Blog: http://www.melaniephillips.com/diary/?p=1468

And let’s not forget the astounding fact that the IPCC itself has said in terms that the scientific evidence for its fourth report —evidence which has not yet even been finalised — is to be brought into line with the ‘summary’ of that evidence which was published last month. In other words, the ‘summary’ was published before the evidence of which it was allegedly a reflection had even been finalised — and that evidence is to be changed to fit it if it deviates from what the summary said. Conclusion first, evidence later — or rather, evidence denied.

That to me is not sound.

I also see Milibands blog has taken a few scathing remarks. To be expected considering he spouted off before watching the C4 docu..

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/l...f/12/12we21.htm

Edited March 15, 2007 by Mondy