Page
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 32
Go  |
New |
Find |
Notify |
|
Reply |
|
Admin |
New PM! |
New Member
|
Water vapour is not a greenhouse gas - the fact that it retains heat does not make it a greenhouse gas. quote: Originally posted by TheHeretic: quote: Originally posted by phlipper:
Thanks Chi Squared for your post. I am looking for a convincing explaination from the AGW folks for the lag in CO2 rise vs warming. This element of surprise from the ice core samples needs to be dealt with. For example, what could have happened 800 years ago that could have possibly started the current CO2 rise? How much of the current CO2 elevation is man-made? Most important, since CO2 consentration is so miniscule, what effect does it really have on our climate? Weather models predict that CO2 warming would be greater at the 10 km altitude vs ground temperatures. This is not the measured reality.
Hi Philipper, Nice to meet a fellow heretic here! I've tried to answer the questions about the time-lag -- and the troposphere temperature anomaly reported by Christy et. al, -- in my reply to Chi Squared. As for the fact that the CO2 is only a tiny component of the atmosphere... Keep in mind that there are countless examples in nature of small things having big effects. For instance, the amount of ozone in the atmosphere as a whole is miniscule it's measured in parts per billion. All the same, it's very good at filtering out UV-B radiation. Thanks to the ozone layer, the intensity of radiation in this frequency range is around 350 million times weaker on the earth's surface than it is at the top of the atmosphere. The fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas was established well over a century ago - its elementary physical chemistry. The CO2 molecule absorbs radiation at the longer wavelenths which are reflected from the earth surface; hence, that energy warms the atmosphere, rather than disappearing into space. CO2 isn't the most powerful greenhouse gas; water vapour is far more potent. However, the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere hasn't significanly changed in recent decades. The amount of CO2 has increased dramatically -- as a result of human activity. Skeptics claim that the rising levels of CO2 in the atmosphere may not, after all, be causing global warming. But there's a gaping hole in their argument, which never seems to be addressed. They never explain WHY on earth all this extra CO2 is failing to do it's warming job -- when basic physical chemistry tells us that it certainly should.
|
| |
|
|
Emmet Grockleheimer 111 quote:
Water vapour is not a greenhouse gas - the fact that it retains heat does not make it a greenhouse gas.
It most certainly does! suricat. |
| |
|
|
That should be: Did not "materially" mislead viewers. I, for one, was definitely mislead! Grrrrrrrrr!  |
| |
|
|
Concerning the GGWS, the BBC website says "Plaintiffs accused the programme of containing myriad factual inaccuracies, but Ofcom says it was "impractical and inappropriate for it to examine in detail all of the multifarious alleged examples... set out in the complaints."
Does anyone know where to find a copy of this list?
|
| |
|
|
quote: Concerning the GGWS, the BBC website says "Plaintiffs accused the programme of containing myriad factual inaccuracies, but Ofcom says it was "impractical and inappropriate for it to examine in detail all of the multifarious alleged examples... set out in the complaints."
There's really only two ways this could have played out SOM: Either, the plaintiff laid out they're evidence in their complaint and OFCOM thought it was a pile of [insert] or, OFCOM, asked for the evidence of inaccuracies in the prog. and the plaintiff had lost them, or left them on the bus, or their dog had eaten them!!! It all seems much ado about some scientists not reading the small print on their pay cheques and a certain govt. scientific advisor(ex) hiring really good lawyers(at our expense no doubt!!) to point out that though in essence he was quoted correctly it was not verbatim and thus could be misconstrued. I think the whole GW debate has left the scientific field for good now! Though I would like to know what was in GGWS that scared them so?!?!?...seemed pretty tame to me!(though it did mislead Luci  ) |
| |
|
|
quote: Does anyone know where to find a copy of this list?
I can answer my own question. Climate Audit are on the case. An excellent summary of the OFCOM ruling with reference to OFCOM. |
| |
|
|
MB
The BBC has swallowed the PC view of Climate Change hook line and sinker. Hillarious how they use the discredited hockey stick graph as the icon for the link to the article.
They are stupid journalists with no form of critical thinking. I cant wait for the egg on face that will occur when this whole AGW industry comes crashing down.
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by engineerer:
MB
The BBC has swallowed the PC view of Climate Change hook line and sinker. Hillarious how they use the discredited hockey stick graph as the icon for the link to the article.
They are stupid journalists with no form of critical thinking. I cant wait for the egg on face that will occur when this whole AGW industry comes crashing down.
You'll be waiting for a long time! Howsabout this... I didn't know this guy Dave Rado at all until today... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7517444.stm |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Son of Mulder:
Concerning the GGWS, the BBC website says "Plaintiffs accused the programme of containing myriad factual inaccuracies, but Ofcom says it was "impractical and inappropriate for it to examine in detail all of the multifarious alleged examples... set out in the complaints."
Does anyone know where to find a copy of this list?
You can download the full complaint that was submitted to Ofcom here: http://www.ofcomswindlecomplaint.net/It's a very long and very detailed rebuttal of the transcript, but very interesting with it. |
| |
|
|
Thanks for those links, guys - very interesting!
I was fairly appalled at last night's Newsnight, when they had Sir David King and a C4 commissioner having a brief debate about the Ofcom ruling.
It seemed fairly clear to me that Channel 4's attitude towards science is that it should be treated like philosophy or religion, and that if a group of people (ie, scientists) come to a consensus on an issue, they should be knocked down and proved wrong because they are clearly just religious zealots, or maybe because if science comes to a consensus on anything, there must be a conspiracy involved!
I've also seen a great number of comparisons made between BAUers and Galileo, as if the orthodox view is that of AGW. It certainly hasn't been until fairly recently, and judging from all the comments made, I still think that we are in the minority on this issue, despite attempts from scientists and government to alert us all to the potential problems of AGW.
Maybe Al Gore's attempts went a little too far in the evangelical direction, but at least the science was reasonably sound, if a little oversimplified.
Maybe Channel 4 should now commission David Icke to make a 90 minute documentary about Reptilians (they are coming to get you) or monatomic gold (it can alter gravity, you know!). Then it would all be true - because Channel 4 say so!
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Buddh4:
[
It's a very long and very detailed rebuttal of the transcript, but very interesting with it.
Excellento Buddh4! From now on call me "God Bless Dave Rado". |
| |
|
|
Buddh4 quote: You can download the full complaint that was submitted to Ofcom here:
Many thanks for the reference. |
| |
|
|
mufcdiver. quote:
Has anyone read Chicken licken lately
It seems they haven't and rationality is in for a 'hiding' here at C4 now! Best regards, suricat. |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by phlipper:
I am looking for a convincing explaination from the AGW folks for the lag in CO2 rise vs warming.
See New Scientist Climate myths: Ice cores show CO2 increases lag behind temperature rises, disproving the link to global warming quote: How much of the current CO2 elevation is man-made?
Most of it. Isotopic analysis confirms this, since CO2 that comes from the burning of fossil fuels has a distinctive isotopic signature. quote: Most important, since CO2 consentration is so miniscule, what effect does it really have on our climate?
Radiative forcings (ie. warming effect) of various greenhouse gases and other factors are shown in this chart. You can see that the radiative forcing of CO2 is higher than that of all other greenhouse gases put together. |
| |
|
|
It is clear that, from the rage expressed against the Ch 4 programme "Global warming swindle", there has now evolved a kind of religious fervour surrounding the original IPCC global warming report.
The fact that the UN had a hand in it causes a lot of people problems, as this is one of the most political institutions on the plant. (and one of the most ineffective ones also if you care to check its history!).
In the global warming theory, there are "predictions" on sea level rise, melting ice, etc which are proposed to occur in the next 200 yrs.
From what I have seen of science, it does not make predictions as specific as those made by IPCC normally.
Also, can anyone remember 1939? or 1947?
There was ice one foot thick across the Thames!!
If some scientist in 1948 had predicted an ice age for 2001, it is likely that he would have had a good audience.
However, science is not supposed to act like some kind of fairground fortuneteller!!
Getting your hand read may excite you if you are told what you wish to believe, but science has evolved by clever people making discoveries based upon fact, not politics!
With UN involvement, there will always be the suspicion that someone is manipulating matters for political reasons.
Add to that the reason that the Ch 4 programme did not debunk the original IPCC report in the rabid manner that those IPCC proponents have chosen, through it seems, well orchestrated media outlets, and the unease becomes evident.
One is only left with a vague unease by the reaction to the Ch 4 programme that the IPCC position is attacking so fiercely because it has something to hide.
I do not know whether they have or not, but there seems to be a hint of hysteria and desperation in the way Ch 4 was attacked for presenting what,after all, is only an alternative position.
The opposition to Ch 4 smacked a little of the propoganda government puts out when it is desperate to "sell" a message that smells slightly!
In 200 years, the earth will no doubt have changed slightly, as it always does.
I would hazard a guess though, that the massive changes egged on by the global warming "we are all doomed" merchants will not have occurred!
|
| |
|
|
Obviously, the more determined skeptics in this forum will find some way to dismiss this catalog of errors - and convince themselves that the GGWS graphs are correct and all the more recent, up-to-date figures are wrong.
I present it here for the consideration of those of you - and I'm sure there are plenty - who prefer to keep an open mind.[/QUOTE]It only takes a little thought to conclude that something so simple and so under supported by rigorous research can ever explain a complex system that no group of geniuses could ever comprehend. What we therefore do is challenge, it's our scientific duty when one unproven claim has all the hats hanging on it, and other important matters are consequently deflected from. The principle of the GWS documentary was good, some of the detail may be questionable but no more so that various aspects of the IPCC report in which there are blatant ‘fixings’ of data. Done deals in a complex world are not scientific.
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Bonmot: quote: Originally posted by TheHeretic: The Independent today has a full page article analysing the scientific arguments -- and in particular the striking and very persuasive graphs -- presented in the GGWS film. quote: The main arguments made in Mr Durkin's film were that climate change had little if anything to do with man-made carbon dioxide and that global warming can instead be linked directly with solar activity - sun spots.
One of the principal supports for his thesis came in the form of a graph labelled "World Temp - 120 years", which claimed to show rises and falls in average global temperatures between 1880 and 2000.
Mr Durkin's film argued that most global warming over the past century occurred between 1900 and 1940 and that there was a period of cooling between 1940 and 1975 when the post-war economic boom was under way. This showed, he said, that global warming had little to do with industrial emissions of carbon dioxide.
The programme-makers labelled the source of the world temperature data as "Nasa" but when we inquired about where we could find this information, we received an email through Wag TV's PR consultant saying that the graph was drawn from a 1998 diagram published in an obscure journal called Medical Sentinel. The authors of the paper are well-known climate sceptics who were funded by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine and the George C Marshall Institute, a right-wing Washington think-tank.
However, there are no diagrams in the paper that accurately compare with the C4 graph. The nearest comparison is a diagram of "terrestrial northern hemisphere" temperatures - which refers only to data gathered by weather stations in the top one third of the globe.
However, further inquiries revealed that the C4 graph was based on a diagram in another paper produced as part of a "petition project" by the same group of climate sceptics. This diagram was itself based on long out-of-date information on terrestrial temperatures compiled by Nasa scientists.
However, crucially, the axis along the bottom of the graph has been distorted in the C4 version of the graph, which made it look like the information was up-to-date when in fact the data ended in the early 1980s.
Mr Durkin admitted that his graphics team had extended the time axis along the bottom of the graph to the year 2000. "There was a fluff there," he said.
If Mr Durkin had gone directly to the Nasa website he could have got the most up-to-date data. This would have demonstrated that the amount of global warming since 1975, as monitored by terrestrial weather stations around the world, has been greater than that between 1900 and 1940 - although that would have undermined his argument.
"The original Nasa data was very wiggly-lined and we wanted the simplest line we could find," Mr Durkin said.
The programme failed to point out that scientists had now explained the period of "global cooling" between 1940 and 1970. It was caused by industrial emissions of sulphate pollutants, which tend to reflect sunlight. Subsequent clean-air laws have cleared up some of this pollution, revealing the true scale of global warming - a point that the film failed to mention.
Other graphs used in the film contained known errors, notably the graph of sunspot activity. Mr Durkin used data on solar cycle lengths which were first published in 1991 despite a corrected version being available - but again the corrected version would not have supported his argument. Mr Durkin also used a schematic graph of temperatures over the past 1,000 years that was at least 16 years old, which gave the impression that today's temperatures are cooler than during the medieval warm period. If he had used a more recent, and widely available, composite graph it would have shown average temperatures far exceed the past 1,000 years.
Here's the original article: http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/climate_change/article2355956.eceObviously, the more determined skeptics in this forum will find some way to dismiss this catalog of errors - and convince themselves that the GGWS graphs are correct and all the more recent, up-to-date figures are wrong. I present it here for the consideration of those of you - and I'm sure there are plenty - who prefer to keep an open mind.
It only takes a little thought to conclude that something so simple and so under supported by rigorous research can ever explain a complex system that no group of geniuses could ever comprehend. What we therefore do is challenge, it's our scientific duty when one unproven claim has all the hats hanging on it, and other important matters are consequently deflected from. The principle of the GWS documentary was good, some of the detail may be questionable but no more so that various aspects of the IPCC report in which there are blatant ‘fixings’ of data. Done deals in a complex world are not scientific.
You can't prove a 'theory', you can only disprove it. Whichever way the weather changes, there must be some mechanism behind it. It simply doesn't "just happen". And it's absurd that skeptics don't have show anything. Things just don't happen for no reason. And we all know the global warming is always at work, without it, the part of the earth that didn't receive the sun would freeze. But, what we need to understand is why in the last 100 years, the global temperatures trend has been rapidly going up. There has been no noticable increase in the sun's activity in the last 50 years. But there has been a markedly large increase in CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. This seems to correlate with rising temperatures. To disprove AGW, skeptics need to show CO2 correlation isn't correct and to date they haven't. Also, they need to show what other mechanism is behind it and to date they haven't either. The skepticism as we have seen in AGW science has been cynical as well as incoherent. The documentary 'The Great Global Warming Swindle' shows that to be the case. |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Raver Ron:
The skepticism as we have seen in AGW science has been cynical as well as incoherent. The documentary 'The Great Global Warming Swindle' shows that to be the case.
That's your take Ronny but you know it's not so. The IPCC report is discredited in many ways, therefore it is incumbent upon the hypothesis generator to amend that. Again your understanding about the burden of proof is the wrong way around, your theory you support it. You have not. Our alternative is it is not CO2 to any great degree. Infact that should be your null, your starting point. You/They have broken all the rules of experimental research, I'd like some acknowledgment of that. You/They have ridiculed science. |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Bonmot: quote: Originally posted by Raver Ron:
The skepticism as we have seen in AGW science has been cynical as well as incoherent. The documentary 'The Great Global Warming Swindle' shows that to be the case.
That's your take Ronny but you know it's not so. The IPCC report is discredited in many ways, therefore it is incumbent upon the hypothesis generator to amend that. Again your understanding about the burden of proof is the wrong way around, your theory you support it. You have not. Our alternative is it is not CO2 to any great degree. Infact that should be your null, your starting point. You/They have broken all the rules of experimental research, I'd like some acknowledgment of that. You/They have ridiculed science.
The documentary 'The Great Global Warming Swindle' tried discredit the IPCC by fabricating data, manipulating graphs, relying on out-of-date research, employing misleading arguements and misrepresenting the position of the IPCC and its contributors. In the event, discredited itself and the skepticism cause. Thet's why more and more people realise skepticism only purpose is to dely any action on climate change. | |
