![$vboptions[bbtitle]](images/master_col.bmp)
Reply With QuoteBarry....you make my brain ache.Originally Posted by Barry Shnikov
Thursday night, Channel 4: “The great global warming swindle”. Channel 4 website page.
I’ve been unconvinced about global warming since I read the Skeptical environmentalist, a few years ago. What the author, Bjorn Lomborg, did was to examine the basic assumptions of environmentalist. Though he had been a member of Greenpeace, what sparked his interest was his profession – statistician. He found many of the environmentalist statistics unconvincing, and started to investigate.
One illustration will show a startling example (most were not so startling) of the sort of thing that he found. On soil erosion, environmentalists had been promoting for many years a soil-erosion figure for Europe of 17 tons of topsoil lost per hectare per year – a truly alarming figure. Lomborg traced this (as it turned out, ‘extrapolation’) to an unpublished study of a Belgian hillside plot of only one-ninth of a hectare in size, a study which itself warned that because of the unique circumstances of the land studied should not be used as a basis for estimates of soil erosion generally.
So, I was interested to see Thursday night’s programme. The thesis presented was basically this.
- Conventional global warming (CGW) theory as advocated by amongst others Al Gore states that human industrial activity is causing global warming which is a bad thing, and therefore we must curtail human industrial activity. That happens in this way:
- Human industrial activity releases CO2 into the atmosphere.
- This produces higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.
- High levels of CO2 cause global warming.
- However, there is no evidence that high levels of CO2 cause global warming; rather that global warming causes high levels of CO2.
Now, the programme did not get anyone from the CGW lobby to confirm that this accurately summarised their thesis. So that was one weakness.
But they claimed that over time periods for which good evidence is available, CO2 levels have roughly matched global temperature means but with a lag of 40 to 100 years. They did not ask anyone from the CGW lobby to respond to this argument.
They also claimed that industrial activity boomed across the world from 1940 onwards (which seems likely; that was when the US and the USSR began gearing up for the production cycle that won World War II by outproducing the axis powers; since then there has been no relaxing of the drive to produce more power and use it), and that therefore CO2 increases have been inevitable, but that from 1940 to 1980 mean global temperatures dropped. They have only been increasing since 1980. They say the CGW model cannot explain this – but they did not interview any proponents of the model to confirm this.
/continued
Barry....you make my brain ache.
/continuation
The program suggested that solar activity is more likely to be at the root of the current temperature increase. They interviewed the guy who predicts weather on the basis of sun spot cycles and claims outstanding success rates months ahead of time. (I’ve seen this guy before; he says he earns a very good living from companies who get him to provide ‘spot’ weather forecasts six months or so in advance; the Met Office doesn’t even try to do this. But he has not published his methodology; he says that if he does, everyone will replicate his work and he will lose his commercial advantage. Hmm.) He says the Met Office predicted an exceptionally cold 2006/7 winter, whereas he predicted a mild one. He agrees that CGW misses the overwhelming influence of the sun on global temperatures.
They spoke about a recent theory that solar activity causes weather changes in the following way. Evidence is emerging that cloud formation is strongly dependant on cosmic particle penetration of the atmosphere; the levels of such penetration are strongly dependant on the strength of the solar wind (which blows the particles away from earth); and the strength of the solar wind is dependent on sunspot activity. More cloud formation cools the planet; therefore greater sunspot activity warms the planet by inhibiting cloud formation. The suggestion was that only mildly controversial part of this theory is the extent to which cloud formation is dependent on cosmic particles. It has occurred to me that if the solar wind blows particles away from earth, it probably also blows other particles towards earth as well, but whether that is right I don't know.
The program pointed out that scientists are aware of exceptionally low levels of sunspot activity occurred at the end of (IIRC) the 17th century – it’s called the ‘Maunder minimum’. This coincides with exceptionally cold period in Europe where, for example, the Thames froze over on a regular basis. Apparently there are ways of assessing the levels of solar activity even in the distant past (ie. before men kept records) and this also shows a correlation with global temperatures.
One Canadian scientist said this. CO2 (or possibly the extra CO2 produced by man) accounts for only 0.54% of the gases in the atmosphere; to focus on this as the primary mechanism of global warming, ignoring the sun and ignoring water vapour (by far the most voluminous ‘greenhouse gas’ in the atmosphere) is a bit like looking at a car that won’t go, ignoring the engine and transmission and deciding that the problem is one of the wheelnuts.
(Lomborg makes other points in his book. For example, he looks at the number of global deaths due to cold every year, compared to the number of global deaths due to heat. He calculates that if the world does warm up, deaths due to cold will decrease. He points out, not unreasonably, that this is not a bad thing. Therefore, even if CGW is right, the effects will be bad and good, and that we need to factor in the beneficial effects before we decide that it is necessary to spend $trillions to avert it. He details the other possible benefits - e.g. far larger areas of arable land than today.)
The programme pointed out that we are putting pressure on undeveloped countries not to develop, because otherwise they will contribute to global warming. This puts a disproportionate amount of the hardship to be suffered to avoid global warming on the poorest peoples of the planet. Of course, that is something we shouldn’t do even if CGW is real. But if it isn’t, if global warming is induced by the sun, then we are doubly wrong.
Oh, and importantly, the IPCC panel on climate change. One report is claimed to be signed by the 2,500 top scientists in the environmental field. Apparently, only 51 'signed' it, the others are named as having 'contributed'. One scientist explained how he had been obliged to threaten the IPCC with court action before it removed his name from the report; he had 'contributed' - they said - so his name stays on, despite the fact that his contribution had challenged CGW throughout. He said he knows several scientists who are furious that their names are associated with the report.
Interestingly, one of the contributors to the program was a co-founder of Greenpeace, dismayed by the way the focus on 'illusory' theories of global warming has deflected focus away from what he considers are more serious environmental concerns.
Sorry about that. It's growth pains, probably.Barry....you make my brain ache.
I saw this repeated on TV (more 4?) last night.
I too have had my doubts about the science behind mankind's involvement with global warming. Sure there's no doubt that global warming is taking place but it's natural and cyclic and the effect of processes that mankind as a whole can't really affect.
Don't egt me wrong though I still think that being "ecologically friendly" is a good thing. Anything that means we use less energy and are less polluting is a good thing in my minds.
However, I will say that the idea of forcing inefficient and expensive solar and wind power onto the developing countries is the most heinous act of opression I've heard of in a long time. As the gent in the film accurately stated
This (IMHO) is the rich industrial countries saying "don't use your oil and gas.. we need it for ourselves" if they'd invade Iraq on the basis of securing oil reserves then you can be darned sure they'd try and discourage them form exploiting their own natural reserves."I don't see how a solar panel is going to power a steel industry, how a solar panel is going to power a railway network… There is somebody keen to kill the African dream, and the African dream is to develop. We are being told don't touch your resources, don't touch your oil, don't touch your coal; that is suicide"
I thought this program was very interesting and was nice to hear the other side of the argument. Of course, it was still pretty sensationalised, and it didn't give much scope to the other parties to enter the debate and put their point across.. mind you their point is all we've been hearing so far so you can't blame them.
I'll still use my low energy bulbs, and recycle my cornflake packets .. that just makes good common sense but I'll not worry about my increasing carbon footprint with all these flights I'm taking to and from London these days.
Excellent post Barry, a nice summation of a most interesting program.
Havent got enough time to reply now but this program was a load of rubbish - will try and answer your points in a few days time Barry
If anything the reverse is true! He had been forecasting January and February to be exceptionally cold (havent got any links at the mo) which was definitely not the case. I havent got the link for the met office winter forecast but from what i remember they said it would be mild at first but with an increasing chance of some colder weather later on - a bit vague really but they certainly didn't forecast an exceptionally cold one. I didn't watch the program but from what i have heard it is possible that he was referring to the 2005/6 winter? The met office did talk about cold weather then but didn't say it was going to be exceptionally cold although some of the newspaper headlines would have made you think so... I suppose that i should add at this point that i do belong to a company that is in competition with both met office and the bloke you mention (name is Piers Corbyn) so i may be biased (although i don't think i am).
Sorry about that. It's growth pains, probably.Barry....you make my brain ache.
Oh good. Controversy! (Smack lips smiley)Havent got enough time to reply now but this program was a load of rubbish - will try and answer your points in a few days time Barry
Sorry, time limit for editing had expiredHavent got enough time to reply now but this program was a load of rubbish - will try and answer your points in a few days time Barry
I didn't watch this program myself so my views are probably coloured a bit by other people's opinions - however, i have tried to follow the aftermath looking at both sides so i will try and answer your points
Could be that he was referring to a different winter. Hard to keep such a large amount of information in the head at one time.
If anything the reverse is true! He had been forecasting January and February to be exceptionally cold (havent got any links at the mo) which was definitely not the case. I havent got the link for the met office winter forecast but from what i remember they said it would be mild at first but with an increasing chance of some colder weather later on - a bit vague really but they certainly didn't forecast an exceptionally cold one. I didn't watch the program but from what i have heard it is possible that he was referring to the 2005/6 winter? The met office did talk about cold weather then but didn't say it was going to be exceptionally cold although some of the newspaper headlines would have made you think so... I suppose that i should add at this point that i do belong to a company that is in competition with both met office and the bloke you mention (name is Piers Corbyn) so i may be biased (although i don't think i am
Interesting that you have an inside track. Your company provides weather forecasting information too?
Didnt see the programme, but it does sound interesting. I've always been cynical about, well everything. But Global Warming has almost seemed a psuedo science full of guesses and "mountains out of molehills" i.e. unsubstantiated extrapolations . Still, it does seem fairly obvious that releasing chemicals into the air, ground or water is a bad thing - and , put simply, we should try not to do it. So to use the excuse that the global warming argument is mainly F.U.D* is just an excuse for some countries to avoid the rather obvious fact that they pollute the world too much.
*Fear Uncertainty Doubt (e.g. the U.S.A)
After all, we are going to run out of fossil fuels someday, so whether global warming is the driver for us or not, we need to find a replacement that we won't run out of. And preferably one that doesn't cause so much pollution and thus destroy both our health and that of the flora and fauna around us.
Did this programme have anything to say about the ozone layer and whether we are responsible for it's depletion?
(and what a relief it'd be not to have to feel guilty about all those flights I'm taking at the moment...though I don't know enough about either arguement to stop worrying yet)
I believe that some of the more evangelical advocates have adopted a very stupid approach of "soundbite science" (I just made that phrase up, but it sounds cool), where they dramatise and simplify the science to make it more "effective". In other words, they make it up. Which is just dumb.
Plus, I'm very unimpressed with Al Gore - if it's that important, why didn't he do anything for the 8 years that he spent as the second most powerful man in the world? Where was he when the Kyoto protocols were being decided? Howcum he suddenly discovered the environment (the way he "discovered the Internet") when he lost power?
Having said that, there's no doubt that the temperature has zoomed up over the past 20 years. So the debate is not about the change itself - even the Bush administration now accepts it - but mainly about the causes of the change.
It comes down to probabilities in the end. If there's a good chance that doing nothing will create global catastrophe - balanced against the certainty that doing something will create some economic challenges - then I vote for doing something.
It's like a global house insurance scheme I guess - no one likes paying the premium, but they'd like losing their homes even less.
Oh, and:
The carbon dance shoe...............
Wibble
I didn't see the programme, so sorry if this repeats any of the content.
There was a bit on global mean temperatures (GMT) in one of the OU science courses I did with a *really cute* CD that let you muck around with changing various temperature factors and estimated the effect on GMT.
If the sun's output or indeed any other warming factor goes up (in some cases, it would need to be by quite a lot) then more water will evaporate = more cloud cover = greater albedo (sun's radiation reflected back from the surface to space) = lower GMT = more snow and ice = greater albedo (snow and ice are reflective) - etc. But just to confuse things, H2O is a greenhouse gas* - so all that evaporation would have a warming effect as well as causing increased cloud cover.
*as is (if I recall correctly) any molecule containing more than 2 atoms - but I can't remember why, although valencies rings a bell.
The sun's output is definitely the No. 1 determining factor in GMTs (Venus has 100% cloud cover, but is still pretty warm)
The bottom line is no-one really knows what is going to happen. It's all guesses. Except that the Sun is too small to generate the energy needed for helium fusion, so when all the hydrogen in the Sun has been used up - in approximately 5 billion years time - we're all going to die. Probably.
OK, you've made me officially depressed now
Saw the program & thought it had some good points & concluded that the truth will lie somewhere between to the opposing views.
Saw a bit on the BBC site that mentioned that one contributor (the Oceanography Prof) was livid as he had been misquoted & would not have wanted to have been invoved if he knew the title of the prog.
Time for a bit more digging & found The Great Global Warming Swindle - snopes.com woah - this guys got a pretty bad history of making sensationalist (for that read untrue) documentaries. So I'll be continuing to lean to the view that we're doing harm but maybe not as hard as I did before
Yes - that's not necessarily an indication that he'll always be wrong, but it's certainly not adding to his credibility.
Reading that thread (good link, BTW), I see that:
Not exactly helping on the "rational human being" front...also revealed that Durkin was a member of the weird far-right-masquerading-as-far-left cult the Revolutionary Communist Party
I think I'm pretty much unaffected by this programme - as DS put it, I try to keep a healthy skepticism about, well, everything really. At least, until it's been officially denied, of course.
As a context free statement, 'we shouldn't pollute the world' is easy to adopt.
But the real statement is 'we should place a higher premium on non-pollution than on other things - better quality of life and better life expectancy for third world peoples, for example'. Recycling isn't a pimple on the nose of environmental damage; it's high industrialisation that is doing the real damage.
Moving on to global warming - yes, temperatures have climbed in the last twenty years. Questions that aren't often asked:
1. Is this man made?
2. If so, should we try to stop it, or delay it, or minimise it OR would our resources and efforts be better utilised in coping with its effects?
In his book, Lomborg costed the implementation of the then-current CGW recommendations at something like 12 trillion dollars over the next X years (10? or 20?) and then made comparisons with the costs of coping with the effects, which was orders of magnitude lower. Factoring the strong possibility that CGW is mistaken, meaning that anything spent on reducing global warming would be more or less wasted, and conclusions readily present themselves.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks