The Great Global Warming Swindle

[Turtle]

...

Even if they did underestimate it, even the proponents of solar forcing being largely responsible, see the correlation loosening up post 1980.

 

Even if the research and reports that indicate the solar radiative forcing has very little responsibility for the current warming trend. Don't you think we should do what we can? The papers I have seen all indicate that some of the forcing is our own spewing of CO2 into the air.

 

First, I never saw the video that started this particular discussion, but I don't doubt the errors people have said it contains. That is, except for the Sun's roll. While the article I linked to earlier is now restricted, I did refer to it elsewhere and quoted some important points.

 

Start at about post#55 here. >> http://hypography.com/forums/environmental-studies/10648-global-warming-i-am-more-worried-6.html

 

Note that it is the Sun's modulation of cosmic radiation that is doing the forcing in this report, not the Sun's output direct to Earth. Note also, Zythryn took pause for that in the referenced thread; yes, no? :eek: :lol: :hihi:

[Cedars]

Why even include the "ignore" part then if you knew that wasn't the case?

And, what evidence do you have that they underestimated it?

Even if they did underestimate it, even the proponents of solar forcing being largely responsible, see the correlation loosening up post 1980.

 

 

I am gonna take a guess here. You didnt read the links I posted, did you?

[Zythryn]

I am gonna take a guess here. You didnt read the links I posted, did you?

 

You guessed wrong, just as you are guessing wrong when you say GW isn't partially caused by mankind's increasingly pumping more CO2 into the air.

Your links propose theories regarding BOTH direct irradiation and increase gamma radiation.

 

As Turtle mentioned, I did find the gamma radiation idea interesting and it is worth further study. However, it by no means has the strength of experimentation or data analysis to surplant the increasing CO2 levels as a major contributing factor.

 

The more recent research seems to indicate that the direct radiative forcing of the sun is of such a small variance, that it can't possibly explaing the temperature trends we are seeing now. The idea of increased cloud creation from a stonger gamma ray presence is interesting. However, the theory has not been put to the test. It is little more than a hypothesis at this point. I do look forward to further tests which will strengthen or discount the hypothesis.

One simple one I can think of is to compare daytime and nighttime temperature trends over a large, or many areas. In time with more cloud cover, nightime temps should not reach as low as they do with fewer clouds, yet daytime temps should be less likely to increase as much.

This should give a good signature of what to watch for.

 

Now, I may have missed it, and if so I appologize, but why did you exagerate with the 'ignore' comment. Was there an indication in one of the links indicating that the IPCC panel ignored the sun as a potential contributor in the latest report?

[Zythryn]

Note that it is the Sun's modulation of cosmic radiation that is doing the forcing in this report, not the Sun's output direct to Earth. Note also, Zythryn took pause for that in the referenced thread; yes, no? ;) :cup: :phones:

 

I did indeed. It is an interesting hypothesis. It definately warrants more research to see if the correlation holds and if it is an underlying cause.

Unfortunately it has very little backing it up so I hope that many people investigate the possibility and come up with something more definative.

 

Many of the recent claims here and links did indicate a direct radiative forcing of the sun. While Cedar had links to both direct and indirect so I tried to address both in one answer (which was my error, I should have been more patient).

[Turtle]

...As Turtle mentioned, I did find the gamma radiation idea interesting and it is worth further study. However, it by no means has the strength of experimentation or data analysis to surplant the increasing CO2 levels as a major contributing factor....

 

One question in all this that keeps coming to my mind, is what each of you (us) is doing to reduce your carbon footprint? I am all for, and personally active in, reducing pollution and waste wherever I may.

 

If we presume that people added significantly to CO2, then look how long it took us. Shall we say 200 years of industrialization? (not that ancient civilizations weren' burning a lot, but that's another bit). Is there realistically any method to sequester that carbon in the same time, let alone less?

 

If you think it's a big problem, change your habits and don't count on government to solve the problem. Bottom up is the most likely solution that I see from here in the stack. :phones:

[InfiniteNow]

First, I never saw the video that started this particular discussion,

You can correct that pretty easily if interested. I noticed your concern that it had been removed from YouTube so made the following post:

 

below it is still available split into 8 sections:

 

YouTube - The Great Global Warming Swindle 1 of 8

YouTube - The Great Global Warming Swindle 2 of 8

YouTube - The Great Global Warming Swindle 3 of 8

YouTube - The Great Global Warming Swindle 4 of 8

YouTube - The Great Global Warming Swindle 5 of 8

YouTube - The Great Global Warming Swindle 6 of 8

YouTube - The Great Global Warming Swindle 7 of 8

YouTube - The Great Global Warming Swindle 8 of 8

 

 

 

For those who may have missed it way back on page 1 of this thread, this week some new data came out:

...information being published this week in the Procedings of the Royal Society?

 

 

The Royal Society - Article

There are many interesting palaeoclimate studies that suggest that solar variability had an influence on pre-industrial climate. There are also some detection-attribution studies using global climate models that suggest there was a detectable influence of solar variability in the first half of the twentieth century and that the solar radiative forcing variations were amplified by some mechanism that is, as yet, unknown. However, these findings are not relevant to any debates about modern climate change. Our results show that the observed rapid rise in global mean temperatures seen after 1985 cannot be ascribed to solar variability, whichever of the mechanisms is invoked and no matter how much the solar variation is amplified.

 

 

I'd now like to see more data on this modulation issue, but agree that the climate science community is rather solid on the concept of human CO2 input being a major factor in climate change. Is it the only factor? No. However, it is a major one.

[Zythryn]

One question in all this that keeps coming to my mind, is what each of you (us) is doing to reduce your carbon footprint? I am all for, and personally active in, reducing pollution and waste wherever I may.

...

If you think it's a big problem, change your habits and don't count on government to solve the problem. Bottom up is the most likely solution that I see from here in the stack. :phones:

 

Excellent question, however I think that is off topic. There have been a number of threads where this very question has been asked before. One is at http://hypography.com/forums/environmental-studies/10165-solutions-global-warming-include.html.

The problem with the bottom up solution, is that the guys at the top are actively working to muddy the waters and convince people it isn't a problem. If it were not for this, I would agree with you.

Even though that is the case, this really did start as a grass-roots issue and is growing despite all the misinformation and illogical attacks. While the awareness is growing, it would grow a lot quicker with some leadership from our government.

[Cedars]

You guessed wrong, just as you are guessing wrong when you say GW isn't partially caused by mankind's increasingly pumping more CO2 into the air.

Your links propose theories regarding BOTH direct irradiation and increase gamma radiation.

 

First, No where did I say it isnt partially caused. What I said was I am skeptical of mans impact.

 

Second, Are you suggesting both cannot affect temperature?

 

As Turtle mentioned, I did find the gamma radiation idea interesting and it is worth further study. However, it by no means has the strength of experimentation or data analysis to surplant the increasing CO2 levels as a major contributing factor.

 

The more recent research seems to indicate that the direct radiative forcing of the sun is of such a small variance, that it can't possibly explaing the temperature trends we are seeing now. The idea of increased cloud creation from a stonger gamma ray presence is interesting. However, the theory has not been put to the test. It is little more than a hypothesis at this point. I do look forward to further tests which will strengthen or discount the hypothesis.

 

Some studies say small variance, others say 10 - 30 - 50% of the increase in temps is solar related. So whos right? Dunno. So I remain Skeptical.

Now, I may have missed it, and if so I appologize, but why did you exagerate with the 'ignore' comment. Was there an indication in one of the links indicating that the IPCC panel ignored the sun as a potential contributor in the latest report?

 

Actually I didnt exagerate. If you look back I said If.... Please read the statement again. While you may not agree with my position, I am sure you dont intend to misrepresent pov's.

 

The image is from the 2007 IPCC report summary. I think it shows they grossly under-represented the solar forcing issue, inspite of being shown many studies indicating it is a strong factor. They did not even factor it at the low estimates of 10%. Did they do such misleading things with intent? Did they intentionally IGNORE these things to promote their position? I dunno so I am skeptical of their assessment.

 

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/solar_change_climate.pdf

 

Additionally by accounting for warming via solar influence it weakens the case of C02 effects. If C02 isnt the cause we are being lead to believe reducing its prevalence 25% isnt going to change a thing (adding in the fact that China and India are going to produce much more than that).

 

As I looked about for other things, I came across this piece:

 

http://icecap.us/docs/change/Land%20Use%20and%20Climate%20Change.pdf

 

According to some websites I have read, the IPCC chose to exclude at least some of the above factors (land use changes) in compiling the data they released in 2007. The above link has 25 - 50% of the warming from land use factors. That is not what the IPCC graph shows.

 

Again, if its land use factors contributing to warming, rather than C02, then you have a lessened impact of C02, and I would think it would be much easier and cost effective to address land use.

 

Other items scattered about critical of the IPCC include:

 

The report’s final summaries had several failings. First, it blindly accepts a 20th-century carbon dioxide rise of 36 percent, when direct measurements suggest the change is closer to 15 percent. Their models assume an annual increase of 1 percent, although over the last 50 years the long-term annual average consistently has been less than half that, 0.43 percent.

 

The IPCC acknowledges no problems with the global data bases, stating urbanization has a negligible effect on global changes, and ignoring dozens of peer review papers that show urban contamination is significant (in diverse areas including China, central Europe, and even Barrow, Alaska). During the 20th century, the population of the world increased four-fold, from 1.5 billion to 6 billion. More and more areas are urbanized. Airports, once rural, find cities growing around them.

 

The report ignores the fact that total global stations decreased by 66 percent after 1990, and there was a ten-fold increase in months with no reported data from the remaining stations, mainly in the former Soviet Union and Africa. They also ignore the issue that the majority of world stations may not meet World Meteorological Organization standards for siting instruments, a problem that has also been widely documented in peer review journals. They ignore the half-dozen peer review papers suggesting that these problems could well account for 50 percent or more of the warming shown for the world data bases.

[Zythryn]

First, No where did I say it isnt partially caused. What I said was I am skeptical of mans impact.

 

My apologies, from your statements it sounded as if your position was that mankind held no responsibility. I see I was wrong and appreciate the correction.

 

Second, Are you suggesting both cannot affect temperature?

 

Certainly not. All I am saying is that I feel the conclusions of the IPCC as well as dozens of scientific organizations all over the world is to be taken seriously. And that due to our contribution to the natural green house affect, we are changing our climate in ways that will cause hardship for our species.

 

Actually I didnt exagerate. If you look back I said If.... Please read the statement again. While you may not agree with my position, I am sure you dont intend to misrepresent pov's.

 

You are correct, I don't want to misrepresent or misunderstand anyone's point of view.

You posted this:

If the existing climate models ignore the solar forcing, or under estimate its effect (and as I understand the IPCC report, they did not accept solar forcing as substancial when running their 'models'), then their results are flawed.

 

Since you argue that their results are flawed, I inferred from this paragraph that you felt the IPCC ignored or under estimated the effect of solar forcing. I don't think that is an unreasonable infrerence. If you don't believe the IPCC ignored solar forcing, why include it in the statement giving a situation in which you would find their findings flawed?

 

The image is from the 2007 IPCC report summary. I think it shows they grossly under-represented the solar forcing issue, inspite of being shown many studies indicating it is a strong factor. They did not even factor it at the low estimates of 10%. Did they do such misleading things with intent? Did they intentionally IGNORE these things to promote their position? I dunno so I am skeptical of their assessment.

 

Why would you again use IGNORE when you just stated and the graph shows that they didn't ignore it? They give a number for solar forcing which you don't agree with. However, since you have access to the graph, did you follow the references to the studies from which they got the number you didn't like?

 

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/solar_change_climate.pdf

 

According to some websites I have read, the IPCC chose to exclude at least some of the above factors (land use changes) in compiling the data they released in 2007. The above link has 25 - 50% of the warming from land use factors. That is not what the IPCC graph shows.

 

Interesting, I would hope that the IPCC would review all data and only exclude that data which is inconsequential. Do you have any one of the websites that discusses the exclusions? According to the graph you posted there is a fairly sizable portion attributed to land use.

[aquamarinegreen]

If you watch An Inconvenient Truth then you should also watch The Great Global Warming Swindle. Side by side they give you a more balanced view of what's going on. Then look at the evidence yourself - go and look at the data from the ice cores and the discussions about who leads the complex dance between CO2 levels and global temperature.

[Leeuwenhoek]

if it´s true or not true the goverment has won a lot of money with it! For your flight ticket you pay now 20 euros more!

Maybe they are planing on world tax. Soh, is the world warming or the goverment wining money?

[Leeuwenhoek]

it is possible they want us to belive in climate change?

[InfiniteNow]

it is possible they want us to belive in climate change?

 

Well, since it's a fact that it's happening, I really do hope so. Anything else is a lie or a distraction. :)

[Essay]

it is possible they want us to belive in climate change?

 

Welcome Lee~

 

Just a quick note to say that sure "they" have all kinds of financial, religious, or political motives to either deny or hype global warming, climate change, anthropogenic forcings, etc.

 

Regardless of their motives, reasoning or desires; the physical laws still prevail.

 

~more later,

:)

[InfiniteNow]

Ah... The indescribable beauty of a lie exposed. I'm not sure there is anything sweeter.

 

 

YouTube - The Big Swindle Movie http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boj9ccV9htk

[Zythryn]

Infi, awesome find, thank you so much for posting that!!