ping
bttt
Fact: This is correct, but climate scientists have a good explanation. There is a substantial feedback effect – initial small rises in temperature lead to substantial release of carbon dioxide from natural reservoirs in the oceans, which then produce much steeper warming later on
Only a child would believe this.
Actually, the show contends that volcanoes result in more CO2 emissions than industrial emissions, not human activity. And they didn't use the words a lot, they claimed it was simply more.
[He said that the global warming film had glossed over flaws in data that it used to make its case, and that it was critical that a documentary about a subject as controversial as race and biology did not make similar mistakes.]
It's always a traumatic moment when a person first realizes that most journalists are full of crap.
Is this true about the last decade? All I ever hear is that each year broke another record for warmest. Can someone point me to the data for this? Thanks.
Apparently the show's claim that cosmic rays play a role in the creation of the cloud layer was also based on older science which has subsequently been shown to be faulty.
I'm still a GW skeptic, but I recognize that this film is not an iron-clad refutation of the science promoting the belief in anthropogenic GW.
My hope is that the overall science is STILL too new, poorly understood and misinterpreted to be definitive.
I noted that those that are criticizing are not climate scientists.
I also noted in the so-called responses to the claims that 'explanations have been found'. Finding 'explanations' to defend against other explanations is not science. That is argument.
Science is about experiment and reproducibility of results. In much of this global warming debate, science is often trampled on by politics.
Science is not easy. It is in fact quite hard. It takes work, focus, patience and funds to get it right, and even then there may be 'explanations=opinions' without conclusive results. Normally when results are inconclusive, the experimental design is changed and a new study is undertaken. It can take decades to get a result. In the meantime, opportunistic politicians such as Gore come along to demagogue the science into law and policy, and that means a claim on taxpayer funds.
I can't stress enough how hard science can be. Years without adequate sleep can be spent trying to meet a deadline, or trying to sift through data to get real results that will be accepted in peer reviewed journals. It's hard work whereas I find politicians to be extremely fat and lazy, mouthing off whatever sounds good for the moment. Hence, the level of vitriol launched by Murkin against non-climate scientists is entirely understandable.
Please change the title as it is incorrect - the global warming programme in question has nothing to do with the BBC and was made for Channel 4 which an independent advertising funded UK terrestrial channel.
It was however, an excellent programme!
read later
Fact: This is correct, but climate scientists have a good explanation. There is a substantial feedback effect – initial small rises in temperature lead to substantial release of carbon dioxide from natural reservoirs in the oceans, which then produce much steeper warming later on.
This implies an unstable system. Positive feedback will result in never-ending increases in temperatures unless some other unknown process stops and reverses it.
Since this has never happened in the past the explanation appears bogus.
"....but again there is a good explanation"
Har! The global warming swindlers have an explanation for everything that doesn't fit their agenda. Those three examples at the end of this article were funnier than any Saturday Night Live skit!
ping
"Fact: This is correct, but climate scientists have a good explanation. There is a substantial feedback effect – initial small rises in temperature lead to substantial release of carbon dioxide from natural reservoirs in the oceans, which then produce much steeper warming later on ."
The change in CO2 is rather insignificant and represents change in ocean solubility vs temp. The change in atmospheric concentration of CO2 can not result in the observed temp changes of 8-10oC. The only cause that can result in such a temp change, is energy input to the Earth system. I don't know what causes that change in E input.
How did they measure C02 emission during/after the Krakatoa eruption in 1883?
This is from NASA Mar 19, 2007.
"NASA Finds Sun-Climate Connection in Old Nile Records"
"Long-term climate records are a key to understanding how Earth's climate changed in the past and how it may change in the future. Direct measurements of light energy emitted by the sun, taken by satellites and other modern scientific techniques, suggest variations in the sun's activity influence Earth's long-term climate. However, there were no measured climate records of this type until the relatively recent scientific past."
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/features.cfm?feature=1319
If there is such a feedback effect then this is required to be proved: the article cannot merely assert it. And on the face of it it is unlikely: here's why. The increase in greenhouse effect from CO2 is much weaker than from (e.g.) water vapour, as CO2 traps only a small band of wavelengths. Double the amount of CO2 and the amount of greenhouse trapping due to CO2 does not double - still less does the amount of total heat trapped by all greenhouse effects. Therefore the climate system is fundamentally stable with respect to CO2. How then can there be a runaway feedback?
Fact: This was once the case, but it has been resolved now that initial measurement errors have been corrected.
It's been "resolved". Uh-huh. The article needs to post some graphs: temperature at height with a time variation. Remember the requirement of AGW is that the warming should happen at height first, then transmit to the ground.
Claim: Temperatures rose for the first part of the century, then cooled for three decades before warming again. There is no link to carbon dioxide
Fact: Temperatures did follow this pattern, but again there is a good explanation. The mid-century effect fall came about chiefly because of sulphate aerosols – particles that have a cooling effect on the atmosphere.
The programme showed an excellent correlation between solar sunspot activity and temperature change. Unless earth's temperatures are driving sunspot activity its difficult to see why this correlation ocurrs.
MY QUESTIONS:
Why did the temperature rise above current levels in the Mediaeval warm period? Was it perhaps the effect of Henry the First's heavy industrialisation of Britain?
Why did Europes "little ice age" coincide with the period of the Maunder Minimum (1645 to 1715 AD). Was it perhaps due to the effect of sulphur aerosols? Or is it directly correlated to solar activity? Note to Freepers: the Maunder Minimum is named for a prolonged period of zero sunspot activity - of reduced heat output by the sun.
A good example of what's wrong with AGW theory. That you can always make a model fit the data better by adding more parameters does not validate the model.
Public policy should not be based on science of unknown reliability and the only true test of reliability for a theory like AGW is that it make predictions which are then verified and compared to the predictions of other theories. To avoid subtle selection effects, these predictions should be about future temperatures, but AGW advocates won't make them - they don't really trust their theory.
So then it would be fair to say that we compounded the problem by being so proactive and successful in ridding the atmosphere of man-made aerosols that we have now come a cropper, eh?
Aren't there eminent scientists proposing even now that we re-release aerosols in controlled amounts rather like we do controlled burns to prevent forest fires?
What will satisfy the young and the restless; to constantly tinker with this huge machine or to simply pull the plug?