PURE PROPAGANDA - THE GREAT GLOBAL WARMING SWINDLE (Did GGWS present inaccurate information?)

Media Lens ^ | 03/13/2007

[mc5cents]

The point is that there is a vast body of evidence that very strongly supports the hypothesis that greenhouse gas emissions, of which CO2 is the most important, are primarily responsible for recent global warming.

???? What about all that water vapor? What about all those other so-called greenhouse gases of which C02 is one of the least percentage wise? How do they come to that conclusion.

[Dave Olson]

A month or so ago an interviewer on TV asked someone, who was a proponent of the anthropogenic global warming theory, where all the snow in the northeast came from. She said something about the warming causing more moisture to be dumped into the atmosphere.

I wished that the interviewer had told her that you need cold to turn that moisture into snow. But alas, there was no such followup.

[cogitator]

In other words, “CO2 adds to some mysterious warming trend.”

Much too gross an oversimplification. When a glacial-interglacial or interglacial-glacial transition is initiated, many factors are in place such that, when a trend is initiated, they have self-reinforcing feedbacks (positive or negative, depending on your viewpoint).

Leaving CO2 totally out of the discussion for a moment, the other main factor is the extent of continental glaciation. When the continental ice sheets start to retreat, Earth's albedo (reflectivity) decreases, allowing more solar radiation to "enter the system" and not get immediately reflected right back into space. And the exposure of land surface is one of the main ways it enters the system, because the land absorbs solar radiation and re-radiates it as longwave infrared. And we know what happens to that, right? Plus, warmer land surfaces adjacent to glaciers are likely to be wet, releasing water vapor into the atmosphere, increasing relative humidity.

So that's an example of a non-mysterious process that would augment an initiated warming trend. And I'm working in my profile to explain the CO2 feedback in detail.

[cogitator]

What, I wonder, does he propose as the culminating event to this feed forward scenario?

Resolution phase. Y'know, I never looked at an ice core record that way before.

[cogitator]

like why for tens of thousands of years does CO2 increases always lag temperature rises, by significant amounts of time?

I'm working on that in my profile, point #5. Not finished yet.

[cogitator]

how can they prove this when the weather balloons and satellites have indicated that there is no greenhouse gas warming in the atmosphere?

This point is outdated circa 1999. All weather ballon (radiosonde) and satellite (MSU) data records show tropospheric warming now.

[cogitator]

Which satellites?

ACRIM I, ACRIM II, SOLSTICE on UARS, SORCE.

[cogitator]

So If the relative masses of CO2 are irrelevant, assuming we can also talk about the additional gasses caused by humans, then what is all the fuss about?

He means the mass of CO2 relative to major constituents like O2 and N2. In the whole atmosphere, there's also very little ozone, but despite the number of molecules in the stratosphere, and in particular the low number of ozone molecules, the UV radiation absorbing properties of ozone are very important up there.

[sionnsar]

Eight of the scientists in the film - John Christy, Paul Reiter, Richard Lindzen, Paul Driessen, Roy Spencer, Patrick Michaels, Fred Singer and Tim Ball - are linked to American neo-conservative and right-wing think-tanks, many of which have received tens of millions of dollars from Exxon.

Ooh. I guess I am persuaded!

[BIGLOOK]

Bumping.......again.

[Reaganesque]

And what of the satellites that have measured an increase in solar activity? What of the evidence that Mars and other planets in the solar system are also heating up? This is also evidence. And yet it is dismissed out of hand. That is unscientific in the extreme. All evidence must be considered, not just the evidence that supports your political beliefs.

[cogitator]

And what of the satellites that have measured an increase in solar activity? What of the evidence that Mars and other planets in the solar system are also heating up?

For the latter question, see point #2 in my profile. For the former, which satellites and how much?

[capitalist229]

The great thing about a misguided govt crusade is that the unintended effects present obvious, low risk profit opportunities.

They existed during the 1970s crusades (Nixon price caps, gasahol) and continue to this day. I know one guy who set up a tax subsidixed plant on a shoestring and made millions extracting the last 2% of moisture out of gasahol for two years of the tax subsidy.

Ethanol, global warming etc are just the latest examples.

BUMP

[Reaganesque]

I took the time to read your info on warming on other planets. Interesting. All the warming on other planets must be regional and yet the warming here must be global and man made. And all of this based on assumptions and nothing more. No data, just assumptions. You indicate that the sources saying that other planets are warming neither imply or claim linkage to solar variability. But is it not logical and scientific to ask the question if other parts of the solar system are showing evidence of warming, might there be a common cause for this? And what do all of the planets have in common other than the sun? So, no, the articles do not explicitly claim linkage but the reasonable reader and or scientist can. To ignore this(and other evidence) and then demand, as many AGW supporters have, that the opposition be silenced for the "good of humanity" smacks of what the scientific orthodoxy did to Galileo. True science weighs all the facts and does not, under any circumstances, demand the silence of critics.

[Blind Eye Jones]

"This point is outdated circa 1999. All weather ballon (radiosonde) and satellite (MSU) data records show tropospheric warming now."

Are they showing it because they have to make adjustments due to some error in satellite or balloon distancing? I'm very skeptical about any of those "corrective" measures. Also, explain to me why these scientists would be in agreement about this dated data? Laziness to read the latest reports?

[Steve Van Doorn]

”When a glacial-interglacial or interglacial-glacial transition is initiated,”

By what Cogitator? A mysterious warming trend is all YOU said. Read what you just said!

Put it in the terms lafroste used. What beat the meat to start the ejaculation? What does it matter if you have some sex toy to enhance your orgasm?

[SuziQ]

Eight of the scientists in the film - John Christy, Paul Reiter, Richard Lindzen, Paul Driessen, Roy Spencer, Patrick Michaels, Fred Singer and Tim Ball - are linked to American neo-conservative and right-wing think-tanks, many of which have received tens of millions of dollars from Exxon.

They always try to dismiss the findings of groups based on their 'associations' with right wing think tanks or oil companies, but you NEVER see the media doing any sort of research in the opposite direction. I would like to see some information about how many of the leading proponents of the idea that humans are causing global warming are funded by LEFT wing think tanks, or by groups having ties to LEFT wing organizations or by entities which will directly benefit monetarily from the flogging of the idea that because humans are causing global warming, governements around the world have to DO something about it, using taxpayer money or forcing companies around the world to purchase 'carbon credits' just to be able to operate.

[SuziQ]

What we can say is that Durkin’s "four decades of cooling", implying a relentless temperature drop over 40 years, is not an accurate description of the trend over this period. There was some cooling for +part+ of this time but also some plateauing, with fluctuations up and down.

So, in other words, because it's possible that a viewer might 'infer' that there was relentless cooling, Durkin is wrong? I don't think so. What Durkin showed was that there was not relentless WARMING during that period, caused by increased CO2 emissions, which is what the GW folks have been pushing.

Since the scientists who made GGWS will not monetarily benefit from governments NOT forcing changes using taxpayer money, nor will they benefit from companies NOT having to pay to purchase 'carbon credits', I'm inclined to give more creedance to their data.

[Reaganesque]

TOMS-EP
"We're in the maximum phase of the solar cycle now," says Dr. David Hathaway, a solar physicist at the NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, "and it will probably persist for another year or more. This one is somewhat smaller than the last two maxima in 1989 and 1979, but it's definitely bigger than average."

SOHO
Something similar happens to Earth's atmosphere every 11 years when the sunspot cycle nears maximum. As solar activity increases, extreme ultraviolet radiation (EUV) heats our planet's gaseous envelope, causing it to swell and reach farther into space than normal. While puffed-up marshmallows can lead to tooth decay, our puffed-up atmosphere vexes satellite operators with a different kind of problem -- orbit decay.

SORCE
Many researchers believe the steady rise in sunspots and faculae since the late seventeenth century may be responsible for as much as half of the 0.6 degrees of global warming over the last 110 years (IPCC, 2001).

Another trend scientists have picked up on appears to span several centuries. Late 17th century astronomers observed that no sunspots existed on the Sun’s surface during the time period from 1650 to 1715 AD. This lack of solar activity, which some scientists attribute to a low point in a multiple-century-long cycle, may have been partly responsible for the Little Ice Age in Europe. During this period, winters in Europe were much longer and colder than they are today. Modern scientists believe that since this minimum in solar energy output, there has been a slow increase in the overall sunspots and solar energy throughout each subsequent 11-year cycle.

Does this constitute evidence in your book?

[SuziQ]

"The Day after Tomorrow"--an absurd science fiction fantasy about climate change with a Dick Cheney villain.

Yeah, their casting to have that character look like Cheney was about as subtle as a baseball bat. But, of course, he was humiliated in the end, so it was a win for the GW crowd.