« Background Filters | Main | Reformation of Islam? »
February 26, 2008
Siberrrrrrria!
The ice is back. Or so says this article by Lorne Gunter in Canada's National Post. (Canadians should be experts on ice, right?)
Regardless of the status of global warming, it seems that the earth's temperature might be much more influenced by that big yellow thing in the sky than by the piddling incremental increases in carbon dioxide, which upon examination don't correlate as a cause of warming. The correlations are there between earth temperature and sunspot activity, whereas they are not there when it comes to co2. At least according to the detailed scientific data as seen in the Great Global Warming Swindle. If there's a reason that the science in this film should be dismissed, I'd like to hear about it.
One thing I didn't know: Carbon dioxide makes up only 0.038% of the Earth's atmosphere--that's just under 4 one-hundredths of one percent--or 4 parts per 10,000 (!)--while water vapor averages around 100 parts per 10,000 (One percent) (I use "parts" not literally). It would seem that variations in water vapor (clouds) at 25 times the volume as co2 would have more impact on Earth warming. (Big difference sitting on the beach on a cloudy day versus a sunny day, even if the air temperature is the same, which is not likely.) Solar activity has been directly tied to cloud formation; more clouds, less sunlight. It you look at a satellite picture of the Earth, you notice the clouds.
Posted by James M. Kushiner at 02:46 PM | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/234392/26552004
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Siberrrrrrria!:
Comments
Yes, Odd that scientists at the IPPC haven't noticed the clouds and the sun before.
What were those idiots thinking?
If you really haven't bothered to critically review the Great Global Warming Swindle then any suggestions in the comments box won't help.
But interested people could start at Wikepedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle
Sample comment from a scientist who checked the alleged sources for the program:
"To put this bluntly: the data that you showed in your programme were wrong -- and may have been deliberately faked... it does show what abundant experience has already taught me -- that, left to their own devices, TV producers simply cannot be trusted to tell the truth."
The propgram relies on the "usual suspects" of discredited scientitsts (Ball, Lindzen, et al.) except it does include some new faces.
Eigil Friis-Christensen, for example.
After reviewing the finished program he concluded:
"We have concerns regarding the use of a graph featured in the documentary titled ‘Temp & Solar Activity 400 Years’. Firstly, we have reason to believe that parts of the graph were made up of fabricated data that were presented as genuine. The inclusion of the artificial data is both misleading and pointless. Secondly, although the narrator commentary during the presentation of the graph is consistent with the conclusions of the paper from which the figure originates, it incorrectly rules out a contribution by anthropogenic greenhouse gases to 20th century global warming."
and Carl Wunsch.
He was prominently featured in the BBC intial broadcast. He may not have appeared in the version you saw. Why? He's been removed. Here is his opinion of the movie:
"I'm somewhat troubled that TV companies around the world are treating it as though this were a science documentary. It's not. It's a tendentious political propaganda piece of the sort I really could imagine the Bush Administration in this country could have put out on its own to throw raw meat to their believers. It's not a science film at all. It's a political statement."
So, other than being propaganda, distortion, misleading,and a misrepresnetation of science, I think it's fine and almost as reliable for primary information on climate change as "An Inconvenient Truth."
Here's another takedown, with side by side screenshots of the the Great Global Warming Scandal compared to accurate data:
http://www.durangobill.com/Swindle_Swindle.html
(read the entire link.)
Posted by: JRM | Feb 26, 2008 3:55:46 PM
The linked article by Lorne Gunter claims: "According to the NCDC, the average temperature in January was -0.3 F cooler than the 1901-2000 (20th century) average."
Note that this is only true for the contiguous US. A quick check of the NCDC website (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2008/jan/jan08.html) in fact reveals:
"Global Highlights
The combined global land and ocean surface temperature for January was the 31st warmest on record, 0.32°F/0.18°C above the 20th century mean. Temperatures were colder than average across large parts of central and southern Asia. The January global land surface average was below the 20th century mean (-0.02°F/-0.01°C) for the first time since 1982."
Posted by: Francesca | Feb 26, 2008 4:01:11 PM
I'm looking for some readily available data to give us a clue about Jim's challenge ("If there's a reason that the science in this film should be dismissed, I'd like to hear about it.")
For the meanwhile, selections from the TV career of Martin Durkin, the producer: (source: Wikipedia.)
* "Against Nature" (1997): anti-environmentalist, pro-personal-freedom.
* "Storm in a D-Cup" (1998): pro-breast-implant.
* "The Rise and Fall of GM" (2000): pro-genetic-modification.
* "The Naked Pilgrim" (2003): series, wherein art critic Brian Sewell strips naked, burns the clothes and runs into the sea.
* "Secret Intersex" (2004): series, about intersexuality.
* "The Great Global Warming Swindle" (2007): see post.
So while I'm pondering whether to dismiss the science, I dismiss the messenger summarily.
Posted by: Clifford Simon | Feb 26, 2008 4:36:52 PM
Putting out CO2 is not consequence-free (I have seen and agree with the science behind this, though I can't find any really good resource on the www at the moment). At the same time, "consequence" is not equal to self-destruction, or to violating others' rights - if that's what the concern is.
Mrs. Gunter concludes:
"It's way too early to claim the same is about to happen again, but then it's way too early for the hysteria of the global warmers, too."
I'm completely on board with that.
Posted by: Clifford Simon | Feb 26, 2008 5:02:27 PM
I'm not an expert in global warming, but isn't it also supposed to involve colder winters in places? Having a colder winter does not mean (a) the summer's increased temperature doesn't offset it or (b) the worldwide average temperature isn't going up.
Posted by: Bruce Geerdes | Feb 26, 2008 5:15:13 PM
Global Warming doesn't mean anything because it can't establish a clear prediction of anything. A theory that can be validated by any series of events is a theory that can't be proved or disproved and is thus not in the realm of being scientific.
Bottom line: Global warming theorists trumpeted the decrease of the polar ice as a consequence of the earth warming. The ice isn't decreasing. Ergo, the earth either isn't warming or these clowns don't know what the hell they're talking about.
There are no other logical options.
Posted by: Christopher Hathaway | Feb 26, 2008 7:05:13 PM
Suprised we haven't had any other Climate Auditors show up yet on Mere Comments. Much of the stats go way over my head, but for a display of how scientists and engineers can actually work together to sift through the mess that is climate science go to ClimateAudit
Posted by: laura | Feb 26, 2008 8:34:24 PM
Mr. Kushiner, I think you lost a little something in your original post:
"the piddling incremental increases in carbon dioxide, which ."
?
Posted by: Ethan C. | Feb 27, 2008 4:56:27 PM
Climate simulation can and does predict long-term averages. Long-term = centuries. That's "something." Of course, many possible ice advance/retreat scenarios can have the same long-term average, so in that sense, the one prediction is scientifically compatible with many different series of events.
- - - - -
On Mr. Drukin: I've finally put my mind to peace, that Mr. Durkin's resume alone is good enough to answer Jim's challenge ("If there's a reason that the science in this film should be dismissed"). For yes, it can nonetheless be the case, that a faithless messenger deliver a true message. This was my hesitation. But in such cases, I think finally that the burden of proof is against such messengers and their messages - false until proven otherwise.
Posted by: Clifford Simon | Feb 27, 2008 5:35:55 PM
Really the logical options are three:
(1) The earth isn't warming.
(2) It is warming, but the scientists don't know how and what to predict.
(3) It is warming, and the scientists do know how and what to predict, but they are clowns when it comes to reporting their findings to the public through the media.
Posted by: Clifford Simon | Feb 27, 2008 5:39:47 PM
Considering how many times the Global Warming scam has been disproven, the problems with the models shown, the majority on the UN report being sociologists, and the few real scientists listed against their will or educated opinion, I suppose we can see in the same people promoting that pseudo-scientific, misanthropic belief are True Believers.
Posted by: labrialumn | Feb 28, 2008 12:29:29 AM
"One thing I didn't know: Carbon dioxide makes up only 0.038% of the Earth's atmosphere--that's just under 4 one-hundredths of one percent--or 4 parts per 10,000 (!)--while water vapor averages around 100 parts per 10,000 (One percent) (I use "parts" not literally)."
Admire you for taking this tar baby on. There are at least a dozen different things that go into climate model. It's certainly a complicated issue for Christians.
Posted by: Don Bosch | Feb 28, 2008 8:52:54 AM
not trying to be a pest, but here's a bit more:
99% of the atmosphere is nitrogen and oxygen. Not quite 1% is argon. The rest is made up of a variety of trace gases and dusts as noted in the table, including CO2 (0.03%). About 97% of this CO2 is from natural sources, so the amount of human-generated CO2, then, is roughly equivalent to a cup or two of water dumped into a 22,000 gallon swimming pool. The majority of greenhouse effect is due to water vapor. One question then is whether or not this additional man-made CO2 will be absorbed in the earth’s carbon sinks, or whether it is accumulating enough to cause an increase in the greenhouse effect and thus an increase in the earth’s surface temperature. Whether this is happening or not, and if so how much, depends on who’s doing the modeling.
Posted by: Don Bosch | Feb 28, 2008 8:57:13 AM
The way those who believe in man-made global warming counter the argument that CO2 constitutes such a small proportion of greenhouse gas, is to point out that near the poles, since they are much colder, water vapor is much less proportionally. As a consequence, so the argument goes, CO2 is much more important at the poles and has a greater effect on the ice pack.
Posted by: Bobby Winters | Feb 28, 2008 9:08:57 AM
Don, thanks for the great info!
Posted by: Clifford Simon | Feb 28, 2008 6:49:43 PM
The one problem that still hasn't been addressed adequately by the climate change modelers is the medieval warm period and the little ice age. If it was warm enough for productive viniculture in England and Greenland was green and we all survived the Big Bad Warm: why the hoo-rah now?
I am on board with the conservationist who wish us to all be more responsible stewards (which will include many lifestyle changes that environmentalists and anthropogenic global warming activists advocate for) but I'm not convinced that bankrupting not merely the U.S., but the 2nd world economies, gives us enough, er, ecological value for the massive human suffering buck.
Posted by: Carbonel | Feb 28, 2008 8:12:16 PM
Carbonel, what flaws do you find in the commentary on the medieval warm period by the National Climatic Data Center?
Posted by: Matthias | Feb 28, 2008 10:53:41 PM
Would that I could post URLs to data.
Real scientists are debating which type of solar minimum we have moved into. Will it be a few years of cold and wet, or will it be a few centuries?
One put it this way: "In 2005, the Sun shut down."
Posted by: labrialumn | Feb 28, 2008 11:13:27 PM
The commentary that debunks the medieval warm period ends with this:
In summary, it appears that the 20th century, and in particular the late 20th century, is likely the warmest the Earth has seen in at least 1200 years.
No further explanation is given. The statement implies that it was warmer 1200 or so years ago.
Posted by: Judy K. Warner | Feb 29, 2008 6:20:27 AM
Carbonel, what flaws do you find in the commentary on the medieval warm period by the National Climatic Data Center?
Only this: The data supporting the medieval warm period is essentially records of crops, like wine grapes, which cannot now be grown successfully in certain Northern countries like Great Britain. The fact that modern climatalogical data doesn't exist to support these references is true, but doesn't address the problem of these records.
Posted by: Carbonel | Feb 29, 2008 5:11:01 PM
All the British vineyard owners are going to be disappointed to learn that.
But even supposing it true that some varieties of wine could once be grown in Britain that now can't, what would that prove? The ability to grow grapes in a region depends on many factors besides temperature, such as precipitation and soil conditions. But finally, supposing it true that Britain was warmer in the medieval period (which I actually think paleoclimatologists do agree is the cast) is Britain the whole world?
Posted by: Matthias | Feb 29, 2008 6:35:26 PM
Michael Crichton in his novel State of Fear cites documents from Alarmists that they had as a priority to try to get rid of the record of the Medieval Climactic Optimum. That isn't science, that is deception.
It is interesting that if the Alarmists -weren't-lying (and they are) Kyoto would do NOTHING to fix the problem.
This past year has wiped out all of the warming over the course of the 20th century as Earth came more out of the Little Ice Age. Now we are back into either a Dalton Minimum or a Maunder Minimum. The difference is in how cold it will get, for how long, and how many will starve as the northern wheat fields will no longer have enough summer to produce a crop.
Posted by: labrialumn | Mar 1, 2008 8:05:54 PM
Matthias, Norse steadings are still coming out of the ice in Greenland (though that will cease as the Greenland ice sheet is increasing again) It was warmer there, too. West Colony was able to graze dairy cattle before the LIA. I'm not sure the fjords of more southerly the East Colony can do so now. . .
There are the stumps of arboreal forests in Canada considerably farther north than trees can now grow.
The Medieval Climactic Optimum was quite real - but a very inconvenient truth for the global Statist types.
Posted by: labrialumn | Mar 1, 2008 8:10:07 PM
I'm just an operational weather forecaster and not nearly as smart as most of those who post here, so I am, (ahem) a bit out of my element. Here is my take on global warming. When th computer models can predict next weeks weather, I'll begin to take seriously computer models that supposedly predict the weather years down the road. Meanwhile, as far as temperature is concerned, I'll watch the sunspot activity and warm or cold I'll adapt, and so will the earth which has done so for quite some time. The world has more important things to worry about.
Posted by: David Loyd | Mar 2, 2008 5:18:03 PM
>>>Now we are back into either a Dalton Minimum or a Maunder Minimum.<<<
I thought the Dalton Minimum was my buddy Mike Dalton in his speedo.
Posted by: Bobby Winters | Mar 2, 2008 8:05:52 PM
The guy who deals best with the subject of which threats to human well-being are worth spending money on (based on cost-benefit analysis) is Bjorn Lomborg. (Hint: Global Warming is well down the list - real expensive, not much bang for the buck.)
He's got three books out, all well worth reading....the one most germane to what it's worth it to do is the second, from 2004: Global Crises, Global Solutions
Posted by: Earl | Mar 8, 2008 5:56:35 PM
The guy who deals best with the subject of which threats to human well-being are worth spending money on (based on cost-benefit analysis) is Bjorn Lomborg. (Hint: Global Warming is well down the list - real expensive, not much bang for the buck.)
He's got three books out, all well worth reading....the one most germane to what it's worth it to do is the second, from 2004: Global Crises, Global Solutions
Posted by: Earl | Mar 8, 2008 5:57:26 PM
The guy who deals best with the subject of which threats to human well-being are worth spending money on (based on cost-benefit analysis) is Bjorn Lomborg. (Hint: Global Warming is well down the list - real expensive, not much bang for the buck.)
He's got three books out, all well worth reading....the one most germane to what it's worth it to do is the second, from 2004: Global Crises, Global Solutions
Posted by: Earl | Mar 8, 2008 6:08:01 PM
Recent Comments
Bloggers
Popular Threads
Archives
OLD ARCHIVES 2002-2004
From May 2002–December 2004, Mere Comments was published via Blogger.com. Every post is still available at the link above.
Member since 12/2004