“The Great Global Warming Swindle” 2007

This was a video produced by Channel 4 in 2007, supposedly debunking Global Warming/Climate Change. Discussion ensued on The North East Forum at the time. This was in 2007 and the warming has got worse since then. It’s an interesting discussion and fairly typical of arguments at the time. Here’s a transcript.

Barcode :

I notice the people who were involved in the film are respected scientists who are not afraid to delve into historic fact to prove their theories! Something that the ‘we are to blame for global warming’ mob seem to avoid at all costs. Just visit a site which has discussions on the subject and notice how often the mention of the last ice age seems to kill the thread without fail.

Durham Weather :

I haven’t watched it all the way through yet, but noticed that at least one of the scientists featured is Piers Corbyn. He’s portrayed in the film as one who bets on his weather forecasts based on solar data and gets it right all of the time. That’s not true, his forecasts are at times woeful and often wrong, no better than chance. He has also flatly refused to have any of his methods tested by his peers, so is regarded as a bit of an eccentric and chancer. I’ve actually met Piers, he’s a nice man, but isn’t regarded very highly in Meteorological circles.

Also, it seems that other bits of evidence are being ignored in the film to illustrate the point they’re trying to make. Lots of fancy 3D graphs, but not a lot of science. Graphs axes have been vastly expanded to make correlations look ‘nailed on’, when in fact only tenuous correlations exist in reality.

One thing i’ve learned about climate change is that everyone seems to have an opinion about it, even though they probably have no great understanding of climatic processes, oceanography or the chemistry involved. They form their opinion based on the media’s distorted reporting of it (both sides). My own view? Climate Change is occurring and man is contributig to it. It’s not a vast contribution in the scale of things, but it seems to be making the difference in the speed of change, on top of natural warming, which nature is struggling to cope with. It makes sense to conserve our finite resources, and pouring oil on the fire doesn’t seem a sensible thing to do into the future. It makes sense to try to operate in a way that might help mitigate the change rather than adding to it’s magnitude.

You don’t need to be an eminent scientist with a research grant, I can see the warming in the data from Durham University. It’s quite plain to see. To deny it exists is just stupid. It’s not all due to humans, that isn’t the claim at all, but it is however something we should be worried about and try to prepare ourselves for and reduce if possible. Politicians of course see it as another way to tax us further into oblivion, a fact that we should despise them for. They should offer incentives, not punitive taxes to make life more of a misery than it already is for some people.

Phil :

I watched the entire thing; my interest is chiefly in the communications angle. Some well-tried-and-true devices at work here, some done well and others quite clumsy. Some made me laugh out loud, for instance the background music (strings for the ‘bad science,’  piccolos for the ‘good science’) but overall it was quite an effective vehicle for the propaganda it carries.

Examined carefully, its thesis is that carbon dioxide is not a major cause of global warming, but the presentation purports that global warmng is a hoax — in fact not a single scientist agreed with that, but it was well glossed over.

Question everything. It’s how science works.

Barcode :

Ok! what about the global warming that ended the last ice age?

Durham Weather : 

What about it?

Barcode :

Why did it not lead to catastrophic events that are predicted by todays scientists for the present global warming which they blame on human activity! Was global warming 10`000 years ago down to industry (foraging was about the largest industry at the time)or was it something more natural and less fantastic as we are lead to believe?
By the way Durham Forum, your reply above is quite fallible.

Durham Weather :

I’d be more than happy if you could demonstrate the fallability for me. How much do you know about climate science, astronomy and oceanography?

Barcode :

Not that much but the question of historic global climatic changes still seem to be shunned.

Durham Weather :

Before being led astray by the media and Channel 4 (on both sides of the argument), get a copy of ‘Climate, History and the Modern World’ by HH Lamb and read it. All of the reasons for variations in climate both past, present and future are covered. It was published in 1982, before climate hysteria descended upon us. It’s not a simple relationship like the C4 programme tried to put over, and the peculiar arrangements of Solar cycles, orbital changes, ocean current heat transport changes, prevailing wind, sea ice, Volcanic dust levels, proximity to permanent ice sheets and all such things need to be taken into account too. Feedback loops exist when some of the inputs are altered, before a new steady state of climates is established. Most of the feedback loops are positive ones, adding to the warming. It’s not as simple as just saying CO2 follows temperature, nor the other way round. If this was the only relationship that was important in atmospheric physics, the world would have lost it’s breathable atmosphere long ago. CO2 is important because it changes the way the atmosphere manages it’s heat budget; even the small quantities that it is present at in the atmosphere. Water vapour and methane are also greenhouse gases, and would also contribute positive feedback to any increase in temperature. In short, it’s far more complicated and can only really be modelled on a computer. Our best understanding at the moment is that human activity contributes to the overall warming. It’s small at the moment, but it will become a bigger and bigger influence in future if we continue to add CO2 to the atmosphere at the rate we are at now.

The theory of Cosmic Rays/Solar variation being the driving factor that was presented in the programme has never been proved by anyone. Drawing a few graphs isn’t science. You have to prove your postulated theory for it to become accepted as fact, and Piers Corbyn has never done that i’m afraid.

Barcode :

Get one thing straight here! I am not asking the question about the history of climatic change for the first time! in fact I have been asking the question for years before i saw that video! and as yet the question about historic climatic change and why recent climatic change is different is still avoided.

Durham Weather :

It may be avoided in sensational TV programmes, but if you read the book I suggested you’ll see that in fact it hasn’t been. I think i’ve explained why the two situations are different. The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is now approaching what atmospheric scientists suspect is a critical level. They’re getting nervous about it, and piling more into the atmosphere just doesn’t sound too sensible. Once that critical level is reached, it’s believed that abrupt and sudden climatic changes may occur, before a new steady state of climate is reached. The new steady state may take some time to arrive though, with climatic turmoil in the meantime. One of the consequences is that European temperatures may drop 4-5 degC, perhaps in a 25 year time span. This type of thing probably happened in the past when ice-ages occurred (a cooler spell, the Little Ice Age. occured after the Mediaeval Warm period mentioned in the C4 programme, this was put down to the Maunder minimum sunspot period, but may have been due to a change in ocean/wind circulation). Global Warming may well result in Local Cooling for some. If it were to occur in Europe it would have catastrophic effects. Harvests would fail, food would be rationed, populations would migrate south, causing pressures elsewhere, shortage of water would then become a problem too. Burying our heads in the sand and denying the holocaust is all well and good, but it doesn’t help in the least.

There may actually be bog-all we can do about the warming, but we can try to prepare for it’s effects, minimise the loss of life and make everyone aware of what is likely to happen. Or we can just pretend it doesn’t exist.

Barcode :

Forgive me for being argumentative but they also ranted on about the ozone layer and how we would also all be dying from skin cancer by the year 2000! I aint got skin cancer in 2007 and I don?t know anyone that has it.

Durham Weather :

If you moved to Australia you might find that incidences of melanoma have increased dramatically. The ozone hole was/is a southern hemisphere phenomenon, not a northern one (not anything like the same depletion anyway). Banning chlorofluorocarbons has had an effect and the ozone depletion is becoming less severe each year now, but there is a time lag before CFC’s are removed from the atmosphere and the hole is ‘plugged’ as it were. If nothing had been done, there would have been a huge explosion in skin cancers there (until the human body evolved to be more tolerant to UV light, but that might take 500,000 years or so).

Barcode :

So why did it happen down there when the northern hemisphere is the most industrialised and producing a lot more CFC`s by a long long way?

Durham Weather :

The atmospheres over the two poles are very different. Antarctica exists as a land mass, surrounded by water, whereas the north pole is essentially water that freezes in winter, surrounded by land. The height of the tropospheric boundary is also different in the southern hemisphere, as are the stratospheric cloud formations needed for the reactions to occur. It is thought that the southern circulation allows a deeper vortex over the pole (there isn’t as much land to disturb the flow, and it’s colder), so concentrations of CFCs are higher there. If you look at a map of the globe, the most land is in the northern hemisphere and the south is pretty much all water. It doesn’t really matter where on the globe the CFCs are produced, they will always migrate toward the poles, in the north the vortex is disturbed by land masses, and it isn’t as cold, in the south it isn’t, so higher CFC concentration and less ozone produced, hence a bigger ‘hole’.

Barcode :

Hang here a minute you have lost me! The Polar Regions effect the placement of ozone depleting gasses? Which CFC`s are metallic enough to migrate because of polarity?
Call me stoopid if you like.

Durham Weather :

It’s not a magnetic effect, rather one of atmospheric circulation. When I talk of ‘poles’ I don’t mean it in a ‘magnetic polarity’ kind of way. Sorry if I misled you there.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6290228.stm

A new scientific study concludes that changes in the Sun’s output cannot be causing modern-day climate change.

It shows that for the last 20 years, the Sun’s output has declined, yet temperatures on Earth have risen.

It also shows that modern temperatures are not determined by the Sun’s effect on cosmic rays, as has been claimed.

Writing in the Royal Society’s journal Proceedings A, the researchers say cosmic rays may have affected climate in the past, but not the present.

“This should settle the debate,” said Mike Lockwood, from the UK’s Rutherford-Appleton Laboratory, who carried out the new analysis together with Claus Froehlich from the World Radiation Center in Switzerland.

Dr Lockwood initiated the study partially in response to the TV documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle, broadcast on Britain’s Channel Four earlier this year, which featured the cosmic ray hypothesis.

“All the graphs they showed stopped in about 1980, and I knew why, because things diverged after that,” he told the BBC News website.

“You can’t just ignore bits of data that you don’t like,” he said.

Warming trend

The scientists’ main approach on this new analysis was simple: to look at solar output and cosmic ray intensity over the last 30-40 years, and compare those trends with the graph for global average surface temperature, which has risen by about 0.4C over the period.

The Sun varies on a cycle of about 11 years between periods of high and low activity.

But that cycle comes on top of longer-term trends; and most of the 20th Century saw a slight but steady increase in solar output.

However, in about 1985, that trend appears to have reversed, with solar output declining.

Yet this period has seen temperatures rise as fast as – if not faster than – any time during the previous 100 years.

“This paper reinforces the fact that the warming in the last 20 to 40 years can’t have been caused by solar activity,” said Dr Piers Forster from Leeds University, a leading contributor to this year’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessment of climate science.

Cosmic relief

The IPCC’s February summary report concluded that greenhouse gases were about 13 times more responsible than solar changes for rising global temperatures.

But the organisation was criticised in some quarters for not taking into account the cosmic ray hypothesis, developed by, among others, Henrik Svensmark and Eigil Friis-Christensen of the Danish National Space Center.

Their theory holds that cosmic rays help clouds to form by providing tiny particles around which water vapour can condense. Overall, clouds cool the Earth.

During periods of active solar activity, cosmic rays are partially blocked by the Sun’s more intense magnetic field. Cloud formation diminishes, and the Earth warms.

Mike Lockwood’s analysis appears to have put a large, probably fatal nail in this intriguing and elegant hypothesis.

He said: “I do think there is a cosmic ray effect on cloud cover. It works in clean maritime air where there isn’t much else for water vapour to condense around.

“It might even have had a significant effect on pre-industrial climate; but you cannot apply it to what we’re seeing now, because we’re in a completely different ball game.”

Drs Svensmark and Friis-Christensen could not be reached for comment.

SouthernExPat :

My major problem with the whole Global Warming thing is the Scientists! (and the Labour Government of course, who attempt to use it as an excuse just to tax the f*ck out of us)

The reason I have trouble believing Modern Science is thus!

a) Scientists warned us that our VHS recorders, Computers and Microwave ovens were all going to explode on 1/1/00…And Aircraft would drop out of the skies! (bulls*it)

b) They told us that by the year 2000 one in three people in the world would have AIDS (bullsh*t)

c) They scaremongered about SARS wiping out the worlds population (bullsh*t)

d) They scaremongered about Bird Flu wiping out our native Birds etc (bullsh*t)

e) They scaremongered that eggs were full of Salmonella and would poison us (bullsh*t)

these are just ones that jump to mind!

I thought Science was about cold, hard FACTS

If the above is to be believed…thats (Bullsh*t) too

Phil :

Science is a method; it has no opinions.

Gather the villagers … to the castle!

SouthernExPat :

I am not going anywhere near the castle thank you! (that was invented by Science too) :D

Tessxvi :

Would it not be truer to say that the media said the above?  To find out what the original report actually said would probably be quite difficult.

One of the things that worries me about our world today is that all our “information” comes through the media pipeline.  Finding out “the facts” is hard work and all too often we don’t bother – or we give up.

SouthernExPat :

Tessxvi?.. That is a very valid point. 8)

I may have been the victim of the media circus…but then I am sure the Government are too (rather more than they care to admit) :?

Climate Change – Donald Trump has broken my silence

In case you hadn’t noticed, I’m running a weather blog here at Durham Weather, and even though every man and his dog has voiced their opinion on the subject of Climate Change, up until now i’ve kept quiet about it.

It seems that in the last few years everyone has become bolder and added their two penneth to the debate. Some folk just make fools of themselves on Facebook and clearly have no knowledge of what they are spouting. They do it anyway because they think it makes them look intelligent, but in fact it just exposes them as clueless idiots who just like seeing themselves in print as keyboard warriors. They’ll get noticed taking the contrary viewpoint, right?

It doesn’t actually matter because their misguided opinions aren’t really worth anything to the rest of us. Consensus among our climate scientists is what counts, not the ramblings of the great unwashed or goofball, bat shit crazy conspiracy people. The consensus among climate scientists, and it’s a consensus that has continued to strengthen, is that man made climate change is upon us and is starting to affect our World’s future, big time. We are rapidly screwing up our own planet.

As i’ve been an amateur meteorologist for the past 40 years, I can see where the consensus is coming from. I can see it in my own records (which admittedly don’t span a great deal of time), but more importantly I can see it in the Durham record, which is the 2nd oldest unbroken meteorological series in the country (behind Oxford Radcliffe). I can also see it in nature. It doesn’t take a genius (I’m proof of that) if you just open your eyes.

First signs of change

The climate is changing and I can see that things that happened quite regularly in my childhood hardly happen at all now. That’s not rose-tinted speccs because I don’t just rely on my memory (it’s poor). I refer to documents of my own and others. Things are altering rapidly, too rapidly for nature to cope, and that my friends is the crux of it. We are changing things so quickly that normal evolutionary paths are not options. We are now seeing extinctions instead. Stuff is dying. Norms that have been with us for hundreds of thousands of years are being ripped apart.

Scientists first started noticing the change in the late 70’s and early 80’s. Back then, it was dubbed ‘Global Warming’. This is the phrase Donald Trump mentions with glee as he attempts to mock and deny the concensus the World’s climate scientists have reached. In reality, it was Climate Change. It was accelerating and 20 years later everyone realised that something was seriously up. Even more alarming is that things are happening even more rapidly than the modelling predicted! It’s worse than worst case!

global temperature 1850-2017 animation

But climate has always changed!

Now, those who oppose the consensus claim that the Climate has been changing for centuries, and that is true. Civilizations have thrived and died as global climate patterns have altered. No-one is denying that, because it is fact. There have always been long term variations because weather is chaotic and ‘climate’ is merely a way to try to summarise that. What past history does show is how civilizations have been wiped out by climate change. That’s what happens folks, people are starved, frozen, drowned or burned out. Californians were burned out last year and Trump blamed poor forest management! He then decided he’d help out by cutting off funding.

However, the Climate changes of the past have tended to be localised and not Global. They have also been more gradual (with the exception of the Younger Dryas episode). There has been little artificial forcing because man did not have the capability to do it. There were much fewer people on Earth, they hadn’t started mining and burning coal for fuel, nor built pollution belching factories. There was also fewer livestock and deforestation hadn’t happened at all.

Receding glaciers and Greenland

Receding glaciers were one of the first signs of large scale changes. “Summat was up”. Glaciers rely on conditions below freezing high up the valleys in which they flow. Rising temperatures in lower regions have resulted in glaciers melting and receding. The glaciers lose mass by melting, then there is no longer as much ice mass to keep them moving forward. The Alps have suffered a huge loss, but Greenland is the area of most concern to us.

Greenland and the North Atlantic are the areas of the planet in which the Ocean’s great circulations are driven. These in turn drive weather systems that affect us all, planet-wide. They are vital in the transfer of heat around the globe. If this is disrupted then who knows what? One thing that seems to be touted a lot is that climate of Western Europe will get a lot colder. That stretches the little brains of deniers – “How can Global Warming make us colder? It’s bloody rubbish man!”.

The mechanism of the whole ocean current system is dependent on the sinking of water in the North Atlantic that then circles the globe as deep water currents. The whole cycle takes about 1,000 years to complete. Disruption of this sinking mechanism in any way could completely change the distribution of local climates (and scarily it may take 1,000+ years to revert back). The system has however proved to be remarkably resilient so far, but we are now stressing the balls off it. How long can it last? We don’t know!

What we are seeing now is that the melting of glaciers in Greenland is resulting in a vast outflow of cold meltwater into the North Atlantic, right around where it isn’t really wanted. It is postulated that this will prevent the sinking of water into the deep ocean, disrupting the gyre (the circulation). Observations in the North Atlantic do indeed show disruption of the flow of the North Atlantic Drift. This may be similar to what happened in the aforementioned ‘Younger Dryas’ episode, where temperatures plunged within a handful of years.

Carbon Dioxide and the Tipping Point

Some of you may also have heard scientists referring to a ‘tipping point’, where man’s forcing of the climate system will result in a climatic ‘flip’. What this means is that when the climate becomes unstable through excess (human) forcing, the Earth’s ocean and atmospheric circulations will again try to settle into a new stable pattern (climates like to be stable). This may be a subtle shift in circulations, but could end up as a complete catastrophic rehash of circulation patterns. This is the great unknown. The more man changes the atmosphere, the more likely the catastrophic change. This is what we risk. Is it worth gambling all our chips on that?

Carbon Dioxide levels in the atmosphere are our ‘Climatic Canary’. The actually amount of CO2 in percentage terms is miniscule compared to the other atmospheric gases, but the climate system is very sensitive to Carbon Dioxide levels and also to Methane. When pre-industrial levels were 280 ppm, a current level of 410 ppm represents an increase of 46% on the normal equilibrium level. That is huge. It continues to rise and the rise is accelerating. How much CO2 can we add to the atmosphere before the tipping point is reached? We just don’t know!

human co2 emissions versus atmospheric concentration

Orange Donald

I mentioned Orange Donald, supposed leader of the Free World. He is also the leader of the World’s 2nd biggest emitter of CO2. China is the biggest emitter, with roughly double that of the USA, but it has 4 times as many people. China is also now trying to develop power from renewable sources, with vast Hydroelectric and Solar projects being undertaken. The USA however, under Trump, has gone the opposite way. Trump has cancelled his country’s part in the Global Climate agreement in Paris, and has now also removed restrictions on his domestic fossil fuel burners. He’s also decided he doesn’t want to see the dire projections of the future, just the ‘next few years’, because that doesn’t look too bad, does it? Bury your big orange head in the sand Donald, it’ll be someone elses problem soon. You can go back to cheating at golf.

Why has Trump done this? Because he is one of the people I talked about earlier. He thinks he knows more than the experts (about most things) and is apparently in the pocket of the polluter lobby. Trump should be leading the World in cleaning up the filthy planet, but has instead taken a stance which twenty years ago might have been excusable for a sceptic, but today, it’s a prehistoric, dark-ages decision which shows what an ignorant, poorly educated, selfish man he really is. Thank goodness he will last no longer than a couple of years. His backward thinking policies (remember he’s a businessman, and I use that term very loosely) do not make logical sense to me. What is becoming clear is that politics should be left to politicians, not people who bankrupt their own casinos!

We are perhaps only 10 years away from the ‘tipping point’. In the meantime, low lying islands and coast will disappear underwater and refugees will put pressure on adjoining countries. Some of the World’s biggest cities are built on coasts (London and New York are sitting ducks). The Earth will survive (as Gaia), but the human race seems to just get more stupid year on year and may not be around much longer under the leadership of such people as Orange Donald. Decisions taken today will govern whether tomorrow’s politicians are left with any options going forward. They will probably be living in the ‘too late’ World. “WTF were they thinking??????”

When the great David Attenborough speaks up about the seriousness of the situation, EVERYONE should listen and act. To ignore what is happening is to sign our own death warrant.

Anyone for tennis?

High likelyhood of Human civilisation coming to an end by 2050, report finds

Website created by D.K. O'Hara Copyright 2018. dkohara.com
arahokd