Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

C4ís debate on global warming boils over
Times Online ^ | March 15, 2007 | Sam Coates, Mark Henderson

Posted on 03/21/2007 7:56:56 AM PDT by cogitator

Two eminent British scientists who questioned the accuracy of a Channel 4 programme that claimed global warming was an unfounded conspiracy theory have received an expletive-filled tirade from the programme maker.

In an e-mail exchange leaked to The Times, Martin Durkin, the executive producer of The Great Global Warming Swindle, responded to the concerns of Dr Armand Leroi, from Imperial College, and Simon Singh, the respected scientific author, by telling them to “go and f*** yourself”.

The tirade has caused Dr Leroi to withdraw his cooperation from another Channel 4 project with Mr Durkin on race, The Times has learnt.

The programme, broadcast by Channel 4 last Thursday, featured a number of scientists who disputed the consensus on the causes of global warming.

Dr Leroi was particularly concerned about a segment that featured a correlation between solar activity and global temperatures, which was based on a 1991 paper in the journal Science by Eigil Friis-Chris-tensen. He was surprised that the programme failed to mention that while these findings look convincing superficially, they have been revealed as flawed by subsequent research by Peter Laut.

Dr Leroi e-mailed Mr Durkin about his use of data, concluding: “To put this bluntly: the data that you showed in your programme were . . . wrong in several different ways.” He copied Mr Singh into the exchange.

Mr Durkin replied to both later that morning, saying: “You’re a big daft cock.” Less than an hour later, Mr Singh, who has worked for the BBC, intervened to urge Mr Durkin to engage in serious debate. He wrote: “I suspect that you will have upset many people (if Armand is right), so it would be great if you could engage in the debate rather than just resorting to one-line replies. That way we could figure out what went wrong/ right and how do things better/ even better in the future.” Mr Durkin replied nine minutes later: “The BBC is now a force for bigotry and intolerance . . . Since 1940 we have had four decades of cooling, three of warming, and the last decade when temperature has been doing nothing.

“Why have we not heard this in the hours and hours of sh*t [edited by poster] programming on global warming shoved down our throats by the BBC?

“Never mind an irresponsible bit of film-making. Go and f*** yourself.”

Last night Dr Leroi said that he was amazed at the rudeness of Mr Durkin’s reply.

“It was rather a shocking response,” Dr Leroi said. “It was my intention to make a film with Martin Durkin and [the production company] Wag, but that is something I am seriously reconsidering now. I am no climate scientist, but I was very concerned at the way that flaws in these data were brushed over.”

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.

“As the subject of our proposed film was race, it is such a sensitive topic that it requires great care and great balance. That he has shown so little respect for scientific consensus and such little nuance is a cause for great concern. I cannot imagine it will go ahead now.”

The film would have addressed Dr Leroi’s thesis that race is a biologically meaning-ful and medically valuable concept, a view that is highly controversial among scientists.

Last night Mr Durkin apologised for his langauge. “As far as I was concerned these were private e-mails. They arrived when I was quite tired having just finished the programme in time for transmission,” he said.

“Needless, to say, I regret the use of intemperate language. It is so unlike me. I am very eager to have all the science properly debated with scientists qualified in the right areas and have asked Channel 4 if they will stage a live debate on this subject.”

Where Channel 4 got it wrong over climate change

Claim: Ice core data shows that carbon dioxide levels rise after temperatures go up, not before

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

Claim: Temperatures in the troposphere, the lower part of the atmosphere, have not risen as predicted by the models

Fact: This was once the case, but it has been resolved now that initial measurement errors have been corrected

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. These are no longer produced so heavily by industry because of environmental regulations to combat other problems, such as acid rain


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: change; climate; climatechange; globalwarming; media; science
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-140 next last
Apparently the show also erroneously said that volcanoes emit a lot more CO2 than human activities. See point 1 in my profile about that. Regarding the first point in how Channel 4 got it wrong, I'm working on that point in my profile. There is no good reference to this anywhere on the Web (even such that posters to RealClimate are appealing to the managers of the site to make one!)
1 posted on 03/21/2007 7:57:01 AM PDT by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

ping


2 posted on 03/21/2007 7:57:28 AM PDT by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cogitator
telling them to “go and f*** yourself”.

From a scientific standpoint, isn't that pretty much impossible? :)
3 posted on 03/21/2007 7:59:03 AM PDT by P-40 (Al Qaeda was working in Iraq. They were just undocumented.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: P-40

Not if you're Gumby, dammit!


4 posted on 03/21/2007 8:01:08 AM PDT by JZelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: P-40

"From a scientific standpoint, isn't that pretty much impossible? :)"


well it does show that global warming alarmism is based on solid scientific evidence and not pure emotion.


5 posted on 03/21/2007 8:01:43 AM PDT by Scotswife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: P-40

Well you can get yourself f***ed, but not necessarily go and f*** yourself. If you could, you'd be pretty well f***ed anyway.


6 posted on 03/21/2007 8:04:00 AM PDT by lovecraft (Specialization is for insects.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: cogitator

bttt


7 posted on 03/21/2007 8:05:04 AM PDT by Chi-townChief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cogitator
Claim: Ice core data shows that carbon dioxide levels rise after temperatures go up, not before

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.

8 posted on 03/21/2007 8:06:07 AM PDT by facedown (Armed in the Heartland)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: facedown
Only a child would believe this.

Which Part?

9 posted on 03/21/2007 8:07:53 AM PDT by TheBattman (I've got TWO QUESTIONS for you....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: cogitator
Apparently the show also erroneously said that volcanoes emit a lot more CO2 than human activities

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.

10 posted on 03/21/2007 8:08:46 AM PDT by GreenAccord
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cogitator

[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.


11 posted on 03/21/2007 8:11:12 AM PDT by spinestein (There is no pile of pennies so large that I won't throw two more on top.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cogitator; All
"Since 1940 we have had four decades of cooling, three of warming, and the last decade when temperature has been doing nothing."

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.

12 posted on 03/21/2007 8:13:50 AM PDT by avacado
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xcamel

Might want to check this one out.


13 posted on 03/21/2007 8:16:41 AM PDT by r-q-tek86 (Snakes can't be taught to walk.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: facedown
Only a child would believe this.

Check my profile next week for (hopefully) a comprehensive explanation of why that point is correct and is widely misunderstood. It has taken me awhile to comprehend it sufficiently, and I had to discard some of my convenient misconceptions, too.

14 posted on 03/21/2007 8:19:32 AM PDT by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: cogitator

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.


15 posted on 03/21/2007 8:19:53 AM PDT by agooga (When boyhood's fire was in my blood, I read of ancient free men...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: P-40
" > telling them to “go and f*** yourself”.

From a scientific standpoint, isn't that pretty much impossible? :)"

Well, I would certainly want to see any such data peer reviewed, and Ch 4 appears be an ideal venue...

16 posted on 03/21/2007 8:21:01 AM PDT by M. Dodge Thomas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: GreenAccord
the show contends that volcanoes result in more CO2 emissions than industrial emissions,

the point is still very, very wrong. See point #1 of my profile.

17 posted on 03/21/2007 8:21:11 AM PDT by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: avacado

See point #4 in my profile.


18 posted on 03/21/2007 8:21:40 AM PDT by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Scotswife
Hardly. You will note that where they contend to have Explanations for the Claims, they say they are Facts. So much of science today is just this. Saying an Explanation (hypothesis) is actually fact. This is not to be mistaken for Fact.

It never seems to occur to the media, etc. their explanation could be wrong. They usually are. Almost all of the "Humans cause Global Warming" science is pure emotion.

The best correlation I've seen to warming is sunspot activity. Ten years from now, when temps are down, one of two things will happen. Everyone in the GW crowd will claim victory, though nothing substantial was done worldwide, or everyone will quietly forget what they claimed about Global Warming and move on. What should happen is to expose these people as frauds and have them repay all of the government research dollars they will have spent on this foolishness.
19 posted on 03/21/2007 8:23:57 AM PDT by jps098
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: cogitator

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.


20 posted on 03/21/2007 8:25:29 AM PDT by Hostage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cogitator

Thanks! That helps. That last thing I want to do is to be repeating bad information.


21 posted on 03/21/2007 8:25:47 AM PDT by avacado
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: cogitator

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!


22 posted on 03/21/2007 8:26:16 AM PDT by britemp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cogitator

read later


23 posted on 03/21/2007 8:26:21 AM PDT by TX Bluebonnet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cogitator
Claim: Ice core data shows that carbon dioxide levels rise after temperatures go up, not before

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.

24 posted on 03/21/2007 8:27:56 AM PDT by Donald Rumsfeld Fan ("Fake but Accurate": NY Times)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cogitator
Hilarious stuff!

"....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!

25 posted on 03/21/2007 8:31:22 AM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cogitator
Your "Point 4" has been refuted by the admitted inaccuracy of where the temperature readings were taken - only in areas of increasing populations and increasing "heat island" effects. This has horribly skewed the numbers over time, and there is extreme reluctance to admit it and or make the necessary revisions.
26 posted on 03/21/2007 8:32:06 AM PDT by xcamel (Press to Test, Release to Detonate)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: cogitator; facedown
And what is the explanation for CO2 continuing to increase after temperatures start to decline?
27 posted on 03/21/2007 8:32:29 AM PDT by Ragnar54
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Do not dub me shapka broham

ping


28 posted on 03/21/2007 8:39:31 AM PDT by Cacique (quos Deus vult perdere, prius dementat ( Islamia Delenda Est ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ragnar54
And what is the explanation for CO2 continuing to increase after temperatures start to decline?

Unfeedback.

29 posted on 03/21/2007 8:39:45 AM PDT by facedown (Armed in the Heartland)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: cogitator
Re: Claim: Ice core data shows that carbon dioxide levels rise after temperatures go up, not before

"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.

30 posted on 03/21/2007 8:39:55 AM PDT by spunkets ("Freedom is about authority", Rudy Giuliani, gun grabber)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: P-40

I wish George W. Bush would tell the democrats on Capitol Hill to "go f**** yourselves."


31 posted on 03/21/2007 8:41:25 AM PDT by july4thfreedomfoundation (My Number One Goal in Life is to Leave a Bigger Carbon Foot Print Than Al Gore)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Donald Rumsfeld Fan
Positive feedback will result in never-ending increases in temperatures unless some other unknown process stops and reverses it.

Actually, the systems that contribute to the glacial-interglacial change (temperature and CO2) are known; quantification of their total effect is still being worked on. But since in the glacial-interglacial period atmospheric CO2 has been between a minima of ~180 ppm and a maxima of ~280 ppm, there are negative feedbacks that restrain the entire range (and also therefore keep temperature in defined range -- speaking only about the natural system here).

32 posted on 03/21/2007 8:46:27 AM PDT by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: avacado
[Can someone point me to the data...]

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/


33 posted on 03/21/2007 8:48:57 AM PDT by backbencher (Nancy Pelosi sends her regards to the non-voting "real conservatives".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: cogitator

How did they measure C02 emission during/after the Krakatoa eruption in 1883?


34 posted on 03/21/2007 8:49:32 AM PDT by Osage Orange (Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rodgers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cogitator

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


35 posted on 03/21/2007 8:49:32 AM PDT by james500
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: backbencher

Thanks!


36 posted on 03/21/2007 8:49:59 AM PDT by avacado
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: xcamel
Your "Point 4" has been refuted by the admitted inaccuracy of where the temperature readings were taken - only in areas of increasing populations and increasing "heat island" effects. This has horribly skewed the numbers over time, and there is extreme reluctance to admit it and or make the necessary revisions.

The combined land surface and ocean temperature anomalies show an increasing trend -- globally (with a smaller signal in the Southern Hemisphere). The ocean temperatures would obviously be unaffected by UHI.

The Surface Temperature Record and the Urban Heat Island

One of my points subsequent to #5 will summarize the Urban Heat Island issue, another oft-repeated incorrect point here on FreeRepublic.

37 posted on 03/21/2007 8:50:36 AM PDT by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: facedown

Which should have resulted in the "liquisphere" (air/water) boiling off eons ago.


38 posted on 03/21/2007 8:51:16 AM PDT by Cletus.D.Yokel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: cogitator

I suspect you were reading about results from feedback 'models'. The subject of 'modeling' was addressed in the documentary and it is quite true to my experience.

We can achieve statistical models that yield the result we are looking for just by changing a few parameters. But the purpose of a statistical model is not to get a result but to try and expain a large portion of the variability.

We can overparametrize a model that will explain almost all the data but will be poorly predictive. We can also achieve models that are accurate but very inprecise.

The only way to be 100% certain of a model is to have access to infinite and all data on all variables. Then our parameter estimates approach their true natural state. But that never happens and that is why we use statistical inferences to generate ideas and questions for further study, never for political results.

I have witnessed scientific misconduct, normally committed by those that are paid by political programs, too numerous to list here. One example that the general public might recall is one dealing with second hand smoke. I personally witnessed a panel whose continued funding was contingent on getting a desired political result, they changed p-values from 0.05 to 0.10 so that they could say they achieved statistical significance. Such misconduct in science is everywhere that politics sticks its nose. There are numerous examples in medical research where pharmaceutical corporations basically bribe their way to convincing their virtually placebo agent is 'effective', and they are masters at coming up with 'explanations'.

One saying that is a tautology in statistics (and mathematical statistics is precisely what are ised) is:

"All MODELS are false, some are useful".

That's what we are after, we are after practical knowledge, we will never achieve perfect understandings. But it is precisely our tolerance of imperfection that allows blowhard politicians to trample on our principles.

It may be a good idea to curb some emissions based on allergies and toxicity, but to turn science on its head as a means of convincing lawmakers to change the law and redirect funds is disengenuous. Gore along with Green Peace, Gorbachev's Green Cross and the UN Law of the Sea Treaty is a global takeover movement that is turning science on its head as a means to obtain power.


39 posted on 03/21/2007 8:52:36 AM PDT by Hostage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: spunkets
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.

1. 100 ppm is not insignificant. 2. Change in CO2 ocean solubility is only a minor factor. 3. CO2 is a forcing factor that combined with other positive feedback effects can result in the observed temperature change.

All of this will be explained when I finish point #5 in my profile. Please bide your time and wait to see if my explanation adequately explains this confusing and often counter-intuitive issue.

40 posted on 03/21/2007 8:53:14 AM PDT by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Osage Orange
How did they measure C02 emission during/after the Krakatoa eruption in 1883?

Ice core bubbles. The ash from Krakatoa (and for any major eruption) is a well-defined time marker in ice cores. The atmospheric CO2 concentration doesn't change measurably. QED.

41 posted on 03/21/2007 8:55:02 AM PDT by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Ragnar54

"And what is the explanation for CO2 continuing to increase after temperatures start to decline?"

Dark Warming. (See "dark matter" and "dark energy".)


42 posted on 03/21/2007 8:59:23 AM PDT by PreciousLiberty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: james500

Interesting. I'd have to read the paper to see if they are suggesting an actual effect on global atmospheric temperatures (i.e., up or down), or just a redistribution effect. Given the meteorological and ocean linkages described, I suspect the latter. But we also know that reduced sunspot numbers indicate lower solar activity, most noticeably for the Maunder Minimum/Little Ice Age.


43 posted on 03/21/2007 8:59:35 AM PDT by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: cogitator
Are you saying all the C02 was deposited in ice bubbles?

Seems there's lots of variables..in coming up with a concrete conclusion.

44 posted on 03/21/2007 9:02:00 AM PDT by Osage Orange (Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rodgers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: avacado
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.

1998 was the hottest year on record, since then the temps have been slightly lower and relatively stable.

The year 2006 BTW would be +.18 on the graph

45 posted on 03/21/2007 9:06:58 AM PDT by qam1 (There's been a huge party. All plates and the bottles are empty, all that's left is the bill to pay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: cogitator
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

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.

46 posted on 03/21/2007 9:08:53 AM PDT by agere_contra
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: qam1

Thanks for the graph!


47 posted on 03/21/2007 9:09:47 AM PDT by avacado
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: cogitator
The mid-century effect fall came about chiefly because of sulphate aerosols

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.

48 posted on 03/21/2007 9:12:10 AM PDT by edsheppa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ragnar54

Climate fluctuates. Temperatures and CO2 levels have varied greatly without human contribution over millions of years. So, obviously, there are major forces other than human activities at work. Ignoring these other forces and implying that some Kyoto-type intervention will resolve unwanted climate change seems ill-conceived.

The tip-off that Gore's case is weak is his insistence that climate change is a "moral issue" rather than a scientific one. The implication is that it is human influence that is BAD in and of itself. And that stopping this BAD behavior is the important objective. The other side of this idea is that natural climate change would be okay.

The "natural = good and unnatural = bad" notion is simplistic and, in my opinion, idiotic. The civilization we currently enjoy is highly unnatural. Yet, virtually every human being (even so-called "greens") strives to enjoy the benefits it provides.

If the climate is changing in unfavorable ways what does it matter whether the cause is natural or unnatural or some combination? Wouldn't preventing the unfavorable change by the most efficient means be the most sensible policy?

Suppose a comet were projected to collide with the Earth. This would be a 100% natural event. Does that mean it's okay? No action needed? Or should we try to avert the collision by unnatural means?

What we need to come to grips with is that, absent any human action, the climate will change. If we want to ameliorate, offset or avert this change we need to think about effective methods of trying to accomplish this. Effective methods are going to have to go beyond the minuscule impacts to be achieved by the Kyoto protocol approach of reducing human-caused emissions. The fact that such effective methods are not part of Al Gore's prescription is pretty convincing evidence that it is control of humans rather than control of climate that is his real agenda.

Whether the BBC program was "right" in every regard isn't the issue. It presents a different interpretation of the data than Al Gore does. In my opinion, it persuasively refutes the idea that controling CO2 emissions will be sufficient to prevent climate change. The issue then is whether there is something else that can (or should--not everyone agrees that warmer would be worse than cooler) be done to deal with this change. Since there is no evidence that Gore understands the magnitude of the issue, it is clear that following his advice would be the wrong course to take.


49 posted on 03/21/2007 9:19:07 AM PDT by John Semmens
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: cogitator

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?


50 posted on 03/21/2007 9:19:51 AM PDT by Old Professer (The critic writes with rapier pen, dips it twice, and writes again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-140 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson