C4’s debate on global warming boils over

Times Online ^ | March 15, 2007 | Sam Coates, Mark Henderson

[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

[palmer]

"Even if all other greenhouse gases (such as carbon dioxide and methane) were to disappear, we would still be left with over 98 percent of the current greenhouse effect."

That's not correct. The models cannot be easily disputed since they are not predictive, and backed up by satellite measurements of key parameters (e.g. LW flux). Those models show that removing (just) CO2 leaves 88 percent, not 98 percent of GH effect. See http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/alternate/page/environment/appd_d.html

[qam1]

Regarding the "warming" of other bodies in the Solar System, see point #2 in my current profile.

Regarding Mars: Global warming on Mars? "Thus inferring global warming from a 3 Martian year regional trend is unwarranted. The observed regional changes in south polar ice cover are almost certainly due to a regional climate transition, not a global phenomenon, and are demonstrably unrelated to external forcing."

IT's now a 4 Martian year (8 Earth) year global trend

But ROTFLMAO, I find it funny we are to infer global warming here on earth due to 20-30 year regional trends but not on Mars.

And yes being that both Earth & Mars are ~4.5 billion years old, on that timeframe 20-30 years or 100 or even 1000 years is just as insignificant as 3 or 4.

The argument that there are fewer dust storms today as opposed to the 1970's in fact actually indicates global warming on Mars. The warmer the atmosphere the lower the atmospheric pressure is, the lower atmospheric pressure is the harder it is for dust to become suspended in it (especially in Mars' wispy thin atmosphere) thus fewer incidence of dust storms.

But your links are dated Mine are from 2007, more updated and the phenomena has been shown to be global

Global warming on Mars – without SUVs! increased temperatures despite lack of humankind

"Odyssey is giving us indications of recent global climate change on Mars," - Jeffrey Plaut, project scientist for the mission at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory

"One explanation could be that Mars is just coming out of an ice age," Feldman told Space.com. "In some low-latitude areas, the ice has already dissipated. In others, that process is slower and hasn't reached an equilibrium yet. Those areas are like the patches of snow you sometimes see persisting in protected spots long after the last snowfall of the winter."

Hello! Coming out of an ice age = Global Warming.

Regarding Jupiter: "The latest images could provide evidence that Jupiter is in the midst of a global change that can modify temperatures by as much as 10 degrees Fahrenheit on different parts of the globe. ... The global change cycle began when the last of the white oval-shaped storms formed south of the Great Red Spot in 1939. As the storms started to merge between 1998 and 2000, the mixing of heat began to slow down at that latitude and has continued slowing ever since." [No linkage to solar variability suggested]

Yes there is.

Jupiter doesn't have all the things like oceans or land that affects weather like we do here on earth and Jupiter has a near 0° axis tilt so there isn't even any seasons. What that amounts to is Jupiter has pretty stable weather, that’s why storms last centuries and when a new storm forms it’s notable.

There’s only 3 things that drive Jupiter’s weather, it's fast rotation, internal heat and solar heat.

It's rotation surely hasn't changed and being that the internal heat is heat left over from when Jupiter formed 4.5 billion years ago, unless you can come up with a good explanation on how the internal heat has all of a sudden magically increased after all this time, that just leaves one thing left that could cause the changes on Jupiter. Solar variability.

Regarding Triton: " There are two possible explanations for the moon's warmer weather. One is that the frost pattern on Triton's surface may have changed over the years, absorbing more and more of the sun's warmth. The other is that changes in reflectivity of Triton's ice may have caused it to absorb more heat." [No link to solar variability suggested]

Changes in frost patterns & ice’s reflectivity both don’t just happen by magic all by themselves, both suggest increased solar activity. Also the fact that's it's Triton that experiencing the most extreme global warming fits perfectly with the sun being the cause.

The frost pattern and changes in the ice’s reflectivity on Triton are caused by ice volcanoes, as the volcanoes leave prominent dark streaks across the surface (seen below)

Unlike Earth or even Io the volcanoes on Triton are driven solely by heat from the sun,

More heat from the sun = more volcanoes, more volcanoes = more dark streaks, more dark streaks = even more heat absorbed from the sun

Regarding Pluto: "The change is likely a seasonal event, much as seasons on Earth change as the hemispheres alter their inclination to the Sun during the planet's annual orbit. ... Though Pluto was closest to the Sun in 1989, a warming trend 13 years later does not surprise David Tholen, a University of Hawaii astronomer involved in the discovery. "It takes time for materials to warm up and cool off, which is why the hottest part of the day on Earth is usually around 2 or 3 p.m. rather than local noon," Tholen said. "This warming trend on Pluto could easily last for another 13 years." [No link to solar variability suggested, though there is a link to solar insolation, similar to Milankovitch forcing of Earth's climate]

While it's too far to know what exactly is going on, the fact is in the 14 years after it reached its closest approach to the sun it tripled in atmospheric pressure and has continued to heat up. It should be noted; in those 14 years, Pluto due to it's a widely elliptical orbit has moved 250,000 km further away from the sun. That is equal to moving the earth out to the middle of the asteroid field, yet it still heated up. Move Earth out that far between noon and 3 and tell me if we will still continue to heat up.

Plus it doesn't make sense, the Earth is hottest at 2 or 3pm because that's when the earth is re-radiating the most heat it absorbed, how can Pluto which is 1/1000th the size continue hold it's heat for 27 years while the much the larger earth starts to cool off in a few hours?

The above four bodies are the only ones we have been able to observe over a long period of time, if this was just natural variability we should expect to see some warming, some cooling and some remaining stable. The fact that all 4 and the earth all just happen to be heating up all at the same time suggest that the only one thing they have in common, the sun is too blame

I have no idea where you get Enceladus, but Saturn I agree that we haven't been able to observe it long enough to know exactly what's going on, but then again if your Messiah Al Gore can attribute 1 hurricane here (Katrina) on Earth to Global Warming then why can't we attribute a bigger hurricane on Saturn to it?

[DungeonMaster]

Global warming swindlers = evolution swindlers.

[Ragnar54]

Excellent post!

[ancient_geezer]

As you note, the models fail in being not predictive, more importantly they fail for lack of knowledge in cloud physics and preciptition in the hydrological cycle, both in physics and resolution of the models.

Argue it with Lindzen.

"In the meantime greenhouse effect is not nearly as straight forward as is commonly stated."
--- Richard Lindzen (1990) Some coolness concerning global warming. Bulletin, American Metorolological Society, 71, 288-299.

and backed up by satellite measurements of key parameters (e.g. LW flux).

Oops, seems something is missing in the the models:

http://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/projects/browse_fc.html

"The overall slight rise (relative heating) of global total net flux at TOA between the 1980's and 1990's is confirmed in the tropics by the ERBS measurements and exceeds the estimated climate forcing changes (greenhouse gases and aerosols) for this period. The most obvious explanation is the associated changes in cloudiness during this period. The variations of the total net flux at the surface reflect the variations in the upwelling LW flux for the most part."

[cogitator]

which is another way to say that you are not a source of the material you post.

I never claimed that I was. I think I understand most of it.

[cogitator]

Where are the other sites?

GLOBALVIEW-CO2

CCGG Cooperative Air Sampling Network

And I hope you're impressed. I didn't know the name of the network or where info on it could be found until you prodded me. There's a lot of info on this site; good figures under "Media Center".

[Donald Rumsfeld Fan]

That's physically impossible with CO2 and climate because the relationship is highly nonlinear and can only be (semi-accurately) modeled over a small range (current conditions measured by satellites with a small delta) with lousy results outside that range.

Nonetheless, the magnitude of the coupling needs to be known. Having modeled nonlinear systems myself I realize it's a much more difficult task than for linear systems. But it can be done. And you're right, you linearize within certain ranges were it has a somewhat linear characteristic.

And you must know where those limits and discontinuities are located.

According to the Vostok Ice Core Data of CO2/Temp vs Time, Temps had a significant lead over CO2 on the down slope. Something caused that. What? Could it have been caused by too high levels of CO2? The CO2 remained high for thousands of years while the Temps dropped. Why? Or was it the Sun?

If the coupling is insignificant or in the wrong direction, and/or the effects minuscule compared to other unknown naturally caused or for that matter unnaturally caused effects we really don't understand the processes with any reasonable degree of confidence. The degree of confidence that's required before we start recommending costly solutions.

[cogitator]

So let me get this straight -- you're maintaining that there could be higher (or lower) concentrations due to short duration spikes that aren't detectable in the ice core record because of temporal resolution? And this would be climatically significant to glacial-interglacial climate transitions somehow, if in fact it was plausible?

I respect your acumen, but holding this one out as a useful possibility really pushes the envelope. I think I asked you this before -- what natural mechanism could plausibly do what you propose? If you propose a methane spike (maybe a seafloor slump releasing methane from clathrates), then some of that methane would oxidize to CO2 and there would be a longer-term detectable signal. You've got to have a mechanism with sufficient mass of C, an incredibly short atmospheric lifetime (both flux to and from the atmosphere). Pardon my lack of imagination, but I don't see it.

[Old Professer]

Thanks; I'm trying this from a CBS story today:

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/carbontrack

Looks like I may have tried too early.

[cogitator]

Hello! Coming out of an ice age = Global Warming.

And no linkage to solar variability is suggested. Linkage to sublimating ice deposits covered by dust is suggested. And the MGS saw changes in the polar ice deposits. Gee, what am I missing here?

For the other planets and moons, here's two things you need: a clear linkage to a solar-induced mechanism of change, and a clear indication that the output of the Sun has changed sufficiently to induce such a change.

Neither exist. It's fine to speculate as a counter-argument against the facts, but until you have actual research and results, it's just speculation.

[cogitator]

See post 131.

[Donald Rumsfeld Fan]

One other thing. It is possible that the temperature of the oceans lagged the temperature of the atmosphere and hence delayed CO2 absorbtion. Regardless CO2 lagged temperatures.

[norton]

I'd be interested in just how hard those scientists have to work in order to be able to say "This is correct, but climate scientists have a good explanation..." every time someone points out potential flaws in their own (socio/political) conclusions.

[palmer]

you're maintaining that there could be higher (or lower) concentrations due to short duration spikes that aren't detectable in the ice core record because of temporal resolution? And this would be climatically significant to glacial-interglacial climate transitions somehow, if in fact it was plausible?

Yes and definitely not. There are obvious long term mechanisms for the g-ig transitions (Milankovitch being the best example) that function slowly but can account for the full range in climate.

The mechanisms I am proposing are deplanktoning, deforestation, ocean warming, and many others which can combine to enhance the spikes. Whether they are related to today's spike is immaterial, I just show in my analysis that could pop up to today's levels and fade away in hundreds of years, much less time than the resolution of the older ice cores.

[palmer]

The answers to why temperature drops lead CO2 drops are similar to my previous post to cog. Some of the natural fluctuations of CO2 are caused by temperature fluctuations, for example, the change in plant life after a change in temperature. But the coupling both in the short and long run is highly dependent on many complex factors like vegetation, oceans and soil. Those multiple relationships are often at odds with one another. It requires a complex model to capture this, not a percentage or a magniture or any other oversimplified relationship of coupling.

[Donald Rumsfeld Fan]

It requires a complex model to capture this, not a percentage or a magniture or any other oversimplified relationship of coupling.

It would be great to have the "complex model" that provides "precise" results. But in the absence of those "complex" models we have no choice but to use "rough" models go gain an understanding/insight into the magnitudes and directions of the effects on climate.

According to Al Gore the relation ship is "complex". Can we assume the modelers like NASA's Hansen understand these "complex" relations? And are they accurately modeled in their models? I doubt it.

[cogitator]

Thanks for the clarification. And a fine post in #136, too.

[palmer]

Agree. Oversimplified models are a huge problem on both sides in the political debate. There are physicists on the Gore side who multiply the CO2 GH increase by some number to arrive at a water vapor GH increase (like your single parameter coupling). Then are physicists on the other side who ignore water vapor feedback (coupling = zero). I simply discard all of those back of envelope models. The NASA Hansen et al modelers tend to oversimplify in other ways that are directly demostrable: e.g. http://climatesci.colorado.edu/2006/05/11/uncertainty-identified-in-gcms-with-respect-to-albedos/ So I discard those too.

[cogitator]

Can we assume the modelers like NASA's Hansen understand these "complex" relations? And are they accurately modeled in their models? I doubt it.

I will be addressing this in point #5 in my profile; I have been delayed due to responses in a posting I made yesterday. I will briefly describe, and provide links to published articles, models that are used to examine glacial-interglacial climate processes. The models are pretty complex.

Hansen's main modeling effort is different than paleoclimatic modeling, though he participates to an extent, partly to get a better handle on climate sensitivity.