Robin 的个人资料Robin's Room照片日志列表 工具 帮助

日志


3月28日

The Great Global Warming Swindle

A couple of weeks back, Channel 4 showed a documentary called "The Great Global Warming Swindle". It was a really watchable, interesting programme, that I commend to everyone. It made various claims, all of which have annoyed 'conventional' climate change scientists. These basically boil down to the claim that global warming isn't caused by greenhouse gases, but actually by solar effects.
 
I am not qualified to make a definitive judgement on the claims made in the programme (and let's face it, who amoungst us is? Getting data you can trust is all but impossible), but there was one claim that stood out for me, and I find incredibly compelling. Even if you disagree with everything else the program said, then this single claim deserves, in my view, to be examined.
 
The conventional "climate change is caused by manmade carbon emissions" argument (as espoused in "An Inconvenient Truth") goes like this: "If you look back in the past using ice core data, you'll see that times of high atmospheric heat always correspond to times of high CO2 content. Therefore high CO2 causes atmospheric heating."
 
Seems fairly convincing. But TGGWS says that if you look more carefully at the graphs of temperature and CO2 you'll see that there is a consistent lag between the two, namely that the CO2 graph lags 800 years behind the temperature graph.
 
If this is true (and while I've seen various people attacking the data used on the program, I've not seen anyone attacking this particular piece of data) it turns the logic used by climate change scientists on its head. CO2 doesn't cause heating, it is caused by heating.
 
When you think about it, this makes perfect sense. If the atmosphere of the earth heats up (for whatever reason - TGGWS claims it's because of cycles in the solar activity, and I think I'm inclined to believe them, but that's beside the point) then it will take a long time for that heat to 'soak' into the oceans.
 
As the oceans slowly heat up, Le Chataliers Principle of Dynamic Equilibrium (yeah, OK, I'm showing off that I can remember anything from A level chemistry) means that more of the CO2 that is dissolved in the oceans will be released into the air, causing the CO2 levels to rise.
 
Thus heating drives atmospheric CO2 levels.
 
(I've been pondering on this for a while, and the best analogy I can come up with for their argument is: "If you look back in the past at times when it was raining, you'll see that lots of umbrellas were in use. Therefore umbrella use causes rainstorms.")
 
I read this article on the BBC website this morning: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6502239.stm
 
That feeds into this idea too - as the world heats up, peat bogs (and more generally the vast amount of biological material in the permafrost) defrosts too, causing more CO2 to be released, further exacerbating the effect.
 
Now this has been pointed out to me, it seems really surprisingly obvious, and a very compelling argument.
 
So what does this mean? Well, it doesn't mean that Climate Change isn't happening - it just means we need to be honest about why it's happening and to recognise what is and isn't in our control. No amount of 'turning off your TVs at night' and 'using energy saving lightbulbs' is going to stop the water rising, and Oxfordshire becoming beachfront property.
 
This doesn't even mean that being energy efficient is pointless - far from it. Our 'cheap' energy supplies drying up in the face of exponentially increasing demand is something we should all be aware of and fight against - but let's do it for valid reasons.
 
What it *does* mean is that Carbon Offsetting is bollocks - (well, certain forms at least). Planting trees isn't going to help (and may in fact harm the problem - trees in non-tropical regions can exacerbate global warming by reducing the amount of heat energy that gets reflected straight back into space). Buying energy saving lightbulbs for places which wouldn't tend to use them might help the energy crisis, but it's not going to help fight global warming.
 
I've even seen claims that airplanes contribute to reducing atmospheric heating. Their contrails leave water droplets in the air that cause incoming solar energy to be reflected back out of the atmosphere, thus reducing the overall heating effect. This is a very hard effect to measure, because to do so you'd need a couple of days in which no (or very few) planes flew over a large part of the world. The mass groundings of September 11th 2001 gave exactly the chance that scientists needed to measure these results, and supposedly the prediction based on that (admittedly small) sample is that the earth might be several degrees hotter were it not for the flights.
 
It can be argued that none of this evidence is conclusive of course - and I don't expect this blog entry to change anyones minds. I do hope that it might cause people to treat the claims of climate change scientists with a little more scepticism in future though - certainly the situation is not as black and white as people claim...
 
 

评论 (1)

请稍候...
很抱歉,您输入的评论太长。请缩短您的评论。
您没有输入任何内容,请重试。
很抱歉,我们当前无法添加您的评论。请稍后重试。
若要添加评论,需要您的家长授予您相应权限。请求权限
您的家长禁用了评论功能。
很抱歉,我们当前无法删除您的评论。请稍后重试。
您已超过了一天之内允许提供的评论数上限。请在 24 小时后重试。
因为我们的系统表明您可能在向其他用户提供垃圾评论,您的帐户已禁用了评论功能。如果您认为我们错误地禁用了您的帐户,请联系 Windows Live 支持部门
完成下面的安全检查,您提供评论的过程才能完成。
您在安全检查中键入的字符必须与图片或音频中的字符一致。

若要添加评论,请使用您的 Windows Live ID 登录(如果您使用过 Hotmail、Messenger 或 Xbox LIVE,您就拥有 Windows Live ID)。登录


还没有 Windows Live ID 吗?请注册

匿名 的图片
izb 发表:
It was indeed a fascinating programme. Initially the revalations that it contained were pretty devastating to the whole global warming arguments. Unfortunately the motives of some of the contributors, (And the programme makers) are called into question despite them all stating in the program that they are not on the payrolls of any corporations (There's stuff out there about Tim Ball being associated with some corporation's front organisation, but Google is failing me right now). There's even information out there claiming that the 800 year lag does not necessarily mean that CO2 is simply a product of solar warming.
 
Personally, I can only now say that I simply don't know wether man-made global warming does exist. There's so much noise on either side, and not enough real signal. Anyone know if temperature records and CO2 records are publically available? Seems the best solution is to simply look for yourself, but alas I'm no real scientist.
 
I'd say though that the 800 year lag was not the only stand-out moment from the documentary. The other one was, for me, a comment made by the ex-cofounder of Greenpeace. He said something along the lines that our whole culture has developed an unhealthy self-image of human beings being scum. A comment like that does ring a bell in a wasteful culture with a niggling sense of guilt over the all-too-visible inbalances in ways of life across the globe, and in which moral and ethical standards are slowly being eroded away. Perhaps we are perversely looking for ways to blame ourselves for weather catastrophies, believing that we are getting our just desserts for all the plastic wrappers we've discarded and all the oil we've used up flying to holiday destinations.
 
If people are good at anything, then it's seeing themselves at the centre of things.
3 月 29 日

引用通告

此日志的引用通告 URL 是:
http://robinwatts.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!624B49D29A6B0752!117.trak
引用此项的网络日志