Re: Vqpros kqm Dorotea

Jasno, poluchavajki tlyst grant da izsledvash musonite, mormonite i bizonite
v Centralno Meksiko i kak te se vlijajat ot "global warming" pravi tazi
teorija vazhna za teb. Kakto kazah, tova go razbiram napylno. Otkyde si
izmisli, che shte trygna da protestiram za podobni neshta? Utre i az shte
izmislja edna teorija, che vsichkite proizvedeni dosega v sveta kompjutri,
elektronni uredi, tranzistori, diodi i integralni sxemi shte prestanat da
rabotjat v rezultat na neizbezhen, no eksponencialno narastvasht proces na
natrupvane na domashen prah vyrhu tjah v rezultat na zhiveeneto v kyshti i
sgradi. Shte sravnja rabotata na edin diod v kristalno chista i suha
vyzdushna sreda s tazi v prashna i vlazhna sreda. Rezultatite shte sa
dramatichni, vervaj mi :-) Nadjavam se s njakolko filmcheta i
nauchno-populjarni anekdotcheta da spechelja njakoj i drug grant i az, ta da
vidja malko nauchen rahat. V rezultat, shte predlozha nov nachin na
stroitelstvo, celjashto da zameni sega syshtestvuvashtite sgradi (koito po
syshtestvo sa edni inkubatori na domashen prah) s novi formi na mesta za
mestozhiveene, blizki do i vzaimstvani ot peshterite, koito se provetrjavat
po naturalen nachin :-)

Obache v napisanoto po-dolu ne vizhdam nikakvi seriozni oproverzhenija na
opisanite vyv filma tezi. Nja-vazhnijat propusk -- ami okazva se, che % CO2
proizveden ot horata e mnogo malyk % ot obshtija CO2 proizveden na Zemjata v
rezultat na _estestveni procesi_. Vzemi i smetni njakolko vulkana kolko CO2
proizvezhdat dnevno, naprimer. Spored teb, poveche, ili po-malko ot cjalata
ni industrija i avtomobilen park vzeti zaedno?

Kolkoto do Wunsch, ami, toj, gorkijat, bil neprekysnato mis-citiran i
vsichko koeto kazva bilo "taken out of context". Zatova shtjal da sydi OON,
kakto i syzdatelite na tozi film. Naj-verojatno, obache, kakto chesto se
poluchava v takiva sluchai, chovekyt govori bez da misli i na angro vyv
vsichki sluchai. Prilicha mi na centrist, kojto iska da zadovoli hem levite,
hem desnite. Ima edin takyv analog v bylgarskata literaturna istorija, toj
se kazva Baj Ganjo, kojto zaedno s vernite si sytrudnici Gochoolu i Dochoolu
si promenja tezite vyv i vytre v konteksta gore dolu po syshtija nachin. Vyv
filma imashe pone 10 drugi profesori i vodeshti nauchni rabotnici. I te li
sa idioti, i tehnite li tezi sa "out of context"

Izobshto, kakvo da ti kazha -- izbrala si si da kyrshish akademichna nauka v
politizirana specialnost, ami zhiva i zdrava. Ti si, znachi, edna nachetena
politichka :-)

"Dorotea" <lwp@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1177090223.366508.275220@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Apr 19, 10:41 pm, "MPM" <mintc...@xxxxxxx> wrote:

Eto kolko sa "chestni" i "bezpristrastni" ucheni, koito si sluchal vqv
filma, kato izkljuchim Carl Wunsch, koito shte gi sqdi - vizh za
tjahnoto finansirane njama li da se vqzmutish spravedlivo? :)

"Eight of the scientists in the film - John Christy, Paul Reiter,
Richard Lindzen, Paul Driessen, Roy Spencer, Patrick Michaels, Fred
Singer and Tim Ball - are linked to American neo-conservative and
right-wing think-tanks, many of which have received tens of millions
of dollars from Exxon."
Journalist Ross Gelbspan noted that in May 1995, Richard Lindzen and
Patrick Michaels were hired as expert witnesses to testify on behalf
of Western Fuels Association, a $400 million consortium of coal
suppliers and coal-fired utilities. Gelbspan said of Lindzen:

"I don't know very many supporters of Mr Lindzen who are not in
the pay of the fossil fuel lobby. Dr Lindzen himself, his research is
publicly funded, but Dr Lindzen makes, as he told me, $2,500 a day
consulting with fossil fuel interests, and that includes his
consulting with OPEC, his consulting with the Australian coal
industry, his consulting with the US coal industry and so forth.
That's not to say Dr Lindzen doesn't believe what he says, but it is
to say that he stands in very sharp distinction to really just about
virtually all of the climate scientists around the world."

A sega za "nauchnite fakti" vqv filmcheto: az te molja da prochetesh
dolnoto, kolkoto i da ti e neprijatno i chak togava mozhem da
razgovarjame kato normalni hora, a ne kato poluobrazovani ot psevdo-
nauchno-populjarni filmcheta predstavjashti neistini, poluistini i
narochno podvezhdashti publikata senzatzii. Kolkoto do 'water vapor' -
Dobro Utro!
Ti sega li otkrivash, che "water vapor is the most important
greenhouse gas"? Az tova go nabivam v glavite na moite studenti v
pqrvata im lektzij i na men sa mi go nabivali v glavata sqshto. Eto i
tova, koeto njama da ti haresa, no istinata boli :)

Deeply Deceptive

The film presented viewers with an apparently devastating refutation
of the "theory of global warming". And these were not picky, esoteric
criticisms. Durkin insisted that the world's climate scientists are
guilty of the most fundamental error imaginable: increased atmospheric
carbon dioxide (CO2) is not the cause of higher temperature, as the
experts claim. Quite the reverse: increasing atmospheric CO2 is itself
the result of rising temperature.

As evidence for this contention, Durkin argued that global surface
temperature dropped dramatically between 1945-1975, at a time when CO2
emissions were rapidly rising as a result of the postwar economic
boom. According to Durkin, if CO2 emissions were responsible for
increasing temperature, then temperature should not have fallen
between 1945-1975. Clearly, then, some factor other than CO2 emissions
must have caused the subsequent global temperature rise.

But Real Climate, a site run by climate scientists, such as NASA's Dr
Gavin Schmidt and Dr William Connelley of the British Antarctic
Survey, describes Durkin's discussion of the 1945-75 period as "deeply
deceptive". (Real Climate, March 9, 2007; www.realclimate.org/index.php/
archives/2007/03/swindled)

In this section of the film, Durkin focused heavily on a graph
depicting temperature changes. The graph, Real Climate comments,
"looks rather odd and may have been carefully selected". It appears to
show a dramatic cooling between the 1940s and 1970s. But try flipping
between the film's version of the global temperature record (shown
above left) and the temperature plot that normally appears in the
scientific literature (shown above right) The supposed cooling looks
rather less evident in this second graph.

Without knowing more details of how Durkin may have manipulated the
data plotted in his graph, it is difficult to comment on the
presentation. What we can say is that Durkin's "four decades of
cooling", implying a relentless temperature drop over 40 years, is not
an accurate description of the trend over this period. There was some
cooling for 'part' of this time but also some plateauing, with
fluctuations up and down.

But why did the temperature not simply rise in line with the post-war
increase in greenhouse gas emissions?

In fact, as is well-known, the absence of a global rise in temperature
between 1945-75 is explained by the release of large amounts of
industrial pollutants, called sulphate aerosols, into the atmosphere.
These particles have a braking effect on global warming, known as
"global dimming". By shielding some of the incoming solar energy,
sulphate aerosols mask the underlying warming effect generated by
rising levels of CO2. By the 1980s, however, stronger warming had
exceeded this masking effect and global temperature has since
continued to rise. As Real Climate notes, by failing to explain the
science behind this phenomenon the programme makers were guilty of
"lying to us by omission."

The Ice Cores

The film repeatedly gave the impression that mainstream science argues
that CO2 is the sole driver of rising temperatures in the Earth's
climate system. But this is not the case. Climate scientists are well
aware that solar activity plays a role, though a minor one at present,
as do long-term periodic changes in the Earth's orbit, known as
Milankovitch cycles. (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/
Milankovitch_cycles)

The point is that there is a vast body of evidence that very strongly
supports the hypothesis that greenhouse gas emissions, of which CO2 is
the most important, are primarily responsible for recent global
warming. The 4th and most recent scientific assessment of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concludes:

"Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures
since the mid-20th century is very likely [.i.e. probability greater
than 90%] due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas
concentrations." ('Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis,'
Summary for Policymakers, IPCC, February 2007, page 10;
www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf)

We then come to one of the film's most misleading arguments. Antarctic
ice cores show that rises in levels of CO2 have lagged 800 years
behind temperature rises at specific times in the geological past.
This, argued Durkin, +proves+ that CO2 cannot be responsible for
global warming - instead global warming is responsible for increasing
levels of CO2. But this was a huge howler.

What Durkin's film failed to explain was that the 800-year lag
happened at the end of ice ages which occur about every 100,000 years.
(See: www.realclimate.org/index.php/ archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-
cores)

Scientists believe that the end of an ice age is likely triggered when
the amount of heat reaching the Earth rises as a result of a periodic
change in the Earth's orbit around the sun. Jeff Severinghaus,
Professor of Geosciences at Scripps Institution of Oceanography,
explains why the rise in CO2 initially lags behind the temperature
rise:

"The reason has to do with the fact that the warmings take about
5000 years to be complete. The lag is only 800 years. All that the lag
shows is that CO2 did not cause the first 800 years of warming, out of
the 5000 year trend." (Real Climate, 'What does the lag of CO2 behind
temperature in ice cores tell us about global warming?', December 3,
2005; www.realclimate.org/index.php /archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-
cores/)

The best current explanation for the lag of 800 years is that this is
how long it takes for CO2, absorbed by the ocean in an earlier warm
period, to be "flushed out" at the end of an ice age. Once that CO2
has been released into the atmosphere its heat-trapping properties as
a greenhouse gas lead to even stronger warming: an example of positive
feedback. (See Caillon et al., 'Timing of Atmospheric CO2 and
Antarctic Temperature Changes Across Termination III,' Science, 14
March 2003: Vol. 299. no. 5613, pp. 1728 - 1731)

Professor Severinghaus summarises:

"In other words, CO2 does not initiate the warmings, but acts as
an amplifier once they are underway."

Durkin's analysis, then, was way off the mark.

The film's claim that solar activity might account for recent warming
is also without credibility. In September 2006, the Times reported the
latest findings from researchers writing in the top journal, Nature:

"Scientists have examined various proxies of solar energy output
over the past 1,000 years and have found no evidence that they are
correlated with today's rising temperatures. Satellite observations
over the past 30 years have also turned up nothing. 'The solar
contribution to warming... is negligible,' the researchers wrote in
the journal Nature." (Anjana Ahuja, 'It's hot, but don't blame the
Sun,' The Times, September 25, 2006)

The film's other scientific claims can be similarly dismissed. Carl
Wunsch - who, as discussed, appeared in the film - comments:

"What we now have is an out-and-out propaganda piece, in which
there is not even a gesture toward balance or explanation of why many
of the extended inferences drawn in the film are not widely accepted
by the scientific community. There are so many examples, it's hard to
know where to begin, so I will cite only one: a speaker asserts, as is
true, that carbon dioxide is only a small fraction of the atmospheric
mass. The viewer is left to infer that means it couldn't really
matter. But even a beginning meteorology student could tell you that
the relative masses of gases are irrelevant to their effects on
radiative balance. A director not intending to produce pure propaganda
would have tried to eliminate that piece of disinformation." (http://
ocean.mit.edu/~cwunsch/ papersonline/channel4response)






.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Met Office Shows No Warming In 15 Years
    ... Show where CO2 has anything to do with it! ... Anthropogenic global warming is based on very solid science. ... the fundamental cause of the greenhouse effect. ... greatly affect the temperature of the Earth; ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: The Independent this morning...
    ... studying ice core data relating to CO2 & temperature for my PhD. ... His astonishing conclusion - that climate change is already ... > warming cannot succeed, and that, in effect, it is already too late. ...
    (uk.sci.weather)
  • Re: Interesting Take on Climate Change Argument
    ... proof of man-made increase of CO2 content in the global atmosphere, ... as needed by man-made warming hypothesis. ... temperature histories. ... "Responses to climate change are being seen across the U.S.A," said ...
    (rec.audio.pro)
  • Re: The necessity of clear thought, was Re: speaker feedback?
    ... Except CO2 levels have been 10 times what they are today simultaneous ... with earth's average temperature being *lower* than today and over ... each day that the planet won't warm up a bit as a result. ... Whether the world is warming is a different matter than what's causing ...
    (rec.audio.tubes)
  • Re: Vqpros kqm Dorotea
    ... "Eight of the scientists in the film - John Christy, Paul Reiter, ... increasing atmospheric CO2 is itself ... the result of rising temperature. ... These particles have a braking effect on global warming, ...
    (soc.culture.bulgaria)