The Great Global Warming Swindle

41 Responses to “The Great Global Warming Swindle”

1. Bimble says:
   

   I’m watching it now and AT LAST scientists coming out and braving the general, media-lead, flawed idea that by driving my car to work tomorrow I’m going to kill us all.

   I had a lecturer who as an Atmospheric Scientist was saying this years ago.

   March 8th, 2007 at 10:07 pm
2. Karin says:
   

   Be interesting to know what you make of it Dave. Hubby’s been watching it while I was at Lent group. I’ve just borrowed An Inconvenient Truth from the library so we’ll watch that this weekend and see if that is equally convincing.

   Btw for those younger than ourselves hubby does remember talk of an imminent Ice Age when he was a kid and it sounds vaguely familiar to me, too.

   March 8th, 2007 at 10:32 pm
3. Karin says:
   

   The documentary was made by Martin Durkin and a google search could be interesting http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Martin+Durkin&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a

   March 8th, 2007 at 10:54 pm
4. Wag Dog says:
   

   While some may attack the messenger, Martin Durkin, but this is unnecessary, since all the so-called “scientific” arguments fall down with a little googling. Turns out http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/ has enumerated most of them and plus many more and given an explanation for each one. Many of the IPCC climate scientists also contribute to a blog at http://www.realclimate.org/ which have already countered many of the arguments in this “documentary”. One wonders why the deniers of man-made climate change are still rehashing old arguments for which explanations have been found years ago.

   March 8th, 2007 at 11:19 pm
5. Bimble says:
   

   I thought it was interesting that the Guardian article said that the programme’s “contents are largely untrue, for a start” but then doesn’t actually give examples or tries to prove itself.

   The Independent’s article seemed to be trying very hard to sit on the fence, especially by the end.

   Something about the planet’s climate is that it is forever changing. There used to be, for example, a jungle covering Antartica. It used to be a lot warmer here than it is now. Carbon dioxide levels used be a lot higher. When people say that we are destorying the planet they are failing to realise that it is beyond our abilities to destroy the planet. If we were to detonate every single nuclear bomb we could not wipe out every single life-form.

   And life has started from a lot less than that!!! (unless you’re a Creationist…)

   What environmentalists mean is that the planet’s climate might become more difficult for us to live in it. Afterall, it is already geting hot enough in the summer for rails to buckle, roads to melt….. a few extra degrees and like when there is more than an inch of snow the place will just come to a stop.

   Has the planet been hotter in the past – yes,
   Has the planet been colder in the past – yes,
   Did human civilization have any effect on this – no.

   Might there be some effect from humans on the current climate, yes, probably, but to suggest that we are affecting the climate more than the Sun, this being considerably more powerful than you can imagine.

   One of those things about being a scientist is that when people show me data I make my mind up.

   Show me two graphs, one that has closely match data of solar energy/planet temp and one that isn’t that closely matching one of CO2 levels/planet temp and I think I know which I’m more likely to believe.

   March 8th, 2007 at 11:22 pm
6. Richard says:
   

   The Al Gore movie, An Inconvenient Truth is just as convincing. An interesting part of that movie to consider when looking at tonights programme is the comparison of the story told by the media, compared to the scientific studies…

   March 8th, 2007 at 11:42 pm
7. Bimble says:
   

   What it comes down to is what you want to believe… there is no way that at this current time that we can say exactly what is going on…. there are just far too many varibles to make any sort of accurate model.

   Has there been some affect on the climate by human actions, yes, almost certainly; are human actions the largest effect on the climate at this curent time… probably not. Otherwise how do you explain the times in the planet’s past when it was hotter/colder and there was no human interference???

   March 9th, 2007 at 12:01 am
8. Wag Dog says:
   

   Otherwise how do you explain the times in the planet’s past when it was hotter/colder and there was no human interference???

   That is the classic argument of those denying climate change science. Suppose a criminal defense lawyer used that argument: “There were many murders that occured in the past, before my client was even born. This proves he is innocent of this most recent homicide.” He’d be laughed out of court.

   March 9th, 2007 at 12:15 am
9. Wag Dog says:
   

   Show me two graphs, one that has closely match data of solar energy/planet temp and one that isn’t that closely matching one of CO2 levels/planet temp and I think I know which I’m more likely to believe.

   The problem is that such graphs would not be depicting reality as we know it. Have a look at this graph plotting solar irradiance from 1978 to the present. The 11-12 year cycle is clearly evident, but the sun is no warmer in the last decade than it was in the 1980′s. So much for changes in the sun being the main cause of global warming.

   March 9th, 2007 at 12:23 am
10. Bimble says:
    

    I’m not denying climate change science, but I am saying that you can not just claim that it is just down to human interfence. You can’t. Cause it’s not. Why not claim that the earth is flat and the sky is mauve??

    Of course, if the MO of all the previous murders was the same as the current one and there was little evidience pointing towards the suspect, while I doubt that that argument would work, I’m sure a decent defence lawer could work on reasonable doubt as to the validity of the prosocution’s case and get a verdict of ‘not guilty’ (or in Scotland – ‘Not Proven’).

    I read through the article on Solar Irradiance, and why yes it does show the 11 year cycle of the Sun it makes no claims as to any effect that this has on gobal temps, it doesn’t make any mention about any other cycles that the Sun goes through (for instance Sun Spot activity), actually, it doesn’t even talk about the temp of the Sun itself, but the energy recived per unit area by the sensors, all of which were in space.

    March 9th, 2007 at 1:12 am
11. Philip of Samaria says:
    

    People I know and trust in aviation have concluded that there is no doubt that climate change is partly, mainly, the result of human activity. No one in aviation has a hidden agenda for thinking that.

    as the man said ‘i will tear down my barns and build bigger ones with a greater carbon footprint’ and God said ‘thou fool’

    March 9th, 2007 at 7:19 am
12. Lionfish says:
    

    I think the only thing we can do is try to remain objective (hah!). I’ve tried to look at the evidence, and thought about the arguments on either side and in my opinion the logical steps in the global warming argument all seem very sturdy. With decent evidence beyond reasonable doubt…

    I’m more concerned now that noone cares.

    This is the contentious bit (like the rest of the message board isn’t!): I’m wondering what Christians think about this. I’ve seen a few arguments one way or the other:
    1) Humans were put on the Earth to look after it (this one I like – so we shouldn’t screw it up.

    2) The Earth’s only a few thousand years old, therefore the ice-core data, etc, is all bunk. (this is quite concerning, but lots of people believe it).

    3) God made the Earth and is all powerful, we therefore can’t destroy it.

    4) The 2nd coming is nigh => doesn’t matter what we do to the Earth.

    I’m not a Christian, but many people in power are: So understanding their thinking is quite important to me (esp wrt the white house, and their policies). Remember about 1/3 of Americans think the Earth’s only a few thousand years old: Convincing them of global warming might be even harder…

    Thanks for the feedback!

    /me gets the flame retardant.

    March 9th, 2007 at 10:54 am
13. Lionfish says:
    

    Oh, I guess I should respond to the points you mentioned. I didn’t watch the program unfortuantely, so I’m just going on your comments and guessing at the probable arguments used:

    a) Global warming is real, but not manmade.
    b) The warming of the earth causes the CO2 variaton, not the other way around.

    Both happen: CO2 increases temperature, and temperature increase causes the oceans to release CO2. I should probably back this up with references… mentioning it again wrt sunlight later.

    We also know the CO2 does warm the planet, that’s from experimenting to find the wavelengths absorbed by it. The problem then is are we producing enough to warm the planet? The consensus is yes, the big trickiness is the feedback loops, and how much etc. It’s explained in quite a bit of detail here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=142
    Generally though the reason there’s debate over the amount of temperature change is because the feedback loops aren’t modelled or known well enough.

    * Human beings are in the single digits of co2 production. A lot more is produced by volcanos, dead leaves and in particular the sea.

    The fact that humans have increased CO2 in the atmosphere is definate, beyond all doubt: 1. Ratios of atmospheric carbon isotopes have changed, due to the isotopes of C in oil,coal and gas being different (because they’ve had a chance to decay to C16 or whatever). 2. The sampling of CO2 in icecores and from today’s samples shows the change in CO2 is very, very, very fast at the moment.(it’s rising at ~2ppm/a atm, and is at ~380ppm). 3. We’re digging up hydrocarbons and turning them into carbon dioxide (and water). The CO2 has to go somewhere. 4. Analysising the amount of CO2 on land and in the sea is useful. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=160 has a useful explaination looking at how we estimate the amount of carbon in the sea and forests. Basically we can account for the carbon so we know it’s not from there. Same with volcanoes.

    * The sun is the main cause of the temperature change.

    In the past the change in sunlight hitting the Earth has caused pretty well all (but a few) of the iceages and other variations (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles).
    (it’s more to do with the orbit of the Earth than the brightness of the sun though).
    This also relates to the odd ‘lag’ seen in CO2 levels after the temperature change began. The process by which CO2 is expelled from the sea due to these changes is poorly understood, but the current guess is phytoplankton populations fall so releasing more carbon back into the sea -> atmosphere. Also the change in the amount of light isn’t enough really to explain the change (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/02/what-triggers-ice-ages/) explains the alternative causes (generally some positive feedback loop is required to explain it).

    Basically: In the past the sun has been the trigger for temperature change, but we’ve got a different trigger this time.

    * In the 1970s we thought there would be global cooling and we turned out to be wrong.

    …therefore? We’re wrong now?
    I’m not sure how to argue this point. I mean, people thought mecury was good for you 100 years ago…and they were wrong, we now think it’s toxic… I’m confused why being wrong in the past means we’re wrong in the present.

    * A lot of people have a vested interest in global warming being true.

    Yeah, science research in the last 30 years has become a lot more reliant on industry. Which is a shame, we’re losing the credibility publicly funded research had.
    Still, regardless of vested interest, the consensus of scientists is still pretty concrete.

    * Why should we make the developing world use the most expensive technology when we have benefitted from the cheap polluting kind.

    This is a political issue, and doesn’t really address the question of climate change. How we deal with it is another massive debate: But people still don’t seem convinced it exists…

    …think it’s time to do some work now!

    Hope you didn’t mind the rant. I don’t usually do this. But am just shocked by the popular belief it’s not happening. Thanks for the outlet ;P

    Mike.
    Also I used http://www.realclimate.org too often, but it’s quite useful and has proper references

    March 9th, 2007 at 11:37 am
14. Miffy says:
    

    I fail to see what parsnips have to do with global warming.

    March 9th, 2007 at 11:45 am
15. Richard says:
    

    Putting aside the scientific arguments, a simple question to consider about going with one position or the other – what happens if you’re wrong?

    As I see it, if you back the Al Gore argument, and try to minimise the use of fossil fuels, saving energy and so on, and his scenario of catastrophic climate change proves to be wrong, then there will be a lot of people who will look a bit stupid, but ultimately life goes on. If on the other hand, you go for the Martin Durkin argument that there is no climate change, and he proves to be wrong, and the Al Gore prediction of catastrophic climate change proves to be true, what happens?

    March 9th, 2007 at 12:00 pm
16. Lionfish says:
    

    Richard: Yeah, I was thinking the same thing a few minutes ago. Also: we’re going to have to deal with limited oil reserves one day. Might as well soften the blow now.

    (I put up a massive rant, I don’t think it’s going to get moderated favourably ;P – my fault).

    March 9th, 2007 at 12:07 pm
17. Julie Ocean says:
    

    The worse thing that could happen as a result of this programme, is that we become in any way complacent about environmental issues on the whole.

    March 9th, 2007 at 1:21 pm
18. Sam says:
    

    Something I find really important is the fact that the sort of things we should do to combat climate change are really good things in their own right. For example: recycling is important as we’re running out of landfill space; driving less is important for loads of reasons including the fact that the pollutants from car exhaust are bad for your health and fewer cars on the road means fewer accidents; flying less will benefit those living under the flight path; consuming less in general is a very good principle; less flying and driving means less need to tarmac over the countryside to expand airports and road networks etc etc.

    I could go on, but you get the idea.

    Lionfish said, “I’m wondering what Christians think about this”. Some of my opinions on how climate change

    and Christianity relate via God’s concern for the poor are in my comments on Dave’s post here. This is by no means the only argument though: there’s plenty in the Bible which I take to mean that Christians should definitely be concerned about the environment. I don’t have time for an explanation of that now, though but I’m sure others will contribute some ideas.

    March 9th, 2007 at 2:06 pm
19. Karin says:
    

    To my mind care for Creation should be high up on a Christian’s list of priorities, along with mindful use of the Earth’s resources. I really can’t believe our Creator is happy for us to destroy what he has made or greedily grab all we can while others starve or scrape by with very little.

    March 9th, 2007 at 2:31 pm
20. Nathan Rive says:
    

    The documentary was ridiculously poor, with arguments old enough to vote – and those arguments have already been debunked in the literature. I’m sorry, but it was not “effective”.

    I have done a detailed deconstruction of the documentary on my blog here.

    March 9th, 2007 at 4:08 pm
21. Jeff Parry says:
    

    I do believe that there is such a thing as global warming. Yes, man is contributing to what is happening. However I do not believe that the science is proven either way.

    The polar ice caps are melting in the north but freezing in the south. There are unseasonal droughts in Spain at present. However there is documentary evidence that the same thing happened 400 years ago in the same area.

    We don’t have enough reliable data on either side that is accurate enough over a long enough period of time. The earth warmed and cooled for thouands/millions of years (depending on your viewpoint).

    I see a threat from a warming of the planet. Our contribution could be greater or lesser than we’re led to believe. In my opinion why chance it either way. Start doing the right thing now. Cut down on fossil fuels and start finding alternatives.

    Brazil’s motorists are 85% bioethanol fuelled. Why, with the exception of Sweden, are we not here in Western Europe?

    Whatever happens we’re running out of oil/gas reserves. BP’s only reserves are in Russia, the rest have disappeared. We need alternatives, whether green, coal or nuclear.

    March 9th, 2007 at 6:06 pm
22. Max says:
    

    If you missed the documentary, you can get it here.

    The Great Global Warming Swindle

    http://www.mininova.org/tor/612593

    http://thepiratebay.org/tor/3635222/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle

    here is another one

    http://thepiratebay.org/tor/3635143/Channel_4_-_The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle.avi

    Here is the web page of the documentary.

    http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swindle/index.html

    March 9th, 2007 at 11:41 pm
23. Ray says:
    

    Hi Dave,
    Just discovered your blog. It’s amazing! I’m kind of one of those skeptical-about-everything-people. Life has a way of shaping some people that way. In 1970’s, I was there when people were talking about global cooling and the impending disasters which were going to happen as a result.

    Since that time I’ve seen copious amounts of junk science. It always revolves around an agenda (which is very unscientific). As a science major this simple saying was imprinted; “In light of new evidence – revise!” You cannot revise anything except an opinion without evidence.

    I’m not certain of the global warming science, but rather than being guilty of intellectual laziness I looked into it and came across this article written by Richard Lindzen (the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT) and thought I’d share it with you and your readers.
    http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008597

    Keep up the good work.

    March 10th, 2007 at 12:28 am
24. Von Klout Lichter says:
    

    I agree with Sam,the arguement against human climate change should not stop us from being less wasteful.Waste is always bad.However It seems pretty obvious that the world has always changed climate and that it had nothing to do with us.It is just our ego that thinks we are the major cause and our ego that cannot comprehend that we have no control over our destiny.If we lived 300 years ago we would be thinking that things have been pretty cold lately.300 years before thet we would think they have been pretty hot.It is only technology that has given us the ability to see the ice sheets break off.Lets face it we like scareing ourselves.

    March 10th, 2007 at 9:00 am
25. Andrew Lane says:
    

    Um … actually guys, I think maybe hold yer horses on this one …

    I first heard about The Great Global Warming Swindle in the Barley Mow the other night (which is near Channel 4) and a couple of blokes were talking about it, and one was banging on about how he was going to take the mick out of his girlfriend for driving a green hybrid car, but the other one was like “No, no, look, I can’t tell you anything till after but look at *the title* when you get home. It’ll all become clear …” Then he clammed up with a big smug grin on his face. His mate went a bit thoughtful after that.

    Thinking about it, it all makes sense:

    1) Channel 4 are the guys who brought us that Chris Morris news spoof thing, Space Cadets (where the experiment was to see if they could get gullible people to believe they were in space), and that thing with Dom Joly (can’t remember the name) …

    2) They’ve already tangled with the director of this film before. Last time the watchdog forced them to do an apology because his last job for them was all made up – they’d never take him on for anything serious again – they’d be roasted alive, surely?

    3) The whole thing was beardies that no-one had heard of, retired ex-boffins, an ex-magazine hack and an old Thatcher crony – all of whom could afford a temporary dent in their reps, and all of whom could do with a few extra quid for an interview!

    4) The clue’s in the ****ing title for ****’s sake!!!!!!

    OMG we are talking April, May, June and July fool here! Getting people to believe that global warming’s all down to sunspots!? And they had it in the Middle Ages!!? And Al Gore’s chart’s the wrong way round???

    I’ll be keeping my eye on next week’s Comic Relief, or maybe they’ll do a few more like this, get a few on the spot reactions and blow the game at Christmas?

    Watch this space )

    March 10th, 2007 at 6:25 pm
26. John McKeown says:
    

    Sir John Houghton (former chair IPCC Scientific Assessment group 1988-2002) has produced a critique of Channel 4′s programme “The Great Global Warming Swindle”.

    JRI – connecting environment, science and Christianity.

    March 10th, 2007 at 6:57 pm
27. Frenkelfrank says:
    

    @Karin,
    Well, if God created us (and everything we are), how come he is not responsible for his creations? Do you blame your car if it doesn’t work properly, or do you blame the manufacturer?

    March 11th, 2007 at 1:01 am
28. Frenkelfrank says:
    

    @Richard,

    If we do follow Gore, we will ben spending lots of money (and resources) on things that make no sense. The money and resources could be used to hel others, but thanks to Gore they will suffer even more…

    March 11th, 2007 at 1:03 am
29. Sean says:
    

    The “Global Warming Swindle” is a very important documentary.

    Below is a very easy to remember link to send to friends and family to encourage them to see the other side of the global warming issue.

    http://gorelied.notlong.com

    Here is the web page that talks about the documentary.

    http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swindle/index.html

    March 11th, 2007 at 4:47 am
30. Karin says:
    

    I hear on the radio that one of the people in the programme claims he was misrepresented.

    Al Gore seems more convincing somehow, however inconvenient his truth is.

    March 11th, 2007 at 7:49 pm
31. Philip of Samaria says:
    

    I am still quivering after reading the Sunday Times suplement about how inevitbale and disasterous a 6 degree C heat up is.. Really depressing and I needed an anti-dote. On the other hand pain breaks the shell of your understanding.

    March 13th, 2007 at 10:14 pm
32. Mike says:
    

    I just saw this documentary. I am not convinced that sunspots do cause global warming, but it does cause me to wonder if we really do know what causes it.

    Also, I am more convinced that scientists can be driven by more than pure logic, and that science used for political goals can definitely get twisted.

    Furthermore, I am also convinced that climatologists probably do not make good economist, and that rich westerners really don’t care that much about the poor people of the world.

    March 16th, 2007 at 1:46 am
33. John Jauregui says:
    

    Pay a tax, change the weather. I don’t think so. Humans account for only 3 percent of the carbon dioxide released into the biosphere annually (Google: carbon cycle). Congresswoman Pelosi’s and Senator Reid’s plans for regressive new carbon offset and green tax legislation are designed in concert with UN and Kyoto Accord mandates. The goal is to reduce human CO2 production by 1/3. How high would new carbon offset taxes on transportation and heating fuels need to be to motivate you and everyone else to cut back by 1/3? At best that level of taxation will reduce annual CO2 production by a mere 1 percent globally. Not much mitigation or hope there. Certainly 1% is not enough to make a difference in the perceived problem of anthropogenic (human) global warming gases. The impact of such draconian tax measures can only be imagined. However, it does beg the question, “If humans can’t really be expected to make much of an impact on global warming gases, how can they possibly be blamed for warming in the first place?” Why are people compelled by politicians and the media to feel responsible and guilty for causing global warming? For the answers, Google “blame, shame and guilt used as political controls”, read “Unstoppable Global Warming” and “The Chilling Stars” for the scientific facts and “State of Fear” for the political dynamics behind this renewed eco-tax controversy. Those party faithful that think this debate is over are sorely mistaken. It’s a little late, but welcome to George Orwell’s “1984”. Watch - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XttV2C6B8pU

    March 17th, 2007 at 9:10 pm
34. Lionfish says:
    

    @John Jauregui, you seem to have missed at important point about the carbon dioxide we’re releasing compared to that in the natural carbon cycle.
    The clue is in the name. A carbon /cycle/ is the system in which carbon that is released by animals and decomposition is /reabsorbed/ by plants etc. Thus the measure you really want to look at is the /change/ in carbon dioxide.

    I’m surprised humans are releasing as much as 3% of all the biosphere. Remember that this 3% isn’t being reabsorbed as we got it from outside the system (from oil, coal and gas buried in the ground).

    You really can’t believe that the massive rise (2ppm every year) is ‘natural variation’… if it’s not from oil,coal and gas where is it from??? how can you possibly believe that it’s just appeared naturally?? How do you explain the change in isotopes? Where do you think the emissions that we’re making are going?

    @Von Klout Lichter, It’s not the current temperature changes that are of concern: There is lag in the climate, and the climate models don’t predict human-caused temperature increases beyond about 0.6 deg C in the last 50 years of the 20th century. It’s the next 100 years where we’ll see the most change – the IPCC report uses the SRES scenarios, which basically describe varying human and environmental responses.
    (just to illustrate)…
    Eg the B1 scenarios are “of a world more integrated, and more ecologically friendly” and predict an increase in the 21st century of 1.8degC.
    the A1FI scenario is the ‘worst’, it is of “A convergent world – income and way of life converge between regions, with an emphasis on fossil-fuels” and predicts an increase in temperature of 4.0 °C with a likely range of 2.4 to 6.4 °C over the 21st Century.

    To your point that “It is just our ego that thinks we are the major cause [of climate change]“. I’d have to point out that it is /measuring the carbon dioxide content and isotopic-composition of the atmosphere/ that make scientists think we’re affecting the environment. As I implied above I am shocked that people don’t believe we’ve changed the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

    Beyond going to greenland or whereever and doing the ice coring and experimentation yourself, how much proof do you need that we’ve increased CO2 in the atmosphere?

    Proof of human caused CO2 increases in the atmosphere:
    1. According to http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/emis/tre_glob.htm
    we’ve release 305 billion tons of /carbon/ into the atmosphere since 1751. You can work out the ratio (if you know the volume of atmospheric gas at s.t.p), etc…

    2. We can measure the isotopes of carbon in the atmosphere. From realclimate.com:
    “CO2 produced from burning fossil fuels or burning forests has quite a different isotopic composition from CO2 in the atmosphere. This is because plants have a preference for the lighter isotopes (12C vs. 13C); thus they have lower 13C/12C ratios. Since fossil fuels are ultimately derived from ancient plants, plants and fossil fuels all have roughly the same 13C/12C ratio – about 2% lower than that of the atmosphere. As CO2 from these materials is released into, and mixes with, the atmosphere, the average 13C/12C ratio of the atmosphere decreases….tree ring and ice core data both show that the total change in the 13C/12C ratio of the atmosphere since 1850 is about 0.15%. This sounds very small but is actually very large relative to natural variability. The results show that the full glacial-to-interglacial change in 13C/12C of the atmosphere — which took many thousand years — was about 0.03%, or about 5 times less than that observed in the last 150 years.” — http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=87

    Hope that’s all useful.

    March 19th, 2007 at 4:32 pm
35. Philip of Samaria says:
    

    Lionfish – I’d never keep up with your calculations… I remember stp.. roughly

    I am always amazed at the number of homeostatic mechanisms in nature that keep things in this thin shell of life actually operating eon after eon. For me that kind of implies a creator who works it all out.. but we might be pushing him rather hard!

    March 19th, 2007 at 9:10 pm
36. Lionfish says:
    

    Philip of Samaria: Thanks for the reply. Sorry, I didn’t really have time to finish the post off. Regarding point 1, here’s the rest of the calculation.
    Emitted Carbon: 305 x 10^12 kg of Carbon released
    Note that carbon dioxide is heavier:
    Atomic mass of Carbon = 12 (mostly)
    Atmoic mass of Oxygen = 16 (mostly)
    So for every kg of carbon 3.66 kg of CO2 are created.
    So emitted carbon dioxide = 3.66 x 305 x 10 ^ 12
    =approximately 10 ^ 15

    This page http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1999/LouiseLiu.shtml suggests the atmosphere is about 5 x 10 ^ 18 kg

    So the CO2 we’ve added is 10^15 / 5×10^18 = 0.0002

    0.02% (by MASS) => 132 ppm (volume)

    (Note: The actual increase is far higher due to deforestation etc, but I’ve only looked at fossil fuel usage)

    I was wrong in my previous post to say that none of the CO2 we’ve emitted has been reabsorbed. As Philip of Samaria points out, there are other mechanisms. The largest at the moment is the absorbtion of CO2 into the oceans, (hence they’re becoming more acidic), but this is why we’ve not seen such a huge increase in CO2 in the atmosphere. (“only” 105 ppm increase in 300 years or so).

    Note the calculation above was rough, just to illustrate that we are changing the amount of CO2.

    Regarding earlier points that ‘climate always varies’: I’d agree that over 10,000s of years the mean temperature does change dramatically. The difference is we’ve released enough CO2 to get to a level that hasn’t been known for 40 Million years. That’s a long time, and to change it that quickly in a few 100 years is going to be bad for us.

    I agree that it won’t wipe all life from the Earth. It won’t kill that many humans (as a %), but it’s still going to be one of the major extinctions in the Earth’s history, which is quite impressive. And it’s not going to be that great for people who rely on subsistence-living. A few failed harvests and famines happen.

    Thanks Dave for letting me put all these rants up on your nice blog! (get well soon!)

    Mike

    March 20th, 2007 at 10:25 am
37. Cathryn says:
    

    save the earth – it’s the only planet with chocolate

    March 20th, 2007 at 12:00 pm
38. Philip of Samaria says:
    

    Not what the clangers tell me

    March 20th, 2007 at 7:36 pm
39. Andrew Jones says:
    

    What amazes is me is 2 things.

    1) There STILL has not been any explanation about the GREEN TAX – where does this money go? HOW does the money I pay for carbon use help the environment?
    – I do agree that even though Global Warming is one of the biggest scare control tactics used this century – it can’t be a bad thing to cut down on things. But things can be taken too far – like the current idea of banning incandescent light bulbs!

    2) IF the Scientists really DO believe in Global Warming – why don’t they do something about it?

    We are talking about simple chemistry here – we have humidifiers, de-humidifiers, catalytic converters etc… it can’t be THAT hard to build something that mimics the way a TREE works.

    Or plant more trees!

    Sorry if I’m being ignorant – but even if Global Warming does turn out to be real – there have to be limits!

    March 26th, 2007 at 4:14 pm
40. [..*//L3iiGHH - - Xx..] says:
    

    I THINK THAT PROGAMM WAS WIKID AND NOW POEPLE HAVE STARTED TO SHUT UP ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING IM IN THE MIDDLE OF DOING COURSE WORK AT SCHOOL ON GLOBAL WARMING AND IF ITS MAND MADE OR NATURAL AND I KNOW WHICH ONE IM PICKING = ]

    March 28th, 2007 at 5:14 pm
41. Lionfish says:
    

    Andrew Jones,

    Green Taxes aren’t necessarily to make money to spend on green-tech or anything like that. It’s to provide a decentive on products or services that produce large amounts of CO2.
    Tax cuts I believe should be used too (it would have a better PR response too), for example cutting tax on bio-fuels.
    I don’t think anyone’s ever said the taxes would be /used/ to help the environment. I think you got the wrong end of the stick there.

    Re: Banning incandescent light bulbs: I’m confused by people feeling nostalgic about light bulbs. I didn’t realise anyone felt emotionally attached to them. As far as I’m concerned they’re an incredibly old and inefficient technology: They’re only 5% efficient – ie 95% of the energy put into them is turned directly into heat.

    Note: Areas where air conditioning is used need to convert to energy saving bulbs even quicker in my opinion: As every Watt of power the bulb spews as heat uses up more electricity when the aircon has to expel it.

    My main concern with the new bulbs is the small amount of mecury needed in their construction, but as they last considerably longer the ‘waste’ problem should be cancelled out.
    Almost all the lights in my house are energy-efficient already, and I’m not having trouble reading, seeing the floor, etc that some people have complained about.

    Re Global Warming is a Control Tactic: I can understand a government using ‘terrorism’ as a tactic to remove the writ of heabus corpus or privacy, but what’s the advantage to ‘control’/reduce our CO2 emissions? I can’t see the reasoning there.
    Also it’s not a governmental thing: The evidence for it has been collected by 10,000s of scientists working in seperate teams on hundreds of different projects across the whole world. The evidence is beyond doubt now. The ‘discussion’ that people want has been happening in the scientific community for the last few decades, in the last few years they’re finally collected enough evidence to reach a consensus, and it’s now the government’s job to act on it.
    Pretending global warming is just a made-up-thing to control people with is irresponsible and ignores all the evidence. It’s like people still believe the Earth’s flat or is only 6000 years old. But in this case, ignoring the evidence will have serious consequences.

    2) IF the Scientists really DO believe in Global Warming – why don’t they do something about it?

    What would you suggest they do? Climate scientists account for about 0.001% of the population… are you suggesting they try to initiate some sort of coup? I’m not sure how you hope they’ll change the behaviour of the whole world single handedly?
    We need government and grass roots support. Demanding/hoping/praying the scientists will sort it out for you is not an option.

    We are talking about simple chemistry here – we have humidifiers, de-humidifiers, catalytic converters etc… it can’t be THAT hard to build something that mimics the way a TREE works.
    Or plant more trees! Sorry if I’m being ignorant

    When looked at logically, planting more trees isn’t solving anything (unless a peat bog or some such is formed and grows, to hold the carbon). The problem is a lot of carbon dioxide has entered the system from ‘outside’ – ie from under the Earth’s surface, where it’s been for 10s of millions of years. It’s not about mimicking a tree. To make it work we need to mimic the tree (or plankton, etc) dying, falling to the bottom of a lake or sea bed, rotting down and being crushed by millions of years of other plants and sediment until it eventually becomes oil or coal.
    The closest we’ve got to that is ‘geo-sequestration’ (where we basically inject CO2 backing to the oil/coal seam), but there are many other types of artificial carbon sequestration techniques. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_sequestration has some fairly accurate explainations about the different types, and a few interesting links to follow.
    They all cost some money (oh noes!), and there’s not much confidence in their viability.

    but even if Global Warming does turn out to be real – there have to be limits!

    You’re right, to be honest, if we are going to be completely selfish: Global warming is going to hit westernised countries the least. We’ve got far more money and power (esp millitary power). We’re not going to have problems of drought, famine or disease. Developing countries certainly will start to have more drought and famine, which will lead to more people moving (refugees or IDPs) and eventually more wars over fewer resources.
    But, as you say “there have to be limits”, and helping developing countries is generally considered to be one of them.

    March 29th, 2007 at 9:26 am