The Great Global Warming Swindle Documentary

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

Well, now I know how to directly embed images from other web locations without having to go through the cumbersome ATS upload and link process.


I'll take a look at the videos later. I'm always interested in what contrarian scientists have to say about the AGW phenomena.

I may not completely buy-in to the Anthropogenic part of the theory. But I do see Earth changes around me.

Here are a few observations I made about the nice graphs you linked:

It would be nice to get this chart with a little more granularity. I'm sure they are available, but this is just a cursory review, so it's not that important to me right now.

It's interesting that the number of hurricanes that we saw in the last decade was the most since the 1950's. Is it possible that the satellite data that we're currently using is more accurate than the data that was used before the "space age?" Or is this an indication of the beginning of a latter half of the 20th century lull?

This graph is limited to major quakes about 6.0. I wonder if a chart that includes smaller quakes, including aftershocks, would further reinforce the validity of this trend ?

This is another one of those strange trends that shows lower earthquake energy recorded between 1960 and 2000. I don't think we can write this one off to better instrumentation though. Is there something unique about this time period?

I seems reasonable that a lot of the acreage burned before 1960 was due to limited firefighting ability; at least compared to current capabilities. And the introduction of satellites could provide a more accurate accounting of the area actually affected.

But, It's interesting that we're seeing that same multi-decadal decrease from 1960's until the 2000's. Then there's an uptick starting at the beginning of this century.

It would be nice to get a few more years of historical data on this chart.

But, we're seeing a significant trend in this graph indicating that after 1974 there was a lull in the number of strong tornadoes until the current decade. From the late 1970's until the 2010's the number was relatively consistent.

It would be nice to get a little more historical data on this too. Especially to see if the snow cover trend fits in with the other observations that I've made about the 1960's to 2000's.

However, one thing that stands out to me is that while the snow cover start dates are somewhat consistent, the snow cover end dates are inching higher. Meaning that Spring weather is happening earlier in the year than before. And this trend also seems to be happening since the early 1970's.

Boy I remember the snows of 1978. School closed for most of a month and a half. We missed so many days that we were forced to go to school for 1/2 days on Saturday to make up the difference. Took an act of the State Legislature to reduce the number of required days for a school year.

I can see there was a trend from the mid 1980's to about the mid 2000's where the snow extent seems to go into a lull.

It was in the mid 2000's decade where I saw another of those school years where the kids missed about a month of school because of the deep snows. This time it was my daughter. Now I understand why my mother was going nuts back in 1978.

This is another graph that could benefit from more historical data.

One trend I see in this graph is that from the mid 1990's till now, the global hurricane frequency has shown a trend toward decrease. However, the frequency of major hurricanes has slightly trended toward an increase since the mid 1970's.

****************************************

In summary, I believe many of the Earth changes we're seeing in the last few decades is some sort of relatively short-term cyclic change. I don't know what has driven that change. Furthermore, if we were to look at longer term trends, would this lull stand out?

Also, as my Climate Change Contrarian colleague, DBCowboy, has often observed, the datapoint measurement and aggregation methodologies have evolved over the years. Older historical data is significantly more imprecise than current measurements. So while I will grant climate scientists the benefit of the doubt with respect to their trend calculations, I believe that it is reasonable to harbor some doubt about their deep historical data estimates.

For the record, I accept the evidence that anthropogenic effects have a significant impact on climate change; perhaps even the entire set of Earth changes that are documented here, in these charts. However, like a few others, I believe there are other major factors at play that we don't yet fully understand. For instance, our knowledge of how the Earth is influenced by the Sun's activity, or lack of activity, is increasing on a nearly daily basis.

Hopefully the recently-launched Parker Solar Probe and other planned space-based instrumentation packages will help to expand our understanding of Sol's terrestrial influence. And those factors can be better integrated into the climate change models.

-dex

Unfortunately I believe the greatest swindle is in the reality of climate change.

Even more unfortunate is that most of humanity will only realize it when we've crossed the tipping point into a catastrophic runaway warming scenario.

We're closer than you think, forget the debatable data and politics, the signs are out there everywhere now.

imo

originally posted by: Greven
a reply to: ChaoticOrder

Anthropogenic global warming theory hinges on three things:

1) Humans are emitting CO2.
2) CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
3) Greenhouse gases redistribute energy in the atmosphere.

Which of these 3 is false?

Oh, right, did you know there are cameras that can see it, now?

The video in the OP mentions that the Earth would be uninhabitable without greenhouse gases, and that both CO2 and H2O are greenhouse gases - which are both quite true - about 15 minutes in.

Soon after, they've constructed a strawman where greenhouse gases should warm the atmosphere further away from the surface. In reality, greenhouse gases restrict the flow of energy away from the surface. Then, they destroy this strawman by accurately stating that it's warming near the surface faster than further up in the atmosphere.

Shocking! An increase in gases that redistribute warmth towards the surface warms the surface faster than the rest of the atmosphere!
What a farce - one no longer worth watching beyond that.

1. CO2 is 400 PARTS PER MILLION in the atmosphere, a TRACE gas.
TRACE.
Comprende ?

2. Water vapor is 10 TIMES more prevalent in the atmosphere than CO2 and is also a much more powerful greenhouse gas.

3. As Earth warms, a planet 3/4 covered with water, by definition more clouds will form.

4. As more clouds appear, the Earth's albedo will increase, more of the Sun's energy will be reflected back to outer space. Earth cools.
This is precisely why IPCC "models" have ALL failed and have vastly overestimated future warming, and are about to get crushed when temperatures will inevitably decrease.


Earth has been and continues to be a self-regulating system.

originally posted by: Greven
There is absolutely no reason for the upper atmosphere to be heating up faster than the surface.

Why do you think this would be the case?

They explain why this is expected in the doco at around the 14:30 mark.

It doesn't matter anymore where you are on this issue.

Record heat, wildfires, coral reefs bleaching and dying (major piece in the chain of sea life)

Some know the truth, but aren't sure about the cause.

Some still believe we can somehow stop it.

Some just want to hide it and keep everything moving along for as long as possible while playing politics with the relevant information.

You could go on and on from here, ultimately it doesn't matter now.

Perhaps denial and remaining oblivious for as long as possible is best now.

imo

originally posted by: ausername
Unfortunately I believe the greatest swindle is in the reality of climate change.

Even more unfortunate is that most of humanity will only realize it when we've crossed the tipping point into a catastrophic runaway warming scenario.

We're closer than you think, forget the debatable data and politics, the signs are out there everywhere now.

imo

And that's the unfortunate part. Even if we can't fully agree on a cause, the reality is that our climate, and the greater environment itself, is changing.

Perhaps our efforts at curbing the emission of greenhouse gases are well meaning. And, eventually, there will be some effect from decreasing those atmospheric constituents. But, I think it's too little, and too late, at this point. We're headed for a change that will have far-reaching and long-lasting effects on our civilization.

I'm of the opinion that we are going to have to be ready to adapt. We can't ignore these Earth changes exist just because of the political ramifications of blaming humans as the cause. If necessary, we need to divorce the "anthropogenic" factor from the "climate change" factor, and realize that the two are related, but they proceed independently of one another.

It's interesting to me that even in the absence of government regulation, the US is transitioning to more environmentally friendly energy generation. Yet, the current US federal, and some state, governments are taking actions to deliberately ignore the coming effects of climate change; just to make political points. The AGW deniers are convoluting the man-made aspect of the problem with the problem itself. So the politicians must do the same in order to appease their supporters.

-dex

originally posted by: Greven
a reply to: ChaoticOrder

Anthropogenic global warming theory hinges on three things:

1) Humans are emitting CO2.
2) CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
3) Greenhouse gases redistribute energy in the atmosphere.

Which of these 3 is false?

Oh, right, did you know there are cameras that can see it, now?

The video in the OP mentions that the Earth would be uninhabitable without greenhouse gases, and that both CO2 and H2O are greenhouse gases - which are both quite true - about 15 minutes in.

Soon after, they've constructed a strawman where greenhouse gases should warm the atmosphere further away from the surface. In reality, greenhouse gases restrict the flow of energy away from the surface. Then, they destroy this strawman by accurately stating that it's warming near the surface faster than further up in the atmosphere.

Shocking! An increase in gases that redistribute warmth towards the surface warms the surface faster than the rest of the atmosphere!
What a farce - one no longer worth watching beyond that.

Hate to break it to you but that is a FLIR camera. If it was a camera that picked up "CO2" gas, it wouldn't light up on things like a hot muffler, it would only show the end of the muffler, but it shows the hot gas coming out, which a large part is hot water.

It's more than political
It's become a religion to some.
Religion and science aren't exactly sympatico.
There are "Creation scientists" too, many are credentialed.
Must we also believe everything they tell us too?

originally posted by: Groot

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: Groot
Very interesting and spot on docu with real facts.

They laid out basically what I have thought all the time. Human's have very little impact on the climate. It's the sun and vapor !
If co2 was affecting our climate, the upper atmosphere would be heating up at a faster rate than the surface. But , in fact, it's just the opposite.

There is absolutely no reason for the upper atmosphere to be heating up faster than the surface.

Why do you think this would be the case?

Global warming. The extra carbon dioxide increases the greenhouse effect. More heat is trapped by the atmosphere.

Did you not watch the documentary ?

The 'documentary' affirms that the Earth's surface is warming faster than the mid troposphere.

The claim in the 'documentary' is that the mid troposphere should warm faster than near the surface.

It's a stupid claim. Think about it - is CO2 being released 4km+ up or is it being released at the surface?

originally posted by: M5xaz

originally posted by: Greven
a reply to: ChaoticOrder

Anthropogenic global warming theory hinges on three things:

1) Humans are emitting CO2.
2) CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
3) Greenhouse gases redistribute energy in the atmosphere.

Which of these 3 is false?

Oh, right, did you know there are cameras that can see it, now?

The video in the OP mentions that the Earth would be uninhabitable without greenhouse gases, and that both CO2 and H2O are greenhouse gases - which are both quite true - about 15 minutes in.

Soon after, they've constructed a strawman where greenhouse gases should warm the atmosphere further away from the surface. In reality, greenhouse gases restrict the flow of energy away from the surface. Then, they destroy this strawman by accurately stating that it's warming near the surface faster than further up in the atmosphere.

Shocking! An increase in gases that redistribute warmth towards the surface warms the surface faster than the rest of the atmosphere!
What a farce - one no longer worth watching beyond that.

1. CO2 is 400 PARTS PER MILLION in the atmosphere, a TRACE gas.
TRACE.
Comprende ?

2. Water vapor is 10 TIMES more prevalent in the atmosphere than CO2 and is also a much more powerful greenhouse gas.

3. As Earth warms, a planet 3/4 covered with water, by definition more clouds will form.

4. As more clouds appear, the Earth's albedo will increase, more of the Sun's energy will be reflected back to outer space. Earth cools.
This is precisely why IPCC "models" have ALL failed and have vastly overestimated future warming, and are about to get crushed when temperatures will inevitably decrease.


Earth has been and continues to be a self-regulating system.

Sure, CO2 is less prevalent than water vapor.

Water vapor is, however as you understand, dependent upon temperature - warmer means more, ceteris paribus.

Consider the problem with this... the Earth only receives enough energy from the Sun for it to be 255 K - well below freezing; indeed, that is the average temperature of the Earth's atmosphere.

So, if water vapor is dependent upon heat, and the Earth without a greenhouse effect would be freezing at the surface, what do you suppose warmed the Earth enough for that not to be the case?

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder

originally posted by: Greven
There is absolutely no reason for the upper atmosphere to be heating up faster than the surface.

Why do you think this would be the case?

They explain why this is expected in the doco at around the 14:30 mark.

The people in the 'documentary' can't escape the reality that the surface is warming.

I suppose they decided that if they claimed that the mid troposphere (4km+ above the surface) ought to warm faster than the surface (where CO2 is emitted), then they could could claim it wasn't CO2 - while sticking with the reality that the surface is warming.

Except that is stupid, and there's no reason why the mid troposphere would warm faster than the surface. CO2 tends to be mixed pretty well, though it is denser than average.

originally posted by: DigginFoTroof

originally posted by: Greven
a reply to: ChaoticOrder

Anthropogenic global warming theory hinges on three things:

1) Humans are emitting CO2.
2) CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
3) Greenhouse gases redistribute energy in the atmosphere.

Which of these 3 is false?

Oh, right, did you know there are cameras that can see it, now?

The video in the OP mentions that the Earth would be uninhabitable without greenhouse gases, and that both CO2 and H2O are greenhouse gases - which are both quite true - about 15 minutes in.

Soon after, they've constructed a strawman where greenhouse gases should warm the atmosphere further away from the surface. In reality, greenhouse gases restrict the flow of energy away from the surface. Then, they destroy this strawman by accurately stating that it's warming near the surface faster than further up in the atmosphere.

Shocking! An increase in gases that redistribute warmth towards the surface warms the surface faster than the rest of the atmosphere!
What a farce - one no longer worth watching beyond that.

Hate to break it to you but that is a FLIR camera. If it was a camera that picked up "CO2" gas, it wouldn't light up on things like a hot muffler, it would only show the end of the muffler, but it shows the hot gas coming out, which a large part is hot water.

I'm aware that this is a FLIR camera with a filter. You still see the gases being emitted.

A large part is also CO2, unless you want to say physics is wrong and burning hydrocarbons doesn't produce CO2 along with H2O.

Both would be visible to a FLIR, and it would be difficult to separate the two, since they overlap wavelengths.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

last time I watched one of these envronmental docos' I learned the envronmental movement is owned by the oil industy.

Only a couple of days agao i wached an excellant video on smart meters and it seems the people behind smart meters are the oil industry.

a reply to: Greven

Oh, right, did you know there are cameras that can see it, now?

No there's not.

That's simply a tinted infrared camera. What you're seeing is warm water vapor in most cases, hot gases in a few others. Burning hydrocarbons produce both water vapor and carbon dioxide.

TheRedneck

Climate change/global warming is the 'outside threat' that is supposed to 'unite' the world.
One governing body...one religion....Totalitarianism.

Can we even be sure that there are 7.6 billion people on the planet?
Don't we just get told these 'facts' by people who want to control/dominate the world?
It is called the 'Scientific Dictatorship'.

originally posted by: M5xaz

originally posted by: Greven
a reply to: ChaoticOrder
(..)
4. As more clouds appear, the Earth's albedo will increase, more of the Sun's energy will be reflected back to outer space. Earth cools.
(..)

Venus would like to know more about this. It is hot down there. Clouds everywhere.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Greven

Oh, right, did you know there are cameras that can see it, now?

No there's not.

That's simply a tinted infrared camera. What you're seeing is warm water vapor in most cases, hot gases in a few others. Burning hydrocarbons produce both water vapor and carbon dioxide.

TheRedneck

Read the thread.

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
Climate change/global warming is the 'outside threat' that is supposed to 'unite' the world.
One governing body...one religion....Totalitarianism.

Can we even be sure that there are 7.6 billion people on the planet?
Don't we just get told these 'facts' by people who want to control/dominate the world?
It is called the 'Scientific Dictatorship'.

The same 'scientific dictatorship' that brought you the internet, cell phones, etc?

Clearly it ain't working since nothing much is being done about it, which means we're screwed at this point.

a reply to: Greven

I did.

The only way to 'see' carbon dioxide is by using spectroscopy, and even then you're looking at mostly water vapor. The spectral lines overlap. This oft-used myth that tries to show pictures of carbon dioxide is just a good example of how disingenuous Global Warming is, and I call it out whenever it pops up. It's pure propagandized poppy-cock.

TheRedneck

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

I find it interesting that Youtube will not allow download of this video. You can search Youtube and find about 4 accounts have uploaded this video, and on all of them the download is unavailable. I thought my plugin had gone wonky... nope. I checked for updates. Then I checked to see if other videos are able to be downloaded with my two plugins. Yes. Other videos can be downloaded, but not the Global Warming Swindle.

So Google, strangely enough, gave up this link....
Global Warming Swindle

You can right click and "save link as..." from that page.

Youtube's bias is becoming very apparent like a child's temper tantrum.