Let me think for a while escreveu:O que é certo é que alguns gráficos usados como evidência de aquecimento pelos cientistas do IPCC são simplesmente ridículos. O exemplo abaixo, por exemplo, tem uma regularidade flagrante:
A regularidade deste gráfico, que mostra a variação de CO2 no Havaí, é muito (mas muito mesmo!) suspeita. Condições climáticas não levam à uma periodicidade tão definida. Um outro gráfico, usado inclusive como a maior evidência do aquecimento global, é o mostrado abaixo:
Este gráfico, com dados referentes ao EUA, embora seja mais passível de ser uma fonte fidedigna de informação, é por isto mesmo com tendências mais aleatórias.
São gráficos de duas coisas diferentes. O primeiro é de níveis de carbono, o outro de temperaturas.
No google, procurando por gráficos de "co2 levels", encontra-se um monte de outros gráficos similares ao primeiro, indicando que a conspiração é realmente poderosa, e os dados dos verdadeiros níveis de carbono ou são desconhecidos ou estão sendo abafados pela conspiração esquerdo-ecofacista do Al Gore
Esse fórum não aceita hotlink de miniaturas do google, mas é só
procurar Agora tentem fazer uma correlação entre os dois gráficos mostrados.
A linha verde mostra a tendência de aumento apesar das variações mais caóticas de temperatura... também não sei se funciona exatamente assim... fala-se te médias globais. Os EUA seriam uma amostra representativa das temperaturas globais?
Não digo que o aquecimento global seja uma fraude. Mas é, sem sombra de dúvida, uma idéia em terreno arenoso. Somente o princípio da precaução justifica um alarde fatídico. E, no mais, é claro que qualquer diminuição da ação antrópica sobre o meio é algo louvável. Mas não a defendam pelos motivos errados.
Eu já penso mais ou menos o inverso. Por tudo que ouço falar, as coisas são certas além do limite da dúvida razoável. Diferentemente do que alardeiam os defensores das teorias de conspiração pró-aquecimento ou conspirações pró-aquecimento antropogênico, a coisa atingiu um nível que pode ser considerado consensual ao longo das décadas, e os cientistas em si não tem sido exatamente alarmistas, mas consideravelmente conservadores, e até conservadores demais segundo alguns cientistas.
Já quanto a diminuições de emissões de gás e etc, eu não sei se a essa altura fará mais diferença. Mesmo que os níveis se estabelecessem onde estão agora e continuassem assim durante décadas, ou mesmo que diminuíssem aos níveis do começo da década magicamente e assim seguissem, a tendência seria ainda uma inércia de aquecimento. E esses cenários são bem pouco prováveis, uma vez que os países em desenvolvimento irão continuar a se desenvolver e etc. Com sorte o ciclo solar de 2020 ou por aí parece que se prevê que será um dos mais fracos dos últimos tempos, o que pode vir bem a calhar...
Sobre o "documentário", até um dos cientistas participantes reclamou de ter sido deturpado. Tem vários tópicos que abordaram...
o anátema escreveu:Resumindo: é um documentário fraudulento e sem-vergonha. Há um
consenso cientifico sobre aquecimento global ser causado pelo homem, bem como AIDS ser causada por HIV, ancestralidade comum universal, os remédios não serem a causa das doenças apesar de poderem ser prejudiciais à saúde se mal administrados, etc.
O aquecimento global
não foi inventado pela esquerda/Al Gore.
A mídia não favoreceu a uma certeza falsa sobre aquecimento global (ou evolução biológia, etc), mas justamente o contrário:
[...]
Academics have studied media coverage of climate change, and the results confirm climate scientists’ longstanding complaints. In a recent paper published in the journal Global Environmental Change, the scholars Maxwell T. Boykoff and Jules M. Boykoff analyzed coverage of the issue in The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, and the Los Angeles Times between 1988 and 2002. During this fourteen-year period, climate scientists successfully forged a powerful consensus on human-caused climate change. But reporting in these four major papers did not at all reflect this consensus.
[...]
Blinded by science: how "balanced" coverage lets the scientific fringe hijack reality - Chris Mooney__________________________
-
Climatologista(s) do site realclimate.org destrincha(m) o documentário, que já não apresentava argumento algum de novo-
Um dos cientistas participantes do documentário reclama de que na edição foi mal representado________________________________
Artigo sobre o "documentário" na wikipédia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_ ... ng_Swindle_________________________________
Da Royal Society:
Man made climate change: the real science10 Apr 2007
Science has established that it is very likely that ever increasing levels of carbon dioxide emissions from energy plants, other industry, cars, and airplanes along with deforestation are the crucial factors that have caused global average temperature increases over recent decades. Other factors do play a part but they cannot explain, on their own, the recent changes which threaten to fundamentally damage the world of tomorrow.
Those who seek to distort and undermine the science of climate change and deny the seriousness of the potential consequences of global warming put forward a range of arguments most of which misrepresent the existing research. It is vital that the scientific evidence on climate change is accurately represented.
Policymakers, industry and the public must make informed decisions about what actions to take rather than be misinformed by lobbyists for big business or programmes such as Channel 4's recent 'Great Global Warming Swindle'. The Royal Society has put together a review of some of these arguments in order to present an accurate account of what the weight of scientific evidence tells us.
Debate is crucial to science and the book will never close on the science of climate change. It is important that all aspects are adequately and thoroughly explored. However, the science is now convincing enough that to take no action on reducing carbon dioxide emissions would be irresponsible and very dangerous.
http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/news.asp?id=6245________________________________
Tópico sobre isso no fCC:
http://clubecetico.org/forum/index.php/ ... 845.0.html
o anátema escreveu:From Times Online
March 15, 2007
C4’s debate on global warming boils overSam Coates andn Mark Henderson
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 shit 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 changeClaim: 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
Source: Mark Henderson, Science Editor
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/u ... 517515.ece
Mais dois sites interessantes, em especial o primeiro:
[Skeptical science - examining the science of global warming skepticism] Skeptic Arguments
This is a list of every skeptic argument encountered online as well as how often each argument is used.
1 It's the sun 8.9% sun
2 Climate's changed before 7.8% change
3 There is no consensus 6.4% consensus
4 Surface temp is unreliable 5.7% surface
5 Models are unreliable 4.5% model
6 Al Gore got it wrong 4.3% gore
7 Ice age predicted in the 70's 3.9% ice70s
8 CO2 lags temperature 3.8% co2lag
9 Mars is warming 3.4% mars
10 Global warming is good 3.3% posneg
11 Antarctica is cooling/gaining ice 3.3% antarctica
12 1934 - hottest year on record 3.1% 1934
13 Hurricanes aren't linked to global warming 3.1% hurricane
14 It's cosmic rays 3.1% cosmic
15 We're heading into an ice age 2.6% newice
16 It's Urban Heat Island effect 2.6% uhi
17 It hasn't warmed since 1998 2.4% 1998
18 Other planets are warming 2.3% planet
19 Hockey stick was debunked 1.9% hockey
20 Greenland was green 1.9% greenland
21 It's water vapor 1.7% vapor
22 Mt. Kilimanjaro's ice loss is due to land use 1.6% kilimanjaro
23 We're coming out of an ice age 1.4% oldice
24 It cooled mid-century 1.4% midcen
25 Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions 1.3% manc02
26 It's freaking cold! 1.3% cold
27 It warmed before 1940 when CO2 was low 1.3% lowco2
28 Glaciers are growing 1.2% glacier
29 Neptune is warming 1.1% neptun
30 Greenland is cooler/gaining ice 1.1% greenl
31 Satellites show no warming in the troposphere 1.0% troposphere
32 Climate sensitivity is low 1.0% sensitivity
33 There is no empirical evidence 0.9% empirical
34 Jupiter is warming 0.8% jupiter
35 Scientists can't even predict the weather 0.8% weather
36 Less than half of published scientists endorse global warming 0.6% schulte
37 It's the ocean 0.5% ocean
38 It's aerosols 0.5% aerosols
39 It's volcanoes (or lack thereof) 0.4% volcano
40 CO2 measurements are suspect 0.4% co2sus
41 It's Solar Cycle Length 0.2% scl
42 It's methane 0.2% methane
43 Naomi Oreskes' study on consensus was flawed 0.2% oreskes
44 Water levels correlate with sunspots 0.2% water
45 Solar cycles cause global warming 0.1% solarcycle
46 The sun is getting hotter 0.1% hotsun
47 It's the ozone layer 0.0% ozone
_______________________________
[BBC] Climate scepticism: The top 10 Unravelling the sceptics
What are some of the reasons why "climate sceptics" dispute the evidence that human activities such as industrial emissions of greenhouse gases and deforestation are bringing potentially dangerous changes to the Earth's climate?
). Ele diz que já é altura de pensar seriamente em formas de resolver o problema, caso se chegue a qualquer ponto de não retorno.
