solar swindle
I did not watch the Global Warming Swindle, but I saw the website, and there is some discussion about it. Stoat handles it here and here, realclimate has an article, and In The Green has a deconstruction.

But I think one point hasn’t been handled enough, although both Stoat and realclimate mention it: the apparent connection between solar activity and global warming. Channel4 shows a graph (see picture above). There are a few peculiarities which can be noted by just looking at the graph: it stops at 1980, thus omitting the dramatic rise since 1980, and there is no explanation what is meant by ‘solar’ on the right axis. It turns out that it is the Geissberg cycle. The data are apparently from a paper by Svensmark and Christensen. A paper by Damon and Laut has analyzed those data, and leaves no prisoners:

However, close analysis of the central graphs
in all of these articles reveals questionable
handling of the underlying physical data.
In the 1991 article, the impressive agreement
of the solar curve with terrestrial temperatures
during the global warming of the recent decennia
had been a major factor in the article’s strong
impact. But this agreement was actually an
artifact: it had simply been obtained by adding, to a heavily smoothed (“filtered”) curve, four
additional points covering the period of global
warming, which were only partially filtered or not filtered at all.

Damon and Laut 1

But not only that. There are much more data available. Damon and Laut show another figure, showing temperature and Geissberg data from 1700 to 2000 (red line shows smoothed Geissberg data, green and blue the temperature):

Damon and Laut 2

There is not so much correlation any more. If there were, we would have had warming events like today around 1850 and 1760. Damon and Laut remark:

If Friis-Christensen and Lassen [1991] had been correct, there should have been 11 global warming events during that time [ in the last 12,000 years ] equivalent to the contemporaneous event. However, the current event is unique and obviously of anthropogenic origin.

I suggest to read the whole paper.

Update: Reasic has the so far most extensive rebuttal here.



Filed under global warming

48 responses to “Swindlers

  1. Very nicely done. Damon & Laut (and other works by Laut) have shown the folly of a lot of the solar-connection works, but haven’t gotten enough exposure outside the peer-reviewed community. Nice summary of the situation.

  2. Pingback: The Great Global Warming Swindle » Celsias

  3. Yeah. Although the globe’s obviously getting warmer, I don’t think we can pinpoint the cause. There’s just too many variables that play in.


  4. reasic


    You bring up a common concern of those who are skeptical of modern climate science. However, the latest IPCC report summary, which represents a culmination of all of the scientific research to date on the subject, is 90%+ sure that the major factor in the warming we’re experiencing is human activity.

    Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations. This is an advance since the TAR’s conclusion that “most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations”. Discernible human influences now extend to other aspects of climate, including ocean warming, continental-average temperatures, temperature extremes and wind patterns (see Figure SPM-4 and Table SPM-2).

    In case you’re not aware, “anthropogenic” just means man-made. Also, they define “very likely” as a 90%+ confidence level.

    There are definitely many variables at play, but each are understood fairly well. On page 4 of the summary, you can see a chart of all of the “radiative forcing components”, as they are called, and their respective influences on our climate.

    I know it seems that there is just so much out there that we can’t possibly understand it all, but you must also consider the vast amount of research that has been done to this point. The fact is that this is now fairly well understood. There are admittedly areas for improvement, as with anything else, but there is definitely no reason to simply toss our current understanding out the window. If you look it over, I’m sure you’ll be convinced that we know more about our climate than you think we do.

  5. Santangelo Forbes


    these reasons are all a cause, but the real reason for global warming is in the Bible…..the days will be as they were in the time of Noah….we hear, and its’ going to be like an end time scenario to bring the onset of the coming of the anti-christ and the end will soon follow…..these earth changes are from God, not man or nature.

    In anycase, if science explained global warming, I would say it was due to mobile phones and EMF technology. The use of microwaves has warmed the earth and caused increases in cancer and temperature. Also the HAARP weapon the USA has, is also to blame !

  6. smp

    I will agree with Arem. While the debate “heats up” (pun fully intended) on why the planet is warming, I don’t see enough evidence to support a causation correlation on why. In the mean time, I predict that we continue to see more funds and laws and potential taxes to fuel the debate on either side of the fence.

    I can statistically show that a kid exists in the proximity of ice cream consistently (positively correlated.) I am not sure that we can conclude that ice cream is responsible for kids or that kids are responsible for ice cream. If I can reduce the ice cream pandemic by eliminating the number of kids, (knowing all of the other interrelated variables) is that “test” truly scientific?

  7. smp,

    You seem to think that we just made the observation that the temperature rises and at the same time observe that CO2 increases and jump from just those two observations to the conclusion that there is a causation. Not so. You are right that correlation does not necessarily mean causation – the same way we could argue that the decline in the number of pirates causes GW.

    The important thing is that we know how greenhouse gases affect climate. It has even been predicted hundred years ago by Arrhenius. It is simple physics. In a nutshell: The sun radiates mostly in the visible spectrum, for which CO2 is transparent. The same amount of energy has to be reradiated back to space by the earth. Ideally, the sun and the earth emit a black body spectrum. Because the temperature is lower, the earth does this mostly in the infrared spectrum. But for IR, CO2 is not transparent, so it absorbs the radiation coming from below. It also reradiates it, but in all directions, and half of this back to the surface. This mechanism is well known, and has been for a long time.

    Furthermore, climate models, which include much more complex physics (including changing sun radiation, vulcanic eruptions, ozone, sulfate polution) show the same behavior: temperature rise with CO2, no rise without. It’s the next best thing to doing experiments (we do not have enough time and a few dozen spare earths to do experiments with…). See for example this graph.

    And, other data also confirm that it is indeed a greenhouse effect and not an external factor like increased sun radiation: the lower athmosphere is warming while the upper athmosphere is cooling; and night time temperatures rise more than daytime temperatures. Both effects are predicted by the greenhouse effect.

  8. reasic

    Well done, fermi. I’m very impressed with your response. I couldn’t have said it better myself. 🙂


    fermi’s right. It’s not as simple as one is happening at the same time as the other, so one must be causing the other. I would hope that we would not have invested this much time and energy into researching this phenomenon, if this were all the evidence we had that we are causing global warming.

  9. Santangelo,

    you give a perfect example why unquestioned faith in religion is dangerous. The end times have been predicted countless times, and it seems that every bad event (famines, droughts, floods, plague) is seen as a ‘sign’ that it is going to happen soon. It didn’t. If we had listened to those opinions millions of people would still die of the plague, because according to the bible we cannot do anything anyway. Science has shown us what we can do.

    As for your point on EMF and mobile phones, see my comment above to smp, it applies the same way.

  10. smp

    reasic and fermi,

    I am nto implying that proximity equal no cause and effect, I am simply saying that it never concludes cause and effect. it is not a logical arguement to assume that proximity equals one causing the other. They might both be the by-product of a third (or more likely a number of variables.) This was my very point.

    And I think that we tredding very close to pseudo-science when we take a jump from (or even to) “we know how greenhouse gasses effect climate” as if some diffinative conclusion has reach the minds of the scientific community with regard to “we know how” equals “ergo we know that” it is in fact greenhouse gasses that are the very cause of global warming. I could say that “we know how” but it is a “faith” stretch to say that in the case of global warming it is the very reason.

    This is like saying “kids can make ice cream” … and we know how that is possible. But there is a gap between that statement and the conclusion that “therefor, kids made this ice cream.” I want to state that I am not saying “Kids did not make this ice cream.” I am simply saying I do not yet agree with the jump to “we know how kids can make ice cream, therefor kids made this ice cream.”

    The devil is in the details.

  11. smp

    I would also like the make the point that we can also observe the same conclusions about any other theory, including natural cycles (including any expected randomness) of the relationship between the earth and the sun.

    We should keep studying because the earth keeps on the warming trend. period.

    It concerns me the statement about “I would hope that we would not have invested this much time and energy into researching this phenomenon, if this were all the evidence we had that we are causing global warming.”

    If a complicated theory is proved wrong, then, science would say, one way or the other, the “tests” were a success. It is a failure and a violation of the scientific method from the get-go if we are so worried about the costs of research involved that we assume that “high cost” should equal positively correlated results. We have to be open to the theory being more right or more wrong in it’s percentages (in terms of risk and probability.)

    This is an accusation laid against the “global warming / green house effect” community (that so much time/effort/money can’t be wrong – so be sure it looks right)… I surely hope nobody here would agree with that logic. Let’s stick to science.

    If the earth is on an impending (or reversable) course with an dangerous warming trend, then it is worth pursuing this research even if it proves someone’s soapbox wrong.

  12. reasic

    The devil is in the details.

    …and the details are on page 4 of the latest IPCC report summary, where you will find a chart of the radiative forcing components that all contribute to changing our climate. The chart specifically details each component’s contribution. If I understand your argument, you’re saying that we can’t possibly know that humans are causing warming. We may know that CO2 can cause warming, but that doesn’t mean it does. Did I get it? Well, if this is your argument, I think you’re oversimplifying the issue. Scientists know that there are many factors responsible for the warming of our climate. However, they acknowledge that human activity is responsible for the majority of it. Much more is known about our climate than many skeptics would make it seem.

  13. smp,

    it’s a false analogy. It’s not that CO2 can cause rising temperatures. It will cause rising temperatures. If the CO2 rises and the temperature would not, then we would need an explanation.

    Also, if the temperature rises, but because of another reason, you will also have to explain that. You now owe us two explanations.

    I know that there might be other factors, and I have no problem with investigating them. Research is being done on that subject, but so far all alternative explanations have failed. Sun radiation can be excluded, because that did not change significantly. The cosmic ray theory is rather shaky.

    The theory my post is about (Geissberg cycles) showed just an apparent correlation, and by your reasoning we should not accept it. And you are right. We also still wouldn’t have an explanation why those cycles would affect climate. But, if you look more into the data, even that correlation breaks down.

    So, to summarize, we have a correlation, an explanation, predictions for the theory which have been observed and no alternative explanation. I think the case is pretty much closed, and anything else is just wishful thinking.

  14. smp

    I think the whole “no alternatives” because alternatives are “shaky” explanation is ok to hold to, since it is in the realm of opinion. I will grant you that,… meaning there is plenty of room for your (analytical) opinion. I don’t agree that there is much more about climate on this green earth that is known. If you take the stand that such is true, and that others are simply thinking wishfully, then congradulations, you just invented a new religion.

    This is not political science. One doesn’t get to say “there are no alternatives” or that explanations are owed otherwise we must assume your assertations are correct. You have to prove to the degree that you claim and you simply cannot. The case is on those who are attempting to prove one and it is either convincing or it is not. If I say there is a God and you disgree, I cannot say that unless you prove me wrong, I am therefor right. However, I am absolutely up for any notion of the “highly probable” and I think there is quite enough viable “alternatives” that counter the “science” in the IPCC report.

    I digress. I guess I am of the wishful thinkers that are holding my judgements for more substantial evidence, despite the outcome (whether in support of or against the theories promoted here.) I am absolutely in favor of those wishful thinkers who will not close the case until the case is actually closed. Until then we will have to agree to disagree. I will say, however, that the IPCC report does not draw the conclusions in their finality that the voices here are doing, which I find facinating.

  15. Pingback: Channel 4 distances itself from the ‘Swindle’ « Fermi Paradox

  16. Pingback: 56th Skeptic Circle is up « Fermi Paradox

  17. Mark Levin

    There are 2 problems with these discussions. One is that like evolution, global warming is a scientific hypothesis that cannot be proven absolutely (at least until the predictions come to pass). The other is simply that the solution to global warming is the same as the solution to our dwindling fossil fuel reserves, which is to find alternate energy resources. While it may take somewhat longer (say 100 years) to run out of coal than for global warming to become a serious threat, there is no good reason not to make research and use of alternate energy sources a priority. One other thing that bothers me about the comments is the lack of scientific references. So I provide one of my own – http://www.aip.org/history/climate/
    This website discusses in detail the research that has lead to the current scientific consensus on global warming. Thanks for the time and space to comment.

  18. LogicallySpeaking


    I’m a little confused as to what you’re saying is uncertain. Indisputable facts:

    – Humans are causing an increase in atmospheric concentration of CO2.
    – CO2 absorbs strongly in the infrared.
    – The Earth radiates in the infrared.
    – Absorbed radiation in the atmospheric is re-radiated isotropically.

    As such, there is absolutely no question that CO2 increases the Earth’s average surface temperature. By how much is another matter, but there is absolutely no question that greenhouse gases cause warming.

    That said, there also very little uncertainty left in how much warming is caused by CO2 and greenhouse gases in general.

    As far as alternatives to greenhouse gas induced warming, the only one which isn’t disproven by evidence is Lindzen’s iris effect (essentially to do with cloud dynamics) – there’s no evidence to support it either. Observations disprove all other “alternatives” offered, which includes solar variability. So it is essentially accurate to say there are no alternatives, provided you require alternatives to be supported by evidence.

    Finally, it seems to me like you’re just unaware of much of the science. There are certainly aspects of the climate which are still relatively uncertain (the oceans, for instance, and clouds to some degree), but there is a lot of our climate that is very well understood.

  19. Thanks, Mark, for the link. I have seen that site before and liked it, but somehow forgot about it.

    As for coal ressources, I looked it up in wikipedia, and according to it there is enough coal for another 600 years at the current consumption level – which I find worrying. There are ideas to convert coal to gasoline, so hypothetically we can be independent of oil one day and use just coal. For a few hundred years.

    I often hear that ‘Oh, in the future we will find a way out’. Thing is, the future is now. It is now that we have to do the research and begin to replace fossil fuel sources with renewable sources. This transition will take time. If we do it later, it will be too late.

  20. reasic


    You wouldn’t happen to be THE Mark Levin, would you?

    One is that like evolution, global warming is a scientific hypothesis that cannot be proven absolutely (at least until the predictions come to pass).

    I must assume that by “global warming”, you mean “anthropogenic global warming”. Regardless, I think you’re mistaken. This seems to be an odd statement, coming from someone who is concerned about the “lack of scientific references”. There is a mountain of evidence that points to AGW. It has been my experience that most skeptics simply turn the other way and dismiss much of it without fair consideration or any evidence to the contrary. As LogicallySpeaking has so eloquently pointed out, there is a distinct relationship between CO2 concentrations and global average temperature. So far, I have not seen any credible evidence that would suggest otherwise.

    The other is simply that the solution to global warming is the same as the solution to our dwindling fossil fuel reserves, which is to find alternate energy resources.

    I agree that this would be a major help, which is why I am continually disappointed when President Bush and many other conservatives continue to push for drilling in environmentally sensitive areas as a solution to our energy needs, as opposed to emphasizing cleaner alternatives.

    However, I think your statement misses another crucial step for taking action to stop global warming: curbing greenhouse gas emissions. If we simply continue to increase our GHG emissions over the next several decades, while we wait for a viable alternative fuel, we will cause much more warming to take place, which could have disastrous effects. So, in addition to researching alternative fuels and other energy sources, we must also curb industrial emissions, improve fuel economy, etc.

    I will look over your link. There is a lot of information there, so it’ll take a while.

  21. Pingback: 800-year CO2 Lag Explained « Reasic

  22. Only problem is that as they said the world has been warmer in times when there was no industrial activity. Thus my atheism when it comes to MMGW – (man made global warming ) ….. Do they issue you guys robes when you become such true believers? Because I would really like an MMGW robe. I hear they are made of plush velvet crushed red velvet.

  23. reasic


    First of all, who is “they”, and why are “they” more credible than most climate scientists? Secondly, there is no doubt that the Earth has gone through its own natural variations. However, through scientific research we have come to understand the physical properties of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere and how they contribute to the warming of our climate. So, outside of the natural variation, which is still occurring, there is now an additional factor: human activity. This is because we are introducing an unnatural variable into the equation – we are emitting tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. No one is claiming that the natural process doesn’t exist. We are only stating that there is now an additional human factor to consider.

  24. Fred,

    I have no idea how the fact that the climate has changed in the past is an argument against AGW. Sure the climate was different, it was a lot warmer at times and also colder. There are different factors which influence climate, for example orbital changes of the earth (like the Milankovitch cycles which caused the ice ages), changes in solar radiation, the arrangement of the continents on the earth, the composition of the atmosphere and change of albedo. Of all those influences mentioned, none has changed significantly in the last 100 years or so except the concentration of greenhouse gases, and that matches well what humans have emitted in that time.

  25. Oh, I forgot to mention: my last post deals exactly with the climate in the past. It shows how we can learn from the past, and apply that knowledge to the present.

  26. Pingback: Swindled by the "Great Global Warming Swindle" « Idaho Climate Action Network

  27. doorman

    I am not convinced that global warming is from man made CO2.

    A. CO2 levels have increased from 280-380ppm
    B. Human industrial activity only accounts for a very small percentage of total worldwide CO2 Emmissions.
    C. Since the CO2 increase is 35%, how can humans activity which accounts for a very small percent of total CO2 emmissions, have increased CO2 levels 35%?
    D. With the accepted 800 year lag in CO2 levels after a temperature change, we need to look at events 800 years ago to see what other causes there could be for the current increases in CO2. Also, considering that the oceans are the greatest source of CO2 emmissions, and current ocean conditions may be based on events up to 10,000 years ago, we also need to look at events that happened 10,000 year ago that also might be affecting CO2 levels.

    And yet the AGW fundamentalists, discount all these potential reasons of increased CO2 levels, and blame the majority of increases on human activity and conclude that hence the greenhouse warming we are seeing is caused by human activity.

    I need to see a graph of all CO2 emmission levels on one graph. I want to see the amount of CO2 Increase on this same graph, from human activity. I want to see a direct correlation between human produced CO2 Only, with all other CO2 sources filtered out and normalized, and temperature. I’ve seen the IPCC graphs, and this is not what they show.

  28. doorman,

    glad you asked:
    A: true
    B: false. This is a calculation everybody can do for himself. What you need (all units metric):
    The atmospheric pressure is equivalent to 10.2 tons (1.02e+4 kg) per square metre. The surface area of the earth is 510,065,600 km² =5.100656e+14 m². The concentration of carbon dioxide by weight is 0.0582% (all values from the wikipedia). Now you just need to multiply all this together, and you get the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere: 3.027953e+15 kg = 3.027953e+12 tons, or around 3,000 gigatons. Repeat the calculation in case I messed it up.

    Okay, now compare this with the world carbon dioxide emission rate, which was according to this source (just googled) 25,028 million tons = 25.028 gigatons in 2003. So we could double the current amount in a little more than 100 years, but we just need 35% of the original amount, which was 280 ppm. We started in 1850 or so, but of course the rate has increased since then. But I hope you get the idea. You can compare that with the rate of the volcanoes, and I have a post about that here.

    Your point C is then answered as well. Let me answer your point D in another comment, this is already too long…

  29. So, now for your point D. You wrote:

    With the accepted 800 year lag in CO2 levels after a temperature change, we need to look at events 800 years ago to see what other causes there could be for the current increases in CO2. Also, considering that the oceans are the greatest source of CO2 emmissions, and current ocean conditions may be based on events up to 10,000 years ago, we also need to look at events that happened 10,000 year ago that also might be affecting CO2 levels.

    The termination of the last ice age was triggered by a rise in temperature, most likely by an increase in insolation in the Arctic. This was most likely caused by the Milankovitch cycles, see my post here (you should also follow the links there). The (local, in the Arctic) rise in temperature caused the ice shields to retreat, thereby decreasing the albedo which lead to more warming, and the levels of carbon dioxide to rise by outgassing from the ocean (warmer water can hold less carbon dioxide). This lead to even more warming. The initial trigger is now gone, but the carbon dioxide and still lower albedo stabilized the climate. The 800 year lag roughly matches the turnaround time of the ocean currents, so that may be where the lag time is coming from. You may also want to see this post on realclimate or this post by reasic.

    Another thing, related to my previous comment: of course the calculation has been done more precisely before, and it is found that a large part of the CO2 we emit does not stay in the atmosphere, but is absorbed by the oceans. This can also be seen by the increasing acidity of the oceans, and of course by analyzing the CO2 concentration. So, the oceans are definetly not the source.

  30. I want to see a direct correlation between human produced CO2 Only, with all other CO2 sources filtered out and normalized, and temperature. I’ve seen the IPCC graphs, and this is not what they show.

    Well, I hope I have shown that the human caused CO2 is the major factor, since it has been stable before the industrial age, as you hopefully have seen in my post about the volcanoes.

    You may want to see this graph about climate attribution, which clearly shows that after around 1960 CO2 is the most dominant factor causing the warming.

  31. Pingback: A Simple Calculation « Fermi Paradox

  32. stonemonkey

    Its interesting reading this blog.

    I have watched both the “Great Global Warming Swindle” and “Inconvenient Truth”. One made me want to hug the Earth, and the other to buy a hummer. You said that you had not watched the documentary GGWS, maybe you should to get a balanced opinion. I found that both documentaries raised good points. And all theories can be proven or dis-proven.

    Personally I think we are lost in the details, and there are only a few things to think about.

    1. We have had quite high and long warming periods in the past that were not caused by humans and the current warming trend nobody can deny started well before industrialization, ergo, climate change is not solely driven by humans, and any claim that it is, is false. Our present temperatures have also not gone above those past temps. (yet).

    2. Humans do create carbon, which is a greenhouse gas (albeit a minor part of the atmosphere), ergo, humans do play a role (minor or major) in warming the Earth, and we must bear some responsibility for it.

    3. The whole system of the Earth is vastly complex and as smart as we are and as much data as we have I still think that anybody that claims they fully understand how all things interact is simply egotistical. Chaos theory and Murphys’ Law show that nothing can be perfect or predicted.

    4. Fundamentally whether you believe in anthropogenic Global Warming, Cyclical Warming or influence of the Sun, its happening. Even if its a natural phenomenon and we can have gas guzzling hummers for everybody, its still going to happen; and in the past those periods of warming were for hundreds of years.

    I’m totally in favour of electric cars, biodiesel, solar panels, wind energy, stopping unplanned deforestation and the like. There are lots of other reasons to do and have these things than simply Global Warming, such as renewable energy , lack of dependence on foreign oil, improvement of Quality of Life, cleaning up of polluted areas (think of China), soil erosion and crop failure etc, etc. You don’t have to believe in Global Warming to think these ideas are sound.

    I personally believe that the topic of adaption is a rather more pertinent issue than whats causing it. We know its happening and will probably continue to happen whether we stop all carbon emissions today, thanks to the oceans absorbing warmth and taking ages to change. We should be more concerned about where our crops and livestock are going to be grown and raised, how we will handle human migration (minor or major) due to flooding, drought and other natural disasters, where will we get clean water, population growth in developing nations, and where the most “liveable” areas will be in the future. (I’m an Australian, and my area of the country has had no rainfall for approx. 10 months. Our dams are at 30%. Water supply is a major topic, and environmentalists are arguing against having desalination plants due to their “Carbon Footprint”. I think lives and sustaining our food sources and standard of living are a little more important.)
    As an Australian, I think we are the only First World Nation that is currently in a situation where we might soon resemble a Developing country. Therefore debate about what is the cause, should take second place to “How will we handle it”.

    As a final note I would like to add that I am tired of so called environmentalists (you know the types: complain about modern society while using all of the resources that modern society gives them like mobile phones, the internet and a University education. Say that we should live like indigenous people [yet still want to hold onto values like gender equality, democracy and vegetarianism and ignore things like scarification, initiation rites and genital mutilation.] Nor can any of these people hunt, fish or know the first thing about farming and would probably have a heart attack if they were faced with a herd of cows or pigs, which didn’t make a storybook “moo” and “oink”) telling people that we should feel guilty for our (meaning “capitalist”) way of life. By all means put pressure on car companies and multinationals to clean up their acts, and offer consumers more environmentally friendly options, but please stop trying to make the average Joe feel like he is solely responsible for climate change.

    Thanks for allowing me to rant.

  33. Pingback: The Great Global Warming Swindle - MBTI Central

  34. Pingback: "The Great Global Warming Swindle" - Zelda Universe Forums

  35. Joe

    why is everyone forecasting, that melting arctic waters will raise water levels of the oceans? This does not make sense! Ice has a larger volume than water – when it melts ocean levels should sink…

  36. Joe,

    The problem is when ice over land melts, not icebergs.

  37. Also, sea levels can rise due to the thermal expansion of the oceans.

  38. Dodo

    Dear Fermi,

    please keep Arrhenius out of this debate. He predicted climate sensitivity for the doubling of CO2 to be 5-6 degrees C. Since Svante’s times, we’ve witnessed the concentration increase by one third, 0,03 to 0,04%. That may or may not have caused more than half of the warming since 1950 (IPCC), about 0,3 degrees. As the effect of a rising CO2 concentration diminishes logarithmically, we may expect another 0,3 C or 0,6 at most by 2050-2100.

    That would give a total sensitivity of maximum one degree for the doubling. So one can say that, the Swede was almost one whole order of magnitude wrong.

    And besides, why on Earth is it always repeated that, Arrhenius made some calculations “already over one hundred years ago”. This is an argumentum ad antiquium -fallacy, like the one that astrology must be true because it was already mastered by the Babylonians.

  39. Dodo, you are wrong on so many levels that I do not know where to start…

    First, the temparature has risen by more like 0.6-0.7 degrees. Second, we know from models and observation that the temperatures will rise further, even if the greenhouse gas concentrations stay as they are now because especially the oceans need some time to heat up.
    The climate sensitivity if CO2 is more in the range of 3 degrees per doubling. Of course you would know that of you were actually interested in the science.

    I like to mention Arrhenius because a lot of deniers claim that Al Gore invented global warming. This is just to show that the idea is actually very old, not as a ‘proof’ that it must therefore be right. He *did* get the physics right, though. His estimates were off by 50%, not a whole magnitude as you claim, which I think is a pretty good estimate for the limited data he had at that time.

  40. Dodo

    Fermi, please,

    Nobody denies that air has warmed by 0,6-0,8C, depending on which dataset you use and how you pick your starting and ending points. But, as you well know, AGW has caused just half (ok, maybe some more) of the warming measured since the mid 20th century. The IPCC for one has not attributed pre-1950’s warming to CO2, which is a pity for the Arrhenius fan club because it indicates that this gas is pretty impotent. All it seems to be able to do for certain is piggybacking on other phenomena, man-made or natural.

    Btw, you said I am wrong on many levels, yet you only tried to explain one. Please go on, but do not doubt my interest in science. (And do check the satellite measurements for September 2007. Hey dude, where’s your trend?)

  41. Nobody denies that air has warmed by 0,6-0,8C

    *You* denied it in your previous comment, where you talk about .3 degrees.

    > The IPCC for one has not attributed pre-1950’s warming to CO2, which is a pity for the Arrhenius fan club because it indicates that this gas is pretty impotent.

    I have no idea how that follows. Before 1950, it is indeed mostly natural factors contributing to the warming, though GHGs are a factor. It is since 1960 or so that they became the most dominant cause, and far more than just half of it. See for example this nice graphic (I already linked to it in a previous comment). Beware that it stops at 1990.

    > And do check the satellite measurements for September 2007. Hey dude, where’s your trend?

    See, those comments reveal your cluelessness. I haven’t seen those measurements (yet), but in any case, it is the long trend that counts, and lots of other data. Even if there is a dip for a month, it does not tell much.

  42. Dodo

    Please don’t confuse the time scales. 0,7 since a century ago, about 0,3 since the mid 20th century. (the margin of error is +-0,2, so this is all pretty shaky) If you look at the Hadley centre’s temp graph and read your IPCC summary carefully, you must conclude that anthropogenic global warming took place only between 1976-1998. Everything else is natural.

    A dip for a month is not enough of course. I was referring to the past decade as a whole, assuming you know what has happened since 1998. But you tell me: how many years of stable or cooling global mean temperature would it take before you start questioning Arrhenius and his followers?

    You are now on the record stating that Arrhenius was 50% wrong, or off the mark. So there must be a reason for his mistake. What could it be?

  43. Pingback: PZ Myers Expelled « Fermi Paradox

  44. Pingback: John Coleman « Fermi Paradox

  45. I have not seen any credible evidence that would suggest otherwise.

  46. Good post, will frequent your site.

  47. Greetings! Very helpful advice in this particular post! It’s the little changes that will make the most significant changes. Thanks a lot for sharing!

  48. Really when someone doesn’t know afterward its up to
    other viewers that they will assist, so here it happens.