GeologyRocks

I have to agree with some of that; what on earth has climate change got to do with geophysics! A tenuous link could be the complex modelling or earth-sun interaction, maybe even simply studying complex systems, but climate science is a science in it's own right, not a bit of geophysics. Anyway, I can see why it annoyed you. I think I'd be a bit annoyed too, especially with exams soon.

As for the films you watched, be a bit more cautious. Both contain errors and are essentially propaganda, but I'm afraid Al Gore's is a bit closer to the science (and is in essence a fairly decent summary of the IPCC report) than "Global warming swindle", which is riddled with fallacies. See for example here , here, and here ...

Climate change has got bog all to do with geophysics.

Both films contain errors and are propaganda but you might also want to see here, here and here,

I have to admit that in my rage I may hav over generalised quite a bit, and was slightly harsh in that post..... I'm stil open minded about the whole climate change thing from both points of view and watch all related documentaries etc. with an open mind! (Usually quite a critical mind too.....) N wen i get time i've been looking for more information on it as it's sthg i'm quite interested in! So thanks so much for the links! I'll read em all wen i get time! (probably wen after my stupid exams!! I hav a phanerazoic stratigraphy practical exam tomoro..... shud be fun....)  

Hi,

 I'm reading a really excellent book at the moment called 'State of Fear' by Michael Crichton which deals with global warming. I'm about 3/4 of the way through and I get the impression that the author doesn't believe in it (or maybe there's a twist at the end!).

He writes very well about the use and mis-use of data and how the same data can be used and presented to meet different objectives. One good example is the famous graph which shows the increase in atmospheric CO₂ over the last 150 years. For those trying to persuade about the serious impact of global warming this graph shows an exponential increase in CO₂ with no signs of slowing down. For those trying to play down the threat a different way of representing the same data is to imagine the atmosphere is represented by 100yards (American Football Pitch), Nitrogen makes up to the 78yard line, Oxygen takes you to the 99yard line and Argon takes you all but 3.5inches from the end. This 3.5 inches is CO₂ and the increase in CO₂ over the last 150 years is equivalent to the thickness of a pencil! Same data, very different impression in the mind of the reader.

 I feel I should now nail my colours to the mast and say that I personally do believe in global warming. Ice cores and various isotope proxies demonstrate that as atmospheric CO₂ increases so does the temperature. Of course, a higher (or lower) level of CO₂ is nothing new to the planet, or even to humans. It is, however, very new to civilisation and our current comfortable western lifestyle which is directly responsible for this growing problem.

 I mention the example of different representations of the same data above because it is something everyone (especially scientists!) should be aware of when being presented with graphs. I find news channels frequently use dodgy scales on their graphs to illustrate the story. It's also something we should be aware of when presenting our own data - not that I'd ever suggest some people would deliberatley alter scales on graphs to lend support to their conclusions/hypothesis!

Except that they do sometimes:

Just to give some context. German science teacher, doesn't like climate change. Blue curve is temperature with nice regular oscillations in temperature. Black curve is CO₂. Prize (imaginary of course!) to the person who spots the error!

(from the guys blog (in German))

Ok,

The temperature is apparently known 200years into the future.

The temperature axis has no scale.

He cuts the x-axis to show passage of time but temperature continues on a nice curve.

What do I win?

PS: Yes, I am very bored at work today!

That's the one! Even worse, he takes the "length" of the first cycle, terms of size on that graph (which is actually 1600 years), and transposes it to the next one (which is 800 years!) and claims "regular cycles".

Your prize is in the post. It will arrive in an invisible envelope and contain an invisible prize...

How could you be bored!? Would you like to do some of my work; I have lot's to do...which means I should get on with it!!