“The Great Global Warming Swindle” documentary was aired on 8th March 2007 in the channel 4 screen. The documentary was confiscating global warming is not as a result of the green house gases which in turn results from human activities. This contradicts the scientific consensus for the causes of climate change and the campaign for the reduction of these gases. But the documentary was full of confusing and misappropriating information that I need to justify. I will examine their devastating presentation which includes that “increased atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) is not the cause of the higher temperatures.
They claimed this to be the opposite where the increase in temperature has led to the increase in the carbon dioxide concentration. This was supported using the 1940-1970 temperature fall arguing that the fall was not as a result of increased carbon dioxide since at the time the co2 levels were still moving up. (William 1). (a) (b) Fig (a) Documentary temperature graph from http://i157. photobucket. com/albums/t63/izzy_bizzy_photo/capture. jpg Fig (b) Real climate global atmospheric temperature graph from http://en. wikipedia. org/wiki/File:Instrumental_Temperature_Record. png
First, in order to justify their arguments, they manipulated the data used in the plotting or choose a graph from unreliable sources. The result for the temperatures fall in the four decades was comprehensively explained in the IPCC and this resulted due to the increased presence of sulphates in the atmosphere resulting from the increased industrial activities. These aerosols acted as inhibitors pr a cloud and shielded the solar direct radiation thus a cooling effect. Increased warming over time has led to the continued rising of temperatures as from 1980 the effect was turning to be a positive feed back mechanism and the rising is continued.
(Mihkel M 104). The film was advocating that scientists argue that global warming is only due to the green house gases. But this is not the case, since the solar activity has a minima influence to this. This has been used to explain some differences. If one was to consider the solar activity, the solar activity is related with the cloud formation; the cloud cover above the surface varies with the intensity of galactic cosmic radiation. The “magnetic storms resulting from a high level of solar activity, coronal holes, solar flares and mass ejections” diminishes the incoming cosmic radiation and reduces the cloud cover.
This would allow more solar radiation to reach the earth surface and higher secondary radiation thus increased global temperatures. However, there seems to be some little delay inn the temperature response to solar activity as the scientists had illustrated. (Mihkel M 105). Ironically, considering on the sunspot cycle and earth’s temperatures the duration should be affected by the seven to seventeen years cycle length. This also illustrates the four decades difference. Fig (c) Temperature and solar activity correlation. The film was advocating that the temperatures should be high in the higher troposphere and not in the surface.
In effect to this science has proven that at higher altitudes in the atmosphere, carbon dioxide undergoes some photochemical reactions and produces carbon monoxide. This is given by the equation; CO2 + hv > CO + O (uv) This is a significant source of carbon monoxide at these levels. This nullifies the effects of carbon dioxide in the rising of temperatures in the troposphere with respect to that of the surface. (Tyagi O 45). The film also presented on the 800 years lag of carbon dioxide to that of the rise in temperature, arguing that the gas cannot then be responsible for the climate change. They used the ice age evidence for this.
He argued that rising temperatures then are the causes to the rise in carbon dioxide levels. This is a misconception and a dispute of the theory. Whereas the ice cores cannot be disputed they show that CO2 levels changes over long timescales, but the temperatures are linked with the CO2 levels. Reduced ice causes less reflection of sunlight, which leads to warmer temperatures and increased green house effect. Therefore, carbon dioxide and the amount of ice should lag temperatures for a glacial time frame. This can also be explained through the 800 period taken by the natural ocean currents to complete a circulation.
The currents may act as transport of the deep stored oceanic CO2 and bring it to the surface. (Simon Rosser 72). For the Al Gore case I truly differ with his claim on rising of sea level to that magnitude. There is enough evidence to show that the rise in the sea level is very minimal and cannot each to those heights by one hundred years. He also suggests that the polar bears were drowning due to the global warming through melting of ice. This usually happened due to a heavy storm in the region. In conclusion, the film was a conspiracy and an entertainment gimmick. This is shown by their baseless theories and contradicting arguments.
Careful examination is required before the airing of these documentaries to avoid misinformation.
References
M. Mihkel Mathiesen. Global Warming in a Politically Correct Climate: How Truth Became Controversial. Universe stra publishers. 2002 Simon Rosser. The A-Z of Global Warming. Schnmall world Publishers. 2008 Tyagi O. D, S. C. A Textbook of Environmental Chemistry. Anmol publishers. 2006 William and Gavin. Swindled! Real climate, climate scientists. Edited on 9th march 2007 and accessd on 26th march 2010 from http://www. realclimate. org/index. php/archives/2007/03/swindled/