Climate scientists swindled in 'The Great Global Warming Swindle'?

There is an ungoing dispute among global warminginfluence of the oceanic mass and water vapour
scientists about the so-called Global Warmingon climate change which are more difficult to
Swindle Hypothesis, but most of this hypothesisconfute. Water vapour makes up about 98% of
seems to be a misinterpretation of scientific data.the greenhouse gases by volume and provides
One example of the complexity of climaticsomething between 40 to 80 percent of the
simulations is the prediction of future stormnatural greenhouse effect. It probably has the
events considering global warming effects.largest impact on the planet's temperature and
According to a recently published andclimatic conditions, much larger than CO2. Water
controversially discussed study, global warmingparticles in the form of clouds act to reflect
isn't to blame for the recent jump in hurricanes inincoming solar heat, but the film argues that the
the Atlantic.effects of clouds cannot be accurately simulated
In February 2007, the Intergovernmental Panel onby scientists attempting to predict future weather
Climate Change (IPCC) stated in their Fourthpatterns and their effects on global warming. This
Assessment Report that human actions are "veryargument probably is correct and it is well
likely" (i.e. with 90% or greater probability) therecognized that water vapor is responsible for the
cause of global warming, indicated by an increasenatural warming up of the surface temperature to
of 0.75 degrees in average global temperaturesapproximately 30-35ºC. Anthropogenic
over the last 100 years. This statement is thegreenhouse effect, according to the film's
result of very tough discussions on a worldwideargumentation, is only about 2% of the total
scale between thousands of climate researchers"natural" greenhouse effect, which corresponds to
whether human activity is the main cause ofa 0.6-0.7 ºC increase in temperature. This
global warming. The results of this discussion wereestimate is somewhat smaller compared to the
presented to the public in many publications, forresults of much more sophisticated simulations
instance in Martin Durkin´s documentary "The(0.9 - 2.7ºC), but there is undoubtedly an
Great Global Warming Swindle", presented inanthropogenic effect of CO2 increasing the
March 2007 at UK´s Channel 4. The mainaverage surface temperature.
message of this production was that man-madeOne example of the complexity of climatic
global warming is "a lie" and "the biggest scam ofsimulations is the prediction of future storm
modern times." Martin Durkin and coworkersevents considering global warming effects.
argue that the scientific consensus on climateAccording to a recently published study, published
change is the product of "a multibillion-dollaronline by research meteorologist Tom Knutson in
worldwide industry, created by fanaticallythe journal Nature Geoscience and resumed in the
anti-industrial environmentalists, supported byNew York Times (May 18, 2008), global warming
scientists peddling scare stories to chase fundingisn't to blame for the recent jump in hurricanes in
and propped up by complicit politicians and thethe Atlantic. The study predicts that by the end
media". The documentary showcases scientists,of the century the number of hurricanes in the
politicians, economists, writers, and others whoAtlantic will fall by 18 percent. In the past, Knutson
are sceptical of the scientific consensus onhas raised concerns about the effects of climate
anthropogenic (or man-made) global warming.change on storms. His new paper has the
Some of the scientists, opposing the main streampotential to heat up a simmering debate among
of greenhouse gas theories, simply argue that itmeteorologists about current and future effects
has not yet been ascertained whether humansof global warming in the Atlantic. And Knutson is
are the primary cause of global warming or ifnot alone with this view. Another group of
there are other natural variations responsible forexperts, those who study hurricanes and who are
this phenomenon like increased solar activity,more often skeptical about global warming, also
cosmic rays or variations in natural climatic cycles.say there is no link between global warming and
There is also a series of scientists questioning thehurricane frequency. They attribute the recent
temperature records used in the databases asincrease to a natural multi-decade cycle. According
temperature differences attributed to theto the prediction, the number of hurricanes
greenhouse effect are reasonable small (fractionstouching land in the US and its neighbors will drop
of a ºC). The so-called "urban heat island"by about 30 percent because of wind factors.
effect leads to a local warming in more populatedHowever, the biggest storms, those with winds
areas, showing slightly higher temperatures due toof more than 110 mph, would only decrease in
to increased heat generated by cities, rather thanfrequency by 8 percent. The biggest decrease is
a global temperature rise. Anyhow, this argumentforecasted for storms with winds between 39
was confuted by the IPPC, indicating that theand 73 mph (normal tropical storms), who would
effect of the urban heat island on the globaldecrease by 27 percent.
temperature trend is no more than 0.05 °CIt's not all good news from Knutson's study,
(0.09 °F) degrees through 1990.however. His computer model also forecasts that
Other facts presented by the film were shown to"hurricanes and tropical storms will be wetter and
be incorrect or misinterpreted. The film assertsfiercer. Rainfall within 30 miles of a hurricane
for instance that records of atmospheric CO2should jump by 37 percent and wind strength
levels since 1940 show a continuing increase, butshould increase by about 2 percent", Knutson's
during this period, global temperature decreasedstudy says.
until 1975, and has increased since then. Anyhow,There are already critical reactions on this new
it is well recognized that this cooling was drivenpublication. MIT hurricane meteorologist Kerry
mostly by aerosols (i.e. pollution) in theEmanuel claims that the computer model used by
atmosphere. There is nothing contradictory aboutKnutson is not adequate enough to look at
this cooling when all sources of radiation changesstorms and according to Kevin Trenberth, a
are considered. A second argument that easilyclimate scientist from the National Center for
can be invalidated is the impact of the so-calledAtmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., Knutson's
"solar variation theory" on global warming.computer model is poor at assessing tropical
According to the authors, solar activity (andweather and 'fail to replicate storms with any kind
involving cosmic rays as well as heat from theof fidelity.' It also does not considering well enough
sun aiding cloud formation) is currently at anthe intensity, duration and size of the storm
extremely high level and directly linked to changesevents, as not only the number of hurricanes is
in global temperature. The film argues that solarimportant to evaluate.
activity is far more influential on global warmingPositive feedback comes from NOAA hurricane
than any other anthropogenic or natural activitymeteorologist Chris Landsea , who wasn't part of
on Earth. What the film does not mention is thatthis study, praised Knutson's work as 'very
solar activity has declined over the last 30 years -consistent with what's being said all along. I think
at the same time as the major spike in globalglobal warming is a big concern, but when it
temperature.comes to hurricanes the evidence for changes is
But there are some statements related to thepretty darn tiny,' Landsea said.