The Great Global Warming Swindle (1Hr 15Min.)

[muhmuh]

http://ocean.mit.edu/~cwunsch/papers...annel4response
In the part of the "Swindle" film where I am describing the
fact that the ocean tends to expel carbon dioxide where it is warm,
and to absorb it where it is cold, my intent was to explain that
warming the ocean could be dangerous---because it is such a gigantic
reservoir of carbon. By its placement in the film,
it appears that I am saying that since carbon dioxide exists in the
ocean in such large quantities, human influence must not be
very important --- diametrically opposite to the point I was making---
which is that global warming is both real and threatening in many
different ways, some unexpected.

http://news.independent.co.uk/enviro...cle2347526.ece
Professor Wunsch said: "I am angry because they completely misrepresented me. My views were distorted by the context in which they placed them. I was misled as to what it was going to be about. I was told about six months ago that this was to be a programme about how complicated it is to understand what is going on. If they had told me even the title of the programme, I would have absolutely refused to be on it. I am the one who has been swindled."

When told what the commission had found, he said: "That is what happened to me." He said he believes it is "an almost inescapable conclusion" that "if man adds excess CO2 to the atmosphere, the climate will warm".

He went on: "The movie was terrible propaganda. It is characteristic of propaganda that you take an area where there is legitimate dispute and you claim straight out that people who disagree with you are swindlers. That is what the film does in any area where some things are subject to argument."

[White_Male_Canada]

http://news.independent.co.uk/enviro...cle2347526.ece
Professor Wunsch said: "I am angry because they completely misrepresented me. My views were distorted by the context in which they placed them. I was misled as to what it was going to be about. I was told about six months ago that this was to be a programme about how complicated it is to understand what is going on. If they had told me even the title of the programme, I would have absolutely refused to be on it. I am the one who has been swindled."

What part of his words does he think he misspoke about :

Professor Wunsch:
25:43 The ocean is the major reservoir into which carbon dioxide goes when it comes out of the atmosphere or to from which it is re-emitted to the the atmosphere. If you heat the surface of the ocean, it tends to emit carbon dioxide. Similarly, if you cool the ocean surface, the ocean can dissolve more carbon dioxide.

Professor Wunsch:
26:44 - The ocean has a memory of past events ugh running out as far as 10,000 years. So for example, if somebody says oh I'm seeing changes in the North Atlantic, this must mean that the climate system is changing, it may only mean that something happened in a remote part of the ocean decades or hundreds of years ago who's effects are now beginning to show up in the North Atlantic.

Professor Wunsch:
49:22 - The models are so complicated, you can often adjust them is such a way that they do something very exciting.

Professor Wunsch:
50:46 - Even within the scientific community you see, it's a problem.
If I run a complicated model and I do something to it like ugh melt a lot of ice into the ocean and nothing happens, ugh it's not likely to get printed. But if I run the same model, and I adjust it in such a way that something dramatic happens to the ocean circulation like the heat transport turns off, ugh it will be published. People will say this is very exciting. It will even get picked by the media. So there is a bias, there's is a very powerful bias within the media, and within the science community itself, toward results which are ugh dramatizable. If Earth freezes over, that's a much more interesting story than saying well you know it ugh fluctuates around, sometimes the mass flux goes up by 10%, sometimes it goes down by 20%, but eventually it comes back. Well you know, which would you do a story on? That's what it's about.

Wunsch then said, " “I explained that warming the ocean was damaging
because it will release more carbon dioxide. They used it to claim that carbon dioxide is all natural.”

I do not recall the program stating all co2 is of natural origin. I`d have to view the movie again to verify but we all accept that man-made co2 only represents somewhere between 3.4 and 5 % of all co2.

[muhmuh]

which bit of this sentence is it that you dont get?
> My views were distorted by the context in which they placed them.

[White_Male_Canada]

which bit of this sentence is it that you dont get?
> My views were distorted by the context in which they placed them.

What parts were distorted? What part of the transcript above was false due to editing ?

Wunsch then said, " “I explained that warming the ocean was damaging
because it will release more carbon dioxide. They used it to claim that carbon dioxide is all natural.”

I do not recall the program stating all co2 is of natural origin. I`d have to view the movie again to verify but we all accept that man-made co2 only represents somewhere between 3.4 and 5 % of all co2.

[guyone]

Sun spots.

[muhmuh]

What parts were distorted? What part of the transcript above was false due to editing ?

Wunsch then said, " “I explained that warming the ocean was damaging
because it will release more carbon dioxide. They used it to claim that carbon dioxide is all natural.”

what he said was that man made global warming will cause even more co2 to be released from the oceans thus speeding the process up not like they portraied it that co2 always follows temperature changes with no influence of its own on temperatures

just read what he posted on his webspace:
In the part of the "Swindle" film where I am describing the
fact that the ocean tends to expel carbon dioxide where it is warm,
and to absorb it where it is cold, my intent was to explain that
warming the ocean could be dangerous---because it is such a gigantic
reservoir of carbon. By its placement in the film,
it appears that I am saying that since carbon dioxide exists in the
ocean in such large quantities, human influence must not be
very important --- diametrically opposite to the point I was making---
which is that global warming is both real and threatening in many
different ways, some unexpected.

[White_Male_Canada]

What parts were distorted? What part of the transcript above was false due to editing ?

Wunsch then said, " “I explained that warming the ocean was damaging
because it will release more carbon dioxide. They used it to claim that carbon dioxide is all natural.”

what he said was that man made global warming will cause even more co2 to be released from the oceans thus speeding the process up not like they portraied it that co2 always follows temperature changes with no influence of its own on temperatures

just read what he posted on his webspace:
In the part of the "Swindle" film where I am describing the
fact that the ocean tends to expel carbon dioxide where it is warm,
and to absorb it where it is cold, my intent was to explain that
warming the ocean could be dangerous---because it is such a gigantic
reservoir of carbon. By its placement in the film,
it appears that I am saying that since carbon dioxide exists in the
ocean in such large quantities, human influence must not be
very important --- diametrically opposite to the point I was making---
which is that global warming is both real and threatening in many
different ways, some unexpected.

Very interesting. But according to NOAA, things are a changing, specifically, sea temps :

Abstract. We observe a net loss of 3.2 (± 1.1) × 1022 J of heat from the upper ocean
between 2003 and 2005. Using a broad array of in situ ocean measurements, we present
annual estimates of global upper-ocean heat content anomaly from 1993 through 2005.
Including the recent downturn, the average warming rate for the entire 13-year period is
0.33 ± 0.23 W/m2 (of the Earth's total surface area). A new estimate of sampling
error in the heat content record suggests that both the recent and previous global cooling events are significant and unlikely to be artifacts of inadequate ocean sampling.

We have detected a new cooling event that began in
2003 and is comparable in magnitude to the one in the early 1980s. Using highresolution
satellite data to estimate sampling error, we find that both the recent event and
the cooling of the early 1980s are significant with respect to these errors.


John M. Lyman1,2,3, Josh K. Willis4, and Gregory C. Johnson1

1 NOAA/Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory, 7600 Sand Point Way N.E.
Bldg. 3, Seattle Washington 98115-6349, U.S.A.
2 JIMAR, University of Hawaii, Honolulu, HI

4 Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA

[muhmuh]

Very interesting. But according to NOAA, things are a changing, specifically, sea temps :

Abstract. We observe a net loss of 3.2 (± 1.1) × 1022 J of heat from the upper ocean
between 2003 and 2005. Using a broad array of in situ ocean measurements, we present
annual estimates of global upper-ocean heat content anomaly from 1993 through 2005.
Including the recent downturn, the average warming rate for the entire 13-year period is
0.33 ± 0.23 W/m2 (of the Earth's total surface area). A new estimate of sampling
error in the heat content record suggests that both the recent and previous global cooling events are significant and unlikely to be artifacts of inadequate ocean sampling.

We have detected a new cooling event that began in
2003 and is comparable in magnitude to the one in the early 1980s. Using highresolution
satellite data to estimate sampling error, we find that both the recent event and
the cooling of the early 1980s are significant with respect to these errors.


John M. Lyman1,2,3, Josh K. Willis4, and Gregory C. Johnson1

1 NOAA/Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory, 7600 Sand Point Way N.E.
Bldg. 3, Seattle Washington 98115-6349, U.S.A.
2 JIMAR, University of Hawaii, Honolulu, HI

4 Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA

what has any of this got to do with the fact that the "documentary" misrepresented the scientists it quoted to paint a completely different picture of the matter?

[White_Male_Canada]

Very interesting. But according to NOAA, things are a changing, specifically, sea temps :

Abstract. We observe a net loss of 3.2 (± 1.1) × 1022 J of heat from the upper ocean
between 2003 and 2005. Using a broad array of in situ ocean measurements, we present
annual estimates of global upper-ocean heat content anomaly from 1993 through 2005.
Including the recent downturn, the average warming rate for the entire 13-year period is
0.33 ± 0.23 W/m2 (of the Earth's total surface area). A new estimate of sampling
error in the heat content record suggests that both the recent and previous global cooling events are significant and unlikely to be artifacts of inadequate ocean sampling.

We have detected a new cooling event that began in
2003 and is comparable in magnitude to the one in the early 1980s. Using highresolution
satellite data to estimate sampling error, we find that both the recent event and
the cooling of the early 1980s are significant with respect to these errors.


John M. Lyman1,2,3, Josh K. Willis4, and Gregory C. Johnson1

1 NOAA/Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory, 7600 Sand Point Way N.E.
Bldg. 3, Seattle Washington 98115-6349, U.S.A.
2 JIMAR, University of Hawaii, Honolulu, HI

4 Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA

what has any of this got to do with the fact that the "documentary" misrepresented the scientists it quoted to paint a completely different picture of the matter?

Only that Prof. Wensch has a degree in oceanography and that is his specialty, is it not?

"Scientists" ? Are there now more than one complaining of being mis-quoted?

So if his claim is that the oceans are still getting warmer due to man and releasing co2 then his opinion doesn`t jibe with the latest data.

[muhmuh]

Only that Prof. Wensch has a degree in oceanography and that is his specialty, is it not?

"Scientists" ? Are there now more than one complaining of being mis-quoted?

So if his claim is that the oceans are still getting warmer due to man and releasing co2 then his opinion doesn`t jibe with the latest data.

you have no idea what the bars in that graph mean do you?