Saturday, 12 December 2009

Climate Change - David Bellamy exposes the myth.

I've always liked David Bellamy. I grew up with him on my TV screen, enjoying like millions of other kids, his informative and fun explanation of the environment we all share. I'm a climate change sceptic, but thanks to people like David, I have grown into a man who wants to save energy and protect our environment. My house has the latest energy saving double glazing, extra insulation, a condensing boiler and I've been using energy saving light bulbs for years. I moan about doors being left open, lights being left on, the kettle being too full, my daughter's long showers and the TV playing to itself.

I've grown up thanks to David, and others like him, to be an anally retentive, environmentally aware, energy saver. And I'm glad, because I do believe we must conserve energy and protect our environment. But I am far from convinced that CO2 is causing global warming. When asked why, I usually ramble on about stuff I've read lately that puts that doubt into my head. It's not always easy to get the point across in a coherent manner.

Those who support Global Warming have no such problem, all they have to say is that "it's the consensus, the data is undeniable, the debate is over, and anyone who disagrees is a idiotic denier". But we know from recent events that it's not the consensus, the data is not reliable and the debate is far from over. The data has been destroyed/manipulated/hidden, and those idiotic deniers have been silenced by those setting their own lucrative agenda. Wherever you look in the climate change camp, you will find people with something to gain from maintaining the CO2 myth. I truly believe that when our ancestors look back, they will judge us as bloody idiots for spending billions fighting a life giving gas, whilst people are dying from disease, war and famine.

Anyway, the following is what David Bellamy has to say on the matter. I like it because he achieves what I so often fail to do - he gives a coherent explanation of why the debate is a long way from over:
There is no evidence of carbon dioxide being a poison, or that it is capable of causing a warming Armageddon. What follows is a summary of the proof — straight from real science, peer-reviewed over the past 232 years by legions of physicists, thanks to Newton’s Principia.

Remember the famous picture of Miss Marilyn Monroe with her skirt blown high? Even at the age of 76, when I see this picture my temperature goes up — followed by the amount of carbon dioxide I exhale. Never the other way ’round. Now, thanks to the study of a series of ice cores, this appears to be an inconvenient truth for the global warming industry.

Al Gore used this ice core data to claim that carbon dioxide made the temperature of the world rise, threatening life on earth, because there was a correlation between atmospheric CO2 levels and the world’s average temperature. Yet the data from the much-celebrated Vostok ice cores paints a very different picture: Up goes the temperature, followed by a rise in carbon dioxide.

Effectively flattening Gore’s dreams of hedging his funds. Continue reading...

31 comments:

Anonymous said...

perhaps you'd like to explain your reasoning about just how all the extra Carbon dioxide in the air isn't responsible for the warming we're seeing, given its well-known behaviour? How is that extra Carbon dioxide NOT doing what Carbon dioxide nornally does?

Otherwise, I'll begin to think you're bullshitting and don't really understand science.

Daily Referendum said...

Anon,

What warming?

Harry Hook said...

People like Anony... disciple of the Church of Climate Change (CCC)... are certainly getting nervous... and so they should.

Alan Douglas said...

This current scam can be traced all the way back to Henny Penny's "The sky is falling in !"

She has a lot to answer for.

Alan Douglas

Anonymous said...

so, no answers about what that extras CO2 is doing. Ok

Now then, about the 'what warming?' question. Read this below and really concentrate:

Even under conditions of anthropogenic global warming (which would contribute a temperature rise of about 0.2 ºC over this period) a flat period or even cooling trend over such a short time span is nothing special and has happened repeatedly before (see 1987-1996). That simply is due to the fact that short-term natural variability has a similar magnitude (i.e. ~0.2 ºC) and can thus compensate for the anthropogenic effects. Of course, the warming trend keeps going up whilst natural variability just oscillates irregularly up and down, so over longer periods the warming trend wins and natural variability cancels out.

(2) It is highly questionable whether this “pause” is even real. It does show up to some extent (no cooling, but reduced 10-year warming trend) in the Hadley Center data, but it does not show in the GISS data, see Figure 1. There, the past ten 10-year trends (i.e. 1990-1999, 1991-2000 and so on) have all been between 0.17 and 0.34 ºC per decade, close to or above the expected anthropogenic trend, with the most recent one (1999-2008) equal to 0.19 ºC per decade – just as predicted by IPCC as response to anthropogenic forcing.

I doubt you'll have understood that but it was worth a go.

Anonymous said...

and here's the graph

http://www.realclimate.org/wp-content/uploads/GISStrends.jpg

simple!

I can take people not being sure about whether it's CO2 as that's slightly trickier to get your head around but to deny that warming is happening is just advertising your stupidity as if it were a virtue.

Anonymous said...

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_much_CO2_is_exhaled_by_the_average_human_each_year

“It would depend on the person’s size and how active they are. Find the CO2 rates for an hour during sleep and being awake, multiply them by whatever you need and you’ll figure out an annual estimate.

However, a rough estimate (curtesy of “The Earth Blog”) assuming 12 breaths per minute (resting breath rate) is 500kg

The number is easy to estimate: breaths per minute x CO2 per breath x minutes per year

From Wiki – the breath rate is 12 to 25 per minute. Size of breath is 500 mL. Percent CO2 exhaled is 4% so CO2 per breath is approx 0.04g ( 2g/L x .04 x .5l).

CO2 Per year= 12 x 0.04 x 525600 (minutes per year) = 252kg/yr
CO2 (25 breaths) = 525 Kg/yr.

So – pick a number between 252 Kg/yr and 525Kg/yr

1000 lbs/year is a good figure of merit.”

Well, if 1000 lbs/yr is a figure of good merit and there are 6,000,000,000 (rounded down) people on Earth then human exhalation causes 6,000,000,000,000lbs/yr of emissions which works out to 3,000,000,000 tons/yr of CO2 emitted. Someone should do something about this.

Also, if people add 3,000,000,000 tons per year, then there math is off on how much fossil fuels add.

Daily Referendum said...

Anon,

Wow! A massive 0.5 degree increase in thirty years. Of course, if the trend line on your graph actually showed the full thirty years and not the twenty five chosen, it would be even less.

Look at this graph from the Met Office Hadley Centre readings:

Met Office Hadley Centre

If you look at the period 1910-1940 you will see that the global temp went up 0.7 degrees C. Thats the same amount that the temperature has risen from 1950-2006, only it happened twenty six faster. They must have been really panicking then eh?

I wonder what caused this massive increase in global temp? A increase far greater than we are seeing now. And I wonder why the temperature suddenly dropped off again even though we were pumping greater amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere? I wonder why the temperature is dropping off now, even though we are pumping greater amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere - when all those models said it would increase? Sorry if I sound a bit thick.

Maybe these graphs may explain things:

History

Anonymous said...

Are you being willfully obtuse?

Or are you trying to be funny?

Yes, you do come across as a bit thick. Especially when you ask 'what warming?' and then quote two periods of 0.7 degC warming from this century back to me when addressing a separate point. And if you think temperature is dropping off then you honestly don't understand it. Have you not researched into how warm a few of the last 5 or 6 years have been?

I don't have a clue what our friend is on about with his wiki quote regarding people exhaling CO2? Maybe he could explain?

Anonymous said...

Thanks for the graph you posted via Dale's website attempting to 'explain' things.

He's also posted on tree ring data being excluded. I suspect he hasn't a fucking clue what they are but the explanation is in here:

See: Proc. Natl Acad. Sci USA 105, 13252–13257 (2008)

Without inclusion of the tree-ring measurements, the data still showed that recent
warming is greater than at any point in at least the past 1,300 years

Daily Referendum said...

Anon,

Read This

Also, if the real tree ring data had been put in it would have shown no warming. That's why the graph was fudged. They rely on tree ring data when it suits them and discount it when it does not match their fudged figures.

Anonymous said...

Don't refer me to another stupid blog site

you've had Proc. Natl Acad. Sci USA 105, 13252–13257 (2008)which contains considerable material on tree rings and you refer me to a eu referendum page. Great.

There are very good reasons why tree rings aren't used but even with them the result is the same. Understand? Even with them. If you know, and can show differently, contact the American National Academy of Sciences detailing your take, and I'm sure they'll publish your corrections that invalidate all the work in the paper.

Daily Referendum said...

Anon,

I take it you didn't read the link? Never mind. Try this
on dodgy tree rings.

Frugal Dougal said...

I just don't know how we can reach the empty vessels in Copenhagen - they're running on blind faith in the religion they're codifying, which is something entirely different from using one's intelligence.

thehoatzin said...

Let's try again

the result is the same with or without your tree rings

does that help?

Ben Goldacre has you ignorant loudmouths down to a tee: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/dec/12/bad-science-goldacre-climate-change

his bad sciecne column is an excellent regular read if you enjoy seeing how the people deliberately misrepresent science.

As he says " Among all these, reigning supreme, is the "zombie argument": arguments which survive to be raised again, for eternity, no matter how many times they are shot down. "Homeopathy worked for me," and the rest.


Zombie arguments survive, immortal and resistant to all refutation, because they do not live or die by the normal standards of mortal arguments. There's a huge list of them at realclimate.org, with refutations. There are huge lists of them everywhere. It makes no difference.

"CO2 isn't an important greenhouse gas", "Global warming is down to the sun", "what about the cooling in the 1940s?" says your party bore. "Well," you reply, "since the last time you raised this, I checked, and there were loads of sulphites in the air in the 1940s to block out the sun, made from the slightly different kind of industrial pollution we had then, and the odd volcano, so that's been answered already, ages ago."

And they knew that. And you know they knew you could find out, but they went ahead anyway and wasted your time, and worse than that, you both know they're going to do it again, to some other poor sap. And that is rude."

But hey, I don't mind you wasting my time.

Anonymous said...

I've read the paragraph on that site

it's old hat and been done to death.

if you don't like tree ring data, leave 'em out. Use any other proxy you like. The results are the same. Have I mentioned that?

Daily Referendum said...

Hoatzin,

What a load of old rubbish. You claim sulphites caused the 1940's cooling? and the odd volcano?

Tell me what caused the very rapid warming prior to this cooling by "sulphites" and "the odd volcano"

By the way, volcanoes have (according to the scientist you love so much) been erupting at a very level pace since 1860. There was in fact a dip in volcanic activity in the 1940's, but that could be down to poor record keeping during the war.

Anonymous said...

well, work it out Sherlock...

Anonymous said...

In the 1940s, the CO2 warming was subdued by other factors, such as more particulates and also aerosol pollution.

During the 60's and 70's the law combined with improved technology led to a reduction in emissions and as the air cleared, the effect due to CO2 became apparent again.

This was also apparent in the 1990s when SO2 from Mt Pinatubo in 92-94 resulted in a sharp drop.

ref: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/

could you explain just how that's rubbish please? Are those particulates not responsible for the cooling? I feel you may have another paper in you here. Fame beckons.

OTOH, it appears to be very basic science that even a GW sceptic wouldn't seek to gainsay.

Al Gore said...

Climate change whores are without exception chronically insecure, desperate fantasists that any normal person would want to punch in the face. I come to this conclusion by a selective but highly scientific extrapolation of the warmist contributions to this thread. The debate is thus settled, and anyone who says otherwise is a denialist Nazi with a tiny cock.

Anonymous said...

I actually can't stand lentil eaters, Greens, the Left or the Right, so feel for me please. Politically. I'm probably as unbiaseed as you'll get. I hate the lot of you. But the facts is the facts.

now about those particulates from volcanoes. Anyone fancy denying they are responsible for cooling like our blogmaster friend (who's gone rather quiet on the subject) and offering an alternatiove explanation?

Should be good...

Daily Referendum said...

Anon,

Just to clear things up, so I know who I'm talking to, are you and Thehoatzin the same person. I'm losing track.

Harry Hook said...

"... I'm probably as unbiaseed as you'll get. I hate the lot of you."

Can't say fairer than that Anon... you dipstick.

Mulligan said...

Steve,

I hope you haven't made Anon miss his plane to Copenhagen, there's windows to smash and cars to burn, don't you know?

Anonymous said...

Hey Mulligan you thicko

didn't you read? I said I can't stand the sandal wearers. I've got every light on, the fire's roaring and I have no intention of ever going to Copenhagen.

Any chance of you boys getting remotely scientific and addressing the point about particulates and cooling?

Harry Hook said...

"... I've got every light on, the fire's roaring and I have no intention of ever going to Copenhagen."

There you have it, gentlemen... irrefutable evidence that Anon is a Climate Change suicide bomber.

thehoatzin said...

I hereby claim victory

nice try peeps

Tim

Harry Hook said...

Pillock...

Harry Hook said...

P.S. I see that Tim 'thehoatzin' Blogger's profile is blocked and... well, Anon is Anonymous... Am I missing something here? Isn't it us infidels who are supposed to be the ones hurling abuse from the shadows... and generally trolling the net?

P.P.S. Bet they didn't get their swine-flu jab, either.

Wontgetfooledagain said...

Some anon here says that we're warmer now than has been the case for 1300 years. And the medieval warm period (which you must be aware of) was warmer than now - and the world didn't end, it thrived. Today, the graves of Norse settlers in greenland lie under permafrost - which is a clear indication that it was warmer then than now.

And what's all this bullshit trying to win arguments with Hadley CRU data? Anyone who actually thinks and follows this issue is now well aware of how the data have been faked to create models which demonstrate warming, when the clear observational and proxy data shows cooling. It's a bit like asking the man who set up the Piltdown Man hoax to authenticate the fossil. Get real sonny, we won't be fooled again. You've shot your bolt.

Anonymous said...

Three cold winters on the spin, two non-summers and Arctic sea ice back to normal. Could it have anything to do with the sun going through a quieter spell? Meybeey


Bye bye environMENTALISTS

PS- If the Earth is getting too warm what temperature should it be?