Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

David Bellamy refutes global warming

  1. Feb 3, 2005 #1


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Article in the Daily Express by David Bellamy OBE Feb 3 2005.
    I first heard about global warming in the eighties and right from the
    start i didn't believe in it. I teach botany. i have researched and taught
    plant anatomy, ecological physiology and the history of vegetation
    at universities over a period of five decades. I know that carbon
    dioxide is not a terrible gas,It is the most important fertiliser for
    plants. if there is more CO2 plants grow faster and tack in more.
    that achieves a balance in the atmosphere. in fact most plants could
    do with more CO2.
    If you have time to read the expert reports in the massive tomes,
    which lack an index, produced by the IPCC the intergovernmental
    panel on climate change you will have a surprise. there is no proof
    that anything terrible is linked to carbon induced temperature rise.
  2. jcsd
  3. Feb 3, 2005 #2


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    This is despite the fact that in recent times every storm, flood,
    drought, hurricane and tornado is usually linked to global warming.
    Record highs are headlines whereas anything that goes against
    the global warming grain is all to often missing, years of satellite
    monitoring show no rise in sea levels, and ground and satellite
    studies in the Maldives by experts show that the sea level has
    actually fallen.
  4. Feb 3, 2005 #3


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    One expert, Chris Landsea, who has just contributed to the IPCCsAR4
    report on hurricanes has resigned, "I cannot continue to contribute
    to a process that i view as both being motivated by pre conceived
    agendas and being scientifically unsound". he wrote.
  5. Feb 3, 2005 #4
  6. Feb 3, 2005 #5
    However here is the story of Chris Landsea:


    See also:
  7. Feb 3, 2005 #6


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I cannot understand the reason for the AGENDA, where are the gains for it
    who or what profits from it?
  8. Feb 3, 2005 #7
    An Agenda? Try http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/page6333.asp [Broken]:

    No I haven't the faintest idea either. :biggrin:

    Perhaps it's clear now what the evidence was for this little armchair analysis.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2017
  9. Feb 3, 2005 #8


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

  10. Feb 3, 2005 #9
    So did you invite him?

    Let's see how the armchair analysis compares to the scaremongering:


    Result of the test: :biggrin:

  11. Feb 3, 2005 #10
    Oh BTW, http://home.wanadoo.nl/bijkerk/lowertrop.JPG [Broken] )

    Notice the influence of the large 1998 el nino on the trend. Notice the red 10 years running average being influenced by that.

    So this is where the fuss is all about.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2017
  12. Feb 3, 2005 #11


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    So did you invite him?
    I wouldnt know how to approach such a celebrity.
  13. Feb 3, 2005 #12
    You wouldn't believe how many "celebrities" actually listen. OK I mailed him.
  14. Feb 3, 2005 #13


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I think I met David Bellamy when I was 5 (to be honest I can't really remember), but he is not a climatologist, the idea that the argument of global warming can be reduced to CO2 as a 'naughty gas' is absurd. Also the assertion that there is no evdinece of link between CO2 emmsiions and global warming (detailed climate modles predict such a relationship for a start).
  15. Feb 3, 2005 #14
    I'm afraid that this looks a bit like circular reasoning. We tell the models how we think climate reacts to greenhouse gas and the models tell us how they have calculated the effect of greenhouse gas.

    Please have a look at the http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~archer/PS134/LabManual/lab.modtran.html [Broken]in detail between greenhouse gas and absorption of reradiated IR in the different frequencies.

    Playing with http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~archer/cgimodels/radiation.html [Broken].

    All conditions default from the model except base temp 15C and standard US atmosphere. The radiative forcing is on the Y-axis in W/m2 versus the concentration of CO2 on the X-axis.

    Point A is 200 ppm CO2, typical ice-age value
    Point B is 285 ppm CO2, typical pre-industrian value
    Point C is 380 ppm CO2, about now
    Point D is 570 ppm CO2, the double pre-industrial value
    Point E is 1500 ppm CO2, the presumed predominant value some 200 million years ago, about 4-5 times the value of today.
    Point F is 6600 ppm CO2, the presumed predominant value some 450 million years ago, about 20 times the value of today (but the sun was a probably few percent less bright back then).

    The ROM one percent variation does not really compare to for instance Milankovitch forcing cycle variations of more than 10%

    Check http://home.wanadoo.nl/bijkerk/lowertrop.JPG [Broken]. With the temperature trend of the lower troposphere of 0,00002 degrees Celsius per day, it would take 137 years to have one degree more.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2017
  16. Feb 3, 2005 #15


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Climate models are simulations, they simulate the climate using the data about the presnet climate and the physics of the climate.

    Unfortuantely I am not famalir with the Modtran3 mdoel so I can't really answre you in detail, but it is a genric feature of climate models which model the effects of gerrenhous gas that:

    a) they predict the corrcet temperature within their zon eof applicabilty (talking about ice age conditons or pre-industrial conditions really doens't make snese within the context of these mdpoels as they are designed to model current conditons i.e. there zone of applicbilty is extxneds only 100 years back in the past)

    b) they predict warmign due to greenhouse gas emmissions.
  17. Feb 3, 2005 #16
    Indeed Climate models are intended to generate predictions. However Modtran-3 is a mathemathical calculation model, designed to calculate effects from known processes with known effects. No predictions, just direct results.

    Prediction models would be a great tool in the scientific process to see if a hypothesis was to be true. You can feed them with your expectations and see if the result of the prediction is going to match your expectations and get a bit closer to the proof or correctness of your hypothesis, to change it into a theory.

    This is happening in the current climate prediction models, there are some problems however. The models seem to have slight problems with predicting the past, ultimately leading to fairly high values of climate sensivity for temperature per doubling CO2 in the range of 2,5-5 degrees. I'm not sure about the correct numbers right now. Then the runs are made, obviously producing the scary scenarios up to 11 degrees warming in 2100.

    But the problems are in the past, remember the debunking of the hockeystick? But loads of computer model predictions depend on it. Next the predictions are assumed to be the real future prospect. Then it's pretty easy to produce scary scenarios.

    http://home.wanadoo.nl/bijkerk/00fig1-1.GIF [Broken] is how the predictions around 1995 performed, notice the dotted red line, that's extending the global surface temperature up until now. The black heavy line shows how we are dropping below the prediction.

    For a more accurate prediction of the sensitivity of temperature to carbon dioxide see http://hanserren.cwhoutwijk.nl/co2/howmuch.htm [Broken].
    Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2017
  18. Feb 3, 2005 #17


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    All climate models use known processes to caculate there results as I siad they are simulations of the climate, the most advanced simulate the coupling between different parts of the environemnt.

    Few series climate scientitss would say the hockey stick has been debunked, the paper thta supposedly debunked it was riddled with trivial erorrs (such as for example mixing up degrees and radians!), infact the person who authore the debunking had his second attempt at debunking it rejected at peer-review.

    Which climate models rely on the hockey stick? climate models I repeat are not simply curve fitting, infact the hocxkey stick is rather irrelvant to climate models aswe don't have to rely on proxy data to obtain the temperature record of the last 100 years which is gnerally as far back as climate models can be extended.
  19. Feb 3, 2005 #18
  20. Feb 3, 2005 #19


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Nevertheless M&Ms work was riddled with flaws. Some might ask why they are concentrating their efforts on a field which is completely outside of thier area of expertise. Like it or not the criticism of M&M were widely seen as deeply flawed.
  21. Feb 4, 2005 #20
    fallacy is variation of false authority

    "MM are no climatologists hence they are wrong."

    If you bother to read their narrative it will be clear that they are not refuting the climatologic elements, they are refuting the use of statistics. Now, one of the M's of MM is a economist, that qualifies him to talk statistics. MBH are climatologists that has a lot less to do with statistics. So the authority claim should be the other way around if it was a valid argument at all.

    Fallacy is appeal of popularity
    Consensus has never been a valid argument in science. It's irrelevant but very understandable.

    The alarmist are absolutely convinced of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW), they will never doubt about it whatever happens. They want it to be true so they can do very positive things to prevent bad things to happen and be the good guys/girls. And that's exactly the problem. He who seeks the truth should always doubt and be able to reject whatever makes no sense. If for whatever reason cathastrophic AGW would not be true then a lot of people may lose their meaning of life. That's very sad. Consequently AGW must be true. Consequently, MM as well as sir Bellamy are dangerous and must be countered at all costs. There are only 2 MM's but millions of people who's meaning of life is threatened when anthropogenic global warming would be flawed. Concequently the witch hunt is a go. Unfortunately the truth cannot be refuted, so using fallacies is the only remaining option.
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Similar Discussions: David Bellamy refutes global warming
  1. Global Warming (Replies: 35)

  2. Global warming (Replies: 1)

  3. Global Warming (Replies: 2)

  4. Global warming (Replies: 5)

  5. Global Warming (Replies: 2)