David Bellamy refutes global warming

[Bystander]

Re: Clathrates

I'm not looking for the isotope signatures (oh, ain't there a bunch of questions about interpretations on that topic) --- wolram mentioned running into discussions of clathrate "explosions" --- I am interested in references to such hypothesized events, proposed mechanisms for such events, and whether the process has been proposed by mainstream climatologists or by individuals reasoning from analogy to Lake Nyos type events.

 

[jcsd]

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.

As I've pointed out M&M's analysis contains such grievious errors as mixing up degrees and radians.

I'm just curious why who cliam to be skeptical are so happy to accept the flawed analysis of people unconnected to the field against the weight of opinion in that field! Why if their concerns are scientific do they tend to shun the peer-revied journals. Why do those who oppose AGW need to lace their rhetoric with poltics rather than concentrating on the science?

 

[quantumcarl]

My next fear mongering crusade,

STOP SOLAR SYSTEM WARMING.

The sun is changing. Pretty soon it will expand and explode (in 5 billion years). Are you ready?!

The Tinfoil Hat Company (TM) can help.

 

[Andre]

As I've pointed out M&M's analysis contains such grievious errors as mixing up degrees and radians.

and clearly demonstrating how effective the witch hunt is.

Message: The alleged radians degree error was in another paper but now all papers of MM always contain errors in every calculation.

 

[Andre]

Bystander

James Kennett is the spiritual father of the Clathrate gun:

Methane Hydrates in Quaternary Climate Change The Clathrate Gun Hypothesis

They focus on the Dansgaard Oescher events although the Bolling-Allerod event and onset of the Pre-Boreal/Holocene are clearly amplified events of the same nature. However I consider their mechanism in error (warming). The reason is unusual rapid system response. No attention is given to changing physical mechanisms like pH change of the ocean that has tremendous effect on d18O in foraminifera, and as said precipitation pattern changes and there is ample evidence for that.

Mark Maslin refers to continental slope failures, suggesting that clathrate saturated sediments slid into the deep. Some do believe that clathrate becomes unstable again over there due to rising temperatures, but that seems to be in error. Since clathrate floats I propose that it is more likely that scattering of sediment (Earthquakes?) may have send much of the clathrate to the surface.

Since that isotope behavior repeats about every 100,000 years and is clearly not related to the Milankovitch rhytms, we may be able to make a big step forward understanding what's going on. But we have to rid ourselves first of the horrible global warming virus.

 

[reasonmclucus]

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.

The claims about "global warming" aren't based on any scientific evaluation of the data.

A recent NASA news release confirmed something I had long suspected about the way climatologists determine average or mean temperatures.

To determine if the Earth is warming or cooling, scientists look at average temperatures. To get an "average" temperature, scientists take the warmest and the coolest temperatures in a day, and calculate the temperature that is exactly in the middle of those high and low values. This provides an average temperature for a day. These average temperatures are then calculated for spots all over the Earth, over an entire year.

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/data/update/gistemp/2004/

This approach would be the equivalent of trying to determine the "average" age of residents in a community by looking only at the ages of its youngest and oldest residents.

Any determination of average temperature should use temperatures taken no more than 10 minutes apart to insure adequate representation of the temperatures during the day. The high temperature might reflect a temperature that only existed for a few minutes while the low temperature was present for several hours or vice versa. Chinook winds along the eastern Rockies can raise air temperatures 20 F or more within minutes. Strong cold fronts can drop temperatures just as rapidly.

More accurate comparisons should probably involve comparing the areas under the curve for different periods with the temperature measured in degrees Kelvin.

Accurately determining the heat content of the atmosphere would require calculating the amount of heat energy held by the various components of the atmosphere. Gases other than water vapor can probably treated the same because of similar coefficients of heat. However, water vapor contains substantially more heat than the rest of the atmosphere. Its coefficient of heat is a high 1.0. Plus water vapor contains 540 calories of heat per gram that must be released before it can condense to a liquid form and another 80 calories per gram to freeze. Water is normally a liquid or solid at atmospheric temperatures.