I don't wish to be an inverted snob, but when I say that I don't watch television's Channel 4, it is principally because whenever I have glimpsed it, particularly when Daughter is at home and watches it, it seems to be full of American Soaps, such as Friends, and E.R. and "reality T.V. stuff" and in general, these programmes don't appeal to me much. I suppose that I have regarded it, rather like I regard The Daily Sport, something that people oggle when they can't absorb much of the written word, but maybe,(only maybe) that is a misjudgement. On Thursday evening, sat in my camper van, I found the evening's TV rather miserable, and before switching off and returning to my Road Plans, I flicked channels and, on Channel 4, I came across the documentary "The Great Global Warming Swindle" which had just started. I caught some comment about how the carbon dioxide theory was ridiculous and started to watch. Well! I spent the next hour and a half with jaw dropped open, quite aghast as I listened with astonishment and a deep fascination to the most eminent of specialist scientists from around the world, as they revealed the actual facts about "global warming" and the significance of papers and research on many factors which have been looked at in regards to this "new" phenomenon. I had sort of heard that there were a lot of people who disputed claims about global warming and Carbon dioxide emissions, and had rather rapidly dismissed them as being fed by parties interested in maintenance of the staus quo with regards to consumption of fossil fuels, particularly oil companies around the world. I had scathed at the U.S. policy of not signing up to the Kyoto Agreement on reduction of CO2 emissions, and I suppose had rather embraced the idea of reducing greenhouse gases and encouraging solar and wind energy, although, I have to confess, that, with the single major problem of waste disposal, I find nuclear power to be the most efficient, cleanest and most easily produceable in vast amounts, despite everyone else seeming to despise even the mention of it.
This programme was, to me, an absolute revelation. It seemed that the evidence it presented was well researched, unbiased, and showed high degrees of statistically significant correlation with what appears to be happening in our global climate and weather patterns. I wish I could get a DVD copy to see it all again and study exactly what was said and look up the research myself, but at the moment, one can "rent" it from Channel4 downloads, but not buy a copy.
In essence, what it was saying was that, historically, as studied in arctic ice core samples, the relationship of CO2 in the atmosphere to any of the climate changes in the past has been virtually unrelated when plotted on graphs. Bearing in mind, man's dominance on the planet in the last million years and in particular the enormous increase in the use of fossil fuels and hydrocarbons since the Industrial revolution, the climate changes which have occurred in the last hundred and fifty years have shown no bearing at all with CO2 levels or pollution. Indeed the CO2 levels have fluctuated for millions of years both higher and lower than they are now, or are predicted to become, with no directly correlated evidence to climate change. I was really surprised, in light of what we are told, that mankind's total contribution to CO2 from every aspect of lifestyle, activities and power, serves to create about 2% of the world total CO2. The exact figures for the rest I cannot quote, but I recall that it was about 16% from volcanoes, and 34% from all other animal life burping and farting! The rest of the atmospheric CO2 comes from....THE SEA! I was stunned....how did they get to these figures? They obtained this information from analysis of dissolved CO2 in the ice core samples which date back at least 65,000 years. They compare them with the pollens and remains of organic debris and sea creatures found in the waters before and after these periods. There is no direct correlation between the amount of CO2 in the ice and the times that the global climate took ups and downs. The only item of real interest in this, is that, when the seas are warmer, they release CO2 into the atmosphere, and when they are colder, they absorb it back. Now, why do the sea temperatures change and how, and over what period of time? Firstly, it seems that the volume and surface area of the sea are so vast thatwarmth and cold affects different parts of the sea at different times and the alterations in localised temperatures affect the global situation over very long periods, like hundreds of years! For example, it may take 800 to 1000years of a warm sea in the south pacific to have an effect in warming the seas in the North Atlantic, as the currents beneath ebb and flow and the waters gradually mix. It is as if one puts a pint of cold water into the tap end of a very hot bath; the water will gradually mix and alter to a uniform temparature but it will take a very long time, and the overall effect, despite the fact that perhaps a 1000th of the water will have been altered will be relatively small. So, if the CO2 which comes and goes from the sea is the largest fluctuating element of the whole amount of CO2, it is changes in sea temperature which CAUSE the rise or fall of the CO2, not the other way round, and the change in sea temparature which is happening over many decades, periodically changes the amount of ice at the poles, either greater or smaller, in phases. So sometimes more land is exposed and sometimes it is flooded again. As for the heat and rain patterns, freezing or warm winters or wet or dry hot summers, this is not dependent on CO2 either. They are dependent upon wind patterns and cloud protection. The sea heats up when the clouds are reduced and cools when they are more dense. The heating element is simply the most unbelievably powerful and uncontrollable energy source, the sun. The heat and light from the sun dictates what happens to our climate. There is no argument that the dangerous radiation rays penetrate more with reduced cloud cover, or reduced ozone in the atmosphere and those alone may be responsible for increase in skin cancers. The sun however has major gaseous explosions, the so called "solar flares", which spew particles at ultra high speed into the atmosphere and the force of this expulsion produces magnetic changes in the atmosphere and also solar winds, which circulate into our higher atmosphere. These flares have been recorded in many scientific communities, in many countries, over at least the last 400 years, and in the direct plotting of these events against climate change the increase of solar flare activity and the warming or converse, the decrease and cooling, of the global climate subsequently, shows phenomenonally good, statistically significant, tracking of each other, to such an extent that, inverting the plotted activity waves with each other, the two graphs virtually interlock as closely as a jigsaw piece. These minute sloar particles, meeting evaporated waters rising as humidity from the sea, which condese to become water droplets, which in turn become clouds and then shield the earth to some extent from the heat of the sun, thus areas undeneath become cooler. The heat also causes sea temperature change, and this produces alterations in currents, and thus surface wind patterns and overall global climate. However, as previously stated, these significant changes of the sea develop over many decades, and this produces gradual but sustained gradual changes to hotter are followed by gradual changes cooler, likewise over several decades. It cannot just suddenly change, and the odd severe natural event, has probably developed in the core crust over centuries rather than months. Local rises or falls in sea temparatures will cause local increase or decrease in atmospheric CO2, but these are so diluted in the overall amount that they are of little immediate significance in any way at all.
We have infact, had several marked climatic changes over the last 100 years, largely a bit warmer, but after the last World War a bit cooler for a while. At the turn of the 19th century and on several occasions before, people skated on the Thames in winter. In the early 20th Century it was warmer for some time and then in the 40's and 50's became hot in summer and cold in winters. Since the end of the 80's we are currently getting a bit warmer again, but it would seem likely that this has absolutely nothing to do with the insignificance of who we, as mankind are, in the scheme of things. We see ourselves as the most important or influential element on the planet. How arrogant have we become that like King Canute we think we can stand at the edge of the sea and tell it to retreat!
All this is very disturbing news to me. The consequences are absolutely catastrophic for some of the peoples of the world, and very irritating, and annoying for many others. The first realisation being that, in order to influence, manipulate, and profit from, our incorrect comprehension about CO2 production, namely our 2%,(which we are told is changing the whole of life as we know it,) we are being told by our Masters that we are going to have to signicantly change our lifestyles. I will accept happily, that fossil fuels, hydrocarbons, have an effect on the atmosphere, they pollute. They cause smog, asthma, lung and heart problems, dirt, soot, road deaths, and major burrowing below, and scarification and spoil above, the ground. We fight for them, we die for them and we make any excuse to go to war to possess them. They cause people to destroy areas of natural beauty and destroy animal and plant habitats in search of wealth from "black gold". Ethically, of course, a clean renewable source of energy needs to be researched. Hydrocarbons will run out faster than they are being created. But I find it hard now to believe all the other stuff about mankind raising CO2 levels, either significantly compared to natural sources, or with consequent devastating climate effect. The verifiable, evidence based hypothesis, let alone statistically significant research, for this, is JUST NOT THERE! What this means is that the great green campaigners are barking up the wrong trees, or perhaps just barking. I believe they really have every right to believe in simple natural lives, to be planters and reapers and vegan and use wind and wave and solar power; I uphold their right to live that way if they wish, but to be able to make everyone believe in what is clearly a total climatological, ecological misunderstanding of the basic facts is just wicked, and actually could be making the natural inevitable climate change far more significant and far more devastating to millions of people, and ecosystems. It raises totally false hopes of change, with no suitable planning being made to cope with management of the inevitable. How much better to fully industrialise in the short term and progress to the new industrial and technological revolution in research and development; to source energy production methods that really may stand some chance of taking over from fossil fuels and sustain the energy requirements of the future, rather to to talk rubbish about hooking up a windmill from B and Q to a set of old car batteries to run your 12volt T.V., or fixing up a small dynamo in the downpipe of your roof to run your eco-friendly single 4w light bulb to see you to bed when it's raining. Without phenomenal new technologies, the world's energy use cannot be met for much more than another 150 years on fossil fuels anyway. It has to be time for the new scientists to come up with the 21st century miracles, as our forefathers thought they had produced with the electric light and the internal combustion, let alone the jet, engine. To think we are already there now, is a major error, and can only serve to suppress development and invention. Just because we can erect giant windmills ( I mean.....giant bloody windmills for goodness sake!) to tie up to a dynamo (bit 19th century that isn't it?) and help out the national grid for the profit of some landowners who previously owned simple wild moorlandto produce enough electricity to keep 100 offices in Whitehall lit all night, really doen't mean this is the way forward surely! The sooner we start the better, with real money and a real global willing to search, but in the meantime, cutting back and using second best won't get anybody anywhere except to become an extra in a real life sequel to Mad Max beyond Thunderdome! It'll be old bed sheets strapped to your cars next as their second power source for when it is windy, and we will all pay less for our road fund licences if we get horses to pull them on Sunday when we go to do the supermarket shop. ( Of course, the CO2 the horse emits will far outweigh any benefit from the amount that the car exhaust could manage)
We seem to have been set about 20 years to change the world....."Attention all systems...Flash Gordon approaching...and he only has 20years to save the Earth!" Perhaps our Tony may do better in a Flash Gordon outfit than in his Superman kit? Then again, perhaps not. ( Can't you just see his bronze statue in the House of Commons though!)
The amount of energy which we currently consume is a miniscule fraction of the natural energy from the sun from which it all flows. Man cannot expect to harvest that energy in anything like the same amount as our major storage heaters, the seas already do. The energy may be released in warmth, winds, waves, and core energy, but that none of that is harvestable in significant amounts in any better ways than the earth already provides. Yes, of course we should find cleaner energy sources, but not because of CO2, rather because of particulate and chemical pollution. It has been shown that to maintain even a maximum of 20% of our industrial world and personal energy use, no more than this maximum of 20%, at current levels of use could be found from world wide conversion to wind, solar and wave power on a massive and ecologically devastating scale. Even if the industrialised world could do it, most certainly the 80% of the rest could not lift themselves out of poverty and health anything like what we have. The poorer countries have to have energy, in vast quantity and cheap to produce and use in order to industrialise enough to produce basic subsistence income and food to live. Who are we now to say that because we have decided on this bizarre hypothesis of CO2 reduction, we should stop others from producing power from hydrocarbons, which, in most cases, are the only available power production materials available to them? What will be the consequence here? Improved technology in the energy saving lightbulb, which will eventually, as others are phase out, become as expensive, and probably more so than the current bulbs, will lead to increased wealth in the rich countries. Massive taxation on all forms of fuels which are actually cheap and available will mean massive growth in government wealth. Stringent sanctions or withdrawal of aid programmes to countries that are already in poverty but who wish or need to use fossil fuels to make any headway into self sufficiency and independence from constant succour, will lead to worsening poverty, sickness deaths, civil wars and "liberating" air attacks from the supreme powers if they try to produce nuclear energy as an economical alternative?
I am just so aghast at what now appears to be on the First World Agenda, but what can you do? will anybody listen? How can 27 apparently intelligent EU Ministers collaborate in such a scam? Why was the summit on energy not looking at every possible aspect of what this phenomenon might be...could they simply see it as a way to wield power, by ignorance and fear and lies, over the masses and raise taxes on every aspect of our lives? To follow a deluded path at this stage could at best be expensive and make absolutely know differnence to the world's climate. At worst it could cause million to suffer and die in abject pain and poverty, and not have made appripriate plans for actually how to manage with a global change rather than to try and prevent it. Some of you may now expect me to cancel my trip to the USA and parade with a plaque on Oxford Street, saying "meat is sinful", or the "end of the world is nigh". Not a bit of it. I am now much happier at the amount of fuel I shall burn to fly me and my bike to the States, and the amount of gas I shall guzzle on my trip. It am thoroughly confident that it won't make a scrap of difference to the climate although I do apologise to those of you who have asthma, and would enourage Harley to develop a gas conversion for the big twin engines. God and King Canute must be laughing their socks off, though maybe God is actually crying, wondering what to do with the unplanned massive influx of residents. Perhaps it is a good idea that we actually cannot prove or disprove his existence. We really don't seem to have learned much since the biblical report concerning earlier Masters who decided to build a tower to the heavens.. That, you may remember was to show that they had equal knowledge and power with God, and to unite all the peoples in an attempt to change the inevitable. That too ended in tears. Oh world, get your handkerchieves ready, for I seriously feel that we are all about to make the biggest, most arrogant cock-up since Babel.
I don't feel I can just sign off "Best wishes" this time. Instead, I'll just say,
Look into it....... , Doc
Incidentally, for those of you who have waded through this, and have been paying attention to my previous blogs, now you know the other meaning of the word "katharos". Gold stars to you!
In essence, what it was saying was that, historically, as studied in arctic ice core samples, the relationship of CO2 in the atmosphere to any of the climate changes in the past has been virtually unrelated when plotted on graphs. Bearing in mind, man's dominance on the planet in the last million years and in particular the enormous increase in the use of fossil fuels and hydrocarbons since the Industrial revolution, the climate changes which have occurred in the last hundred and fifty years have shown no bearing at all with CO2 levels or pollution. Indeed the CO2 levels have fluctuated for millions of years both higher and lower than they are now, or are predicted to become, with no directly correlated evidence to climate change. I was really surprised, in light of what we are told, that mankind's total contribution to CO2 from every aspect of lifestyle, activities and power, serves to create about 2% of the world total CO2. The exact figures for the rest I cannot quote, but I recall that it was about 16% from volcanoes, and 34% from all other animal life burping and farting! The rest of the atmospheric CO2 comes from....THE SEA! I was stunned....how did they get to these figures? They obtained this information from analysis of dissolved CO2 in the ice core samples which date back at least 65,000 years. They compare them with the pollens and remains of organic debris and sea creatures found in the waters before and after these periods. There is no direct correlation between the amount of CO2 in the ice and the times that the global climate took ups and downs. The only item of real interest in this, is that, when the seas are warmer, they release CO2 into the atmosphere, and when they are colder, they absorb it back. Now, why do the sea temperatures change and how, and over what period of time? Firstly, it seems that the volume and surface area of the sea are so vast thatwarmth and cold affects different parts of the sea at different times and the alterations in localised temperatures affect the global situation over very long periods, like hundreds of years! For example, it may take 800 to 1000years of a warm sea in the south pacific to have an effect in warming the seas in the North Atlantic, as the currents beneath ebb and flow and the waters gradually mix. It is as if one puts a pint of cold water into the tap end of a very hot bath; the water will gradually mix and alter to a uniform temparature but it will take a very long time, and the overall effect, despite the fact that perhaps a 1000th of the water will have been altered will be relatively small. So, if the CO2 which comes and goes from the sea is the largest fluctuating element of the whole amount of CO2, it is changes in sea temperature which CAUSE the rise or fall of the CO2, not the other way round, and the change in sea temparature which is happening over many decades, periodically changes the amount of ice at the poles, either greater or smaller, in phases. So sometimes more land is exposed and sometimes it is flooded again. As for the heat and rain patterns, freezing or warm winters or wet or dry hot summers, this is not dependent on CO2 either. They are dependent upon wind patterns and cloud protection. The sea heats up when the clouds are reduced and cools when they are more dense. The heating element is simply the most unbelievably powerful and uncontrollable energy source, the sun. The heat and light from the sun dictates what happens to our climate. There is no argument that the dangerous radiation rays penetrate more with reduced cloud cover, or reduced ozone in the atmosphere and those alone may be responsible for increase in skin cancers. The sun however has major gaseous explosions, the so called "solar flares", which spew particles at ultra high speed into the atmosphere and the force of this expulsion produces magnetic changes in the atmosphere and also solar winds, which circulate into our higher atmosphere. These flares have been recorded in many scientific communities, in many countries, over at least the last 400 years, and in the direct plotting of these events against climate change the increase of solar flare activity and the warming or converse, the decrease and cooling, of the global climate subsequently, shows phenomenonally good, statistically significant, tracking of each other, to such an extent that, inverting the plotted activity waves with each other, the two graphs virtually interlock as closely as a jigsaw piece. These minute sloar particles, meeting evaporated waters rising as humidity from the sea, which condese to become water droplets, which in turn become clouds and then shield the earth to some extent from the heat of the sun, thus areas undeneath become cooler. The heat also causes sea temperature change, and this produces alterations in currents, and thus surface wind patterns and overall global climate. However, as previously stated, these significant changes of the sea develop over many decades, and this produces gradual but sustained gradual changes to hotter are followed by gradual changes cooler, likewise over several decades. It cannot just suddenly change, and the odd severe natural event, has probably developed in the core crust over centuries rather than months. Local rises or falls in sea temparatures will cause local increase or decrease in atmospheric CO2, but these are so diluted in the overall amount that they are of little immediate significance in any way at all.
We have infact, had several marked climatic changes over the last 100 years, largely a bit warmer, but after the last World War a bit cooler for a while. At the turn of the 19th century and on several occasions before, people skated on the Thames in winter. In the early 20th Century it was warmer for some time and then in the 40's and 50's became hot in summer and cold in winters. Since the end of the 80's we are currently getting a bit warmer again, but it would seem likely that this has absolutely nothing to do with the insignificance of who we, as mankind are, in the scheme of things. We see ourselves as the most important or influential element on the planet. How arrogant have we become that like King Canute we think we can stand at the edge of the sea and tell it to retreat!
All this is very disturbing news to me. The consequences are absolutely catastrophic for some of the peoples of the world, and very irritating, and annoying for many others. The first realisation being that, in order to influence, manipulate, and profit from, our incorrect comprehension about CO2 production, namely our 2%,(which we are told is changing the whole of life as we know it,) we are being told by our Masters that we are going to have to signicantly change our lifestyles. I will accept happily, that fossil fuels, hydrocarbons, have an effect on the atmosphere, they pollute. They cause smog, asthma, lung and heart problems, dirt, soot, road deaths, and major burrowing below, and scarification and spoil above, the ground. We fight for them, we die for them and we make any excuse to go to war to possess them. They cause people to destroy areas of natural beauty and destroy animal and plant habitats in search of wealth from "black gold". Ethically, of course, a clean renewable source of energy needs to be researched. Hydrocarbons will run out faster than they are being created. But I find it hard now to believe all the other stuff about mankind raising CO2 levels, either significantly compared to natural sources, or with consequent devastating climate effect. The verifiable, evidence based hypothesis, let alone statistically significant research, for this, is JUST NOT THERE! What this means is that the great green campaigners are barking up the wrong trees, or perhaps just barking. I believe they really have every right to believe in simple natural lives, to be planters and reapers and vegan and use wind and wave and solar power; I uphold their right to live that way if they wish, but to be able to make everyone believe in what is clearly a total climatological, ecological misunderstanding of the basic facts is just wicked, and actually could be making the natural inevitable climate change far more significant and far more devastating to millions of people, and ecosystems. It raises totally false hopes of change, with no suitable planning being made to cope with management of the inevitable. How much better to fully industrialise in the short term and progress to the new industrial and technological revolution in research and development; to source energy production methods that really may stand some chance of taking over from fossil fuels and sustain the energy requirements of the future, rather to to talk rubbish about hooking up a windmill from B and Q to a set of old car batteries to run your 12volt T.V., or fixing up a small dynamo in the downpipe of your roof to run your eco-friendly single 4w light bulb to see you to bed when it's raining. Without phenomenal new technologies, the world's energy use cannot be met for much more than another 150 years on fossil fuels anyway. It has to be time for the new scientists to come up with the 21st century miracles, as our forefathers thought they had produced with the electric light and the internal combustion, let alone the jet, engine. To think we are already there now, is a major error, and can only serve to suppress development and invention. Just because we can erect giant windmills ( I mean.....giant bloody windmills for goodness sake!) to tie up to a dynamo (bit 19th century that isn't it?) and help out the national grid for the profit of some landowners who previously owned simple wild moorlandto produce enough electricity to keep 100 offices in Whitehall lit all night, really doen't mean this is the way forward surely! The sooner we start the better, with real money and a real global willing to search, but in the meantime, cutting back and using second best won't get anybody anywhere except to become an extra in a real life sequel to Mad Max beyond Thunderdome! It'll be old bed sheets strapped to your cars next as their second power source for when it is windy, and we will all pay less for our road fund licences if we get horses to pull them on Sunday when we go to do the supermarket shop. ( Of course, the CO2 the horse emits will far outweigh any benefit from the amount that the car exhaust could manage)
We seem to have been set about 20 years to change the world....."Attention all systems...Flash Gordon approaching...and he only has 20years to save the Earth!" Perhaps our Tony may do better in a Flash Gordon outfit than in his Superman kit? Then again, perhaps not. ( Can't you just see his bronze statue in the House of Commons though!)
The amount of energy which we currently consume is a miniscule fraction of the natural energy from the sun from which it all flows. Man cannot expect to harvest that energy in anything like the same amount as our major storage heaters, the seas already do. The energy may be released in warmth, winds, waves, and core energy, but that none of that is harvestable in significant amounts in any better ways than the earth already provides. Yes, of course we should find cleaner energy sources, but not because of CO2, rather because of particulate and chemical pollution. It has been shown that to maintain even a maximum of 20% of our industrial world and personal energy use, no more than this maximum of 20%, at current levels of use could be found from world wide conversion to wind, solar and wave power on a massive and ecologically devastating scale. Even if the industrialised world could do it, most certainly the 80% of the rest could not lift themselves out of poverty and health anything like what we have. The poorer countries have to have energy, in vast quantity and cheap to produce and use in order to industrialise enough to produce basic subsistence income and food to live. Who are we now to say that because we have decided on this bizarre hypothesis of CO2 reduction, we should stop others from producing power from hydrocarbons, which, in most cases, are the only available power production materials available to them? What will be the consequence here? Improved technology in the energy saving lightbulb, which will eventually, as others are phase out, become as expensive, and probably more so than the current bulbs, will lead to increased wealth in the rich countries. Massive taxation on all forms of fuels which are actually cheap and available will mean massive growth in government wealth. Stringent sanctions or withdrawal of aid programmes to countries that are already in poverty but who wish or need to use fossil fuels to make any headway into self sufficiency and independence from constant succour, will lead to worsening poverty, sickness deaths, civil wars and "liberating" air attacks from the supreme powers if they try to produce nuclear energy as an economical alternative?
I am just so aghast at what now appears to be on the First World Agenda, but what can you do? will anybody listen? How can 27 apparently intelligent EU Ministers collaborate in such a scam? Why was the summit on energy not looking at every possible aspect of what this phenomenon might be...could they simply see it as a way to wield power, by ignorance and fear and lies, over the masses and raise taxes on every aspect of our lives? To follow a deluded path at this stage could at best be expensive and make absolutely know differnence to the world's climate. At worst it could cause million to suffer and die in abject pain and poverty, and not have made appripriate plans for actually how to manage with a global change rather than to try and prevent it. Some of you may now expect me to cancel my trip to the USA and parade with a plaque on Oxford Street, saying "meat is sinful", or the "end of the world is nigh". Not a bit of it. I am now much happier at the amount of fuel I shall burn to fly me and my bike to the States, and the amount of gas I shall guzzle on my trip. It am thoroughly confident that it won't make a scrap of difference to the climate although I do apologise to those of you who have asthma, and would enourage Harley to develop a gas conversion for the big twin engines. God and King Canute must be laughing their socks off, though maybe God is actually crying, wondering what to do with the unplanned massive influx of residents. Perhaps it is a good idea that we actually cannot prove or disprove his existence. We really don't seem to have learned much since the biblical report concerning earlier Masters who decided to build a tower to the heavens.. That, you may remember was to show that they had equal knowledge and power with God, and to unite all the peoples in an attempt to change the inevitable. That too ended in tears. Oh world, get your handkerchieves ready, for I seriously feel that we are all about to make the biggest, most arrogant cock-up since Babel.
I don't feel I can just sign off "Best wishes" this time. Instead, I'll just say,
Look into it....... , Doc
Incidentally, for those of you who have waded through this, and have been paying attention to my previous blogs, now you know the other meaning of the word "katharos". Gold stars to you!
No comments:
Post a Comment