Dissent on Climate Change
15A Hamilton Terrace, Lamlash Isle of Arran KA27 8LR 12th February 2010 Whilst Dave Furze is to be commended for his commitment to self sufficient energy generation and we would do well to learn from his example, his so-called “facts” [on climate change] do not stand up well to scrutiny, and unfortunately he does not cite a single scientific source in their defence.
Written by Lucy Wallace
Thursday, 18 February 2010
142 views 
0 comments
15A Hamilton Terrace,
Lamlash
Isle of Arran
KA27 8LR
12th February 2010
Whilst Dave Furze is to be commended for his commitment to self sufficient energy generation and we would do well to learn from his example, his so-called “facts” [on climate change] do not stand up well to scrutiny, and unfortunately he does not cite a single scientific source in their defence. The article is too long for me to deal with every “fact”, but here are a few howlers.
1. “3.3% of CO² is from human activity (excluding breathing).”
A 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Report states that broadly over the last 200 years CO² levels have held steady at around 280ppm (parts per million by volume), that is until 1800 AD when it began a dramatic rise to current levels above 380ppm. This is an increase of around 36%. The IPCC believes that there is compelling evidence that humans are responsible for all of this increase. About 75% of this has come from fossil fuel combustion and cement manufacture. The rest has come from deforestation and changed land use. The evidence for this comes from isotope analysis of the CO² in the atmosphere, (C13 and pre nuclear C14 levels) which points to fossil fuels as a source of the CO² rise. Furthermore, the ratio of nitrogen to oxygen has shown a decline at the same time- from the combustion of fossil fuels depleting oxygen in the atmosphere.
2. “Water vapour accounts for 95% of greenhouse gas effect ,CO2 for 3.62%.”
This is much more complicated and although the 95% figure is often used by climate sceptics, nobody is sure where it came from, or what it means- do they mean just water vapour- or the liquid in clouds too?
The real picture is much more complicated because different molecules perform in different ways at different concentrations. Clouds also have a significant part to play and when they are absent, other greenhouse gases become more significant. In clear skies, water vapour accounts for 60% of greenhouse gases and CO² about 26%. Where there are lots of clouds, the role of CO² as a greenhouse gas is reduced because the clouds are trapping the radiation instead.
3. “Once CO² reaches 200 parts per million further increases have negligible effects as a greenhouse gas (Current levels are 385 ppm).” I would love to know where this “fact” came from! The effect of additional greenhouse gas loading on the atmosphere varies hugely around the globe and depends on the amount of water vapour in the air. It is most marked near the colder, dryer polar regions, where there is normally less greenhouse effect from water vapour. See above for effects of clouds!
Over the last 400,000 years or so CO² levels have generally fluctuated between about 180ppm (at the height of the numerous ice ages) and 280ppm (during the warm stages between). It is true to say that the earth’s recent history is indeed characterised by huge temperature and CO² fluctuations, but it rarely dropped below Dave Furze’s magic 200ppm figure. . However even in the last warm period before the most recent ice age, about 120 thousand years ago (when there were hippos wallowing in what is now Trafalgar Square) the CO² levels did not reach 300ppm. This data comes from CO² measurements from Antarctic ice cores.
4. “More CO² means more plants”. Apologies for sounding flippant but will this balance out the destruction of the worlds forests, which accounts for about 25% of human generated CO² released (not including breathing of course)?
5. “Warm periods bring prosperity, civilisation, cold periods cause extreme weather, famines, collapse of civilisations”.
Dave Furze’s historical summaries are a bit sketchy to say the least . Off the top of my head I can counter these with other examples: During the Dark Ages of Europe (a cold spell) Mayan civilisation was flourishing. Likewise, during the Little Ice age (1300-1800), the Aztec empire reached its glowing zenith (and yes, fell, under the cosh of the burgeoning Spanish Empire). I could mention the Ming Dynasty of China of Great Wall fame….
6. “Global warming should be welcomed”. That statement is not going to be well received by the people of Bangladesh, the Himalayas and the Maldives, not to mention those millions suffering famine as deserts spread across Africa, Asia, and Australia.
7. “The majority of climate scientists do not now think that man made CO² emissions cause any significant climate change. Most never thought it did.”
This is another unfounded statement. I understand that all scientific organisations of national or international standing have now adopted either a non committal position or endorsed as The IPCC’s statement in 2001: “An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system... There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities”. There are countless surveys of individual climate scientists that have been published that show a majority view that agrees with the IPCC. The most recent I know of is by Doran and Zimmerman (20089) and is available on the web: http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf.
8. The Graphs:
The graphs are hard to read, badly labelled and not properly referenced, (nor do they contain data that backs up his statements for this century). We don’t even know what kind of data we are looking at.
It is possible to view mean global temperature data as collected by the Hadley Centre on the Met Office Website: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/science/monitoring/
The Hadley Centre data shows no evidence that the temperature peak in the 20s and 30s exceeded the current one. It is possible that Dave’s data relies heavily on Northern Hemisphere observations as these are more numerous, but in fact, only half the picture. However, as he doesn’t cite it, we don’t know. Dave asserts that between 2000 and 2009 the temperature has stabilised and then fallen. By his own argument the world’s temperature fluctuates, yet it remains an undeniable “fact” that the last decade was the warmest on record this century or indeed ever.
I think I had better leave it there, as this letter is already far too long. I hope that if there is indeed more to come from Dave Furze on this matter that he is able to support his “facts” with some sound scientific data.
Yours faithfully,
Lucy Wallace
Thursday, 18 February 2010
142 views 0 comments15A Hamilton Terrace,
Lamlash
Isle of Arran
KA27 8LR
12th February 2010
Whilst Dave Furze is to be commended for his commitment to self sufficient energy generation and we would do well to learn from his example, his so-called “facts” [on climate change] do not stand up well to scrutiny, and unfortunately he does not cite a single scientific source in their defence. The article is too long for me to deal with every “fact”, but here are a few howlers.
1. “3.3% of CO² is from human activity (excluding breathing).”
A 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Report states that broadly over the last 200 years CO² levels have held steady at around 280ppm (parts per million by volume), that is until 1800 AD when it began a dramatic rise to current levels above 380ppm. This is an increase of around 36%. The IPCC believes that there is compelling evidence that humans are responsible for all of this increase. About 75% of this has come from fossil fuel combustion and cement manufacture. The rest has come from deforestation and changed land use. The evidence for this comes from isotope analysis of the CO² in the atmosphere, (C13 and pre nuclear C14 levels) which points to fossil fuels as a source of the CO² rise. Furthermore, the ratio of nitrogen to oxygen has shown a decline at the same time- from the combustion of fossil fuels depleting oxygen in the atmosphere.
2. “Water vapour accounts for 95% of greenhouse gas effect ,CO2 for 3.62%.”
This is much more complicated and although the 95% figure is often used by climate sceptics, nobody is sure where it came from, or what it means- do they mean just water vapour- or the liquid in clouds too?
The real picture is much more complicated because different molecules perform in different ways at different concentrations. Clouds also have a significant part to play and when they are absent, other greenhouse gases become more significant. In clear skies, water vapour accounts for 60% of greenhouse gases and CO² about 26%. Where there are lots of clouds, the role of CO² as a greenhouse gas is reduced because the clouds are trapping the radiation instead.
3. “Once CO² reaches 200 parts per million further increases have negligible effects as a greenhouse gas (Current levels are 385 ppm).” I would love to know where this “fact” came from! The effect of additional greenhouse gas loading on the atmosphere varies hugely around the globe and depends on the amount of water vapour in the air. It is most marked near the colder, dryer polar regions, where there is normally less greenhouse effect from water vapour. See above for effects of clouds!
Over the last 400,000 years or so CO² levels have generally fluctuated between about 180ppm (at the height of the numerous ice ages) and 280ppm (during the warm stages between). It is true to say that the earth’s recent history is indeed characterised by huge temperature and CO² fluctuations, but it rarely dropped below Dave Furze’s magic 200ppm figure. . However even in the last warm period before the most recent ice age, about 120 thousand years ago (when there were hippos wallowing in what is now Trafalgar Square) the CO² levels did not reach 300ppm. This data comes from CO² measurements from Antarctic ice cores.
4. “More CO² means more plants”. Apologies for sounding flippant but will this balance out the destruction of the worlds forests, which accounts for about 25% of human generated CO² released (not including breathing of course)?
5. “Warm periods bring prosperity, civilisation, cold periods cause extreme weather, famines, collapse of civilisations”.
Dave Furze’s historical summaries are a bit sketchy to say the least . Off the top of my head I can counter these with other examples: During the Dark Ages of Europe (a cold spell) Mayan civilisation was flourishing. Likewise, during the Little Ice age (1300-1800), the Aztec empire reached its glowing zenith (and yes, fell, under the cosh of the burgeoning Spanish Empire). I could mention the Ming Dynasty of China of Great Wall fame….
6. “Global warming should be welcomed”. That statement is not going to be well received by the people of Bangladesh, the Himalayas and the Maldives, not to mention those millions suffering famine as deserts spread across Africa, Asia, and Australia.
7. “The majority of climate scientists do not now think that man made CO² emissions cause any significant climate change. Most never thought it did.”
This is another unfounded statement. I understand that all scientific organisations of national or international standing have now adopted either a non committal position or endorsed as The IPCC’s statement in 2001: “An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system... There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities”. There are countless surveys of individual climate scientists that have been published that show a majority view that agrees with the IPCC. The most recent I know of is by Doran and Zimmerman (20089) and is available on the web: http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf.
8. The Graphs:
The graphs are hard to read, badly labelled and not properly referenced, (nor do they contain data that backs up his statements for this century). We don’t even know what kind of data we are looking at.
It is possible to view mean global temperature data as collected by the Hadley Centre on the Met Office Website: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/science/monitoring/
The Hadley Centre data shows no evidence that the temperature peak in the 20s and 30s exceeded the current one. It is possible that Dave’s data relies heavily on Northern Hemisphere observations as these are more numerous, but in fact, only half the picture. However, as he doesn’t cite it, we don’t know. Dave asserts that between 2000 and 2009 the temperature has stabilised and then fallen. By his own argument the world’s temperature fluctuates, yet it remains an undeniable “fact” that the last decade was the warmest on record this century or indeed ever.
I think I had better leave it there, as this letter is already far too long. I hope that if there is indeed more to come from Dave Furze on this matter that he is able to support his “facts” with some sound scientific data.
Yours faithfully,
Lucy Wallace
To add your own comments, you must be a registered member of The Arran Voice.
LOG-IN or Register FREE!
LOG-IN or Register FREE!
Anna Kucharska has commented on
Contact us
About Us
Subscriptions
Advertising
Terms & Conditions
Accessibility
Stats
Comments on This Article
There are currently no comments on this article — why not be the first?