Puny human race take front seat over big solar debate documentry

[flyingpinkelephants]

This recent documentary from channel 4 raises serious questions about how true CO2 emissions affects are and also offers other ideas which have nothing to do with cars and electric generation or planes CO2 emissions

UK (C4) Documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle - Google Video

Now before you jump down my trunk
I adhere strongly to environmental issues and am bordering on a closet tree hugger

BUT I WILL DRAW THE LINE AT TELLING FIBS PORKYS OR COMPLETE UNTRUTHS

I ALSO TRUST MOST SCIENTISTS AS FAR AS I CAN THROW THEM.


I PREFER TO DEAL IN FACTS AND THE TRUTH AND DETEST THE OIL COMPANIES WITH A VENGEANCE
so Bush baby is not my favourite personality and he or his oil cronies sure do not pay me or even like me

BUT

The global warming from CO2 emissions for me personally just dose not add up

I would prefer CO2 to add up so I could actively campaign to stop the burning of fossil fuels
If however the sun or some equally other large uncontrollable force is causing global warming I prefer to verify that and then maybe it might be possible to plan around that instead to chase the wrong target.

However my simple maths indicate that human activity fossil fuel burning and CO2 warming probably dose not exist or at best is responsible for a negligible warming affect to the planet

This documentary shows this side of the argument and the CO2 is cooking the planet brigade don't want to hear this idea

Since 1990 I for my own benefit decided to see what is the total amount of fossil fuels burnt in the planet for environmental reasons.
In those non computer days it meant a visit to that stone age system the library where more factual books exist on subjects and library tends to filter out the off the wall end of the market into fiction sections not like the net chock a block full of urban myths under the cyber mirage name of science .

In 1990 the world scientists were gradually sliding out of the the then previously very fashionable "we are all going to freeze to death from the imminent ice age" that was coming towards us full steam and they were looking around for a suitable scientific wagon to latch onto that would supply the next fashion seeing as the ice age didnt happen to shedule for getting funds quickly and dooms day stuff works best when it comes to getting funds.
Nobody wants to fund everything fine there are no problems be happy smoke grass whatever.

Using my simple mathematics to convert all fossil fuel and nuclear energy into metric ton oil equivalence MTOE to keep it simple and then convert it into supertankers so I could understand the number .
Big numbers are difficult so I like to paint a useful picture that a ten year old could understand so excuse me for painting pictures instead to confuse you with a number I don't even understand.

The MTOE number came out at some 200 supertankers a day and so that was what the world burns every day plus or minus a few supertankers .
OK maybe 100 really big super tankers like 1,000,000 tons or VLTS or 1000 small ones or 200 of the normal big ones.
Ever seen a picture of one of these super tanlkers burning and thats is some fire ,so multiply that out every day and regardless of CO2 issues , it really cant be such a good idea to be burning so much of that gunk in the cities where we live and eat breathe.

I then multiplied out each decade to make the size of the MTOE pool of oil or tank of fuel burnt since say 1945 and fudged a bit before that pre 1945 as energy use before then was not large mostly tree,s for fires with a few in developed world burning coal and a bit of oil .

The MTOE fuel tank of world energy consumption meant something like Ireland filled with 30 feet of oil was burnt from 1945 to 1990 (but not exactly not sure as calculators were not big in them days )so might be wrong by a few feet but it was big pool of oil that went poof into the sky in that period and made a lot of CO2.

I gave up trying to convert that into what very very small percentage of the atmosphere that was turned into CO2 to simulate if there was no recycling from trees as I had a sneaky suspicion trees were not playing ball.

I was curious to know what was in it for the trees to convert CO2 back into oxygen and if they did this why were CO2 levels rising and if trees didn't do this selfless act which science had thrown onto them ,did this mean the early school fact I learnt as a nipper that trees convert oxygen for the humans was wrong?
Worse is science wrong ?

If that fact that trees made oxygen levels rise was wrong what other facts were wrong ???


Later in 1995 when I again had some time I decided to convert the MTOE burning that into tons carbon dioxide a day

It came out as a big number some few hundred thousand cubic kilometres of CO2

I mentioned this fact to Ukrainian friend at the time who had survived Stalin era and he couldn't see where the problem was "the atmosphere is a gigantic ocean" was his attidude

I must admit I hadn't thought of that concept.

How many kiddy's piddling into a swimming pool to pollute it was the new method to get a grip on this moving target and it became clear that mankind relitve to the planet was realy small or sort of equal to one insect using a swimming pool for a toilet .

Now the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere is low really really really low like so low that it parts per million
They say or I should say "the scientists say " that in 1800 it CO2 was 250 parts per million and CO2 levels today is some 380 parts per million.

1,000,000minus 0,000,380= 999.999,620 togive you an idea how small it is

To understand that imagine a big bath tub of water and then add one pinch of salt put into the bath tub
It will take a lot of spoon fulls of salt to make it go salty like sea water or millions of pinches of salt .
So its clear CO2 is a tiny tiny trace gas and all living thing make it

So to get an idea of this motor inside a garage I decided to make a fictitious internal combustion motor with a cylinder of some few cubic kilometres that could consume per second the amount of MTOE that the world consumed to see how long it would take to use the entire atmosphere of the earth's and turn it all into CO2. the earth being the fictisious garage
It was a big number
That nearly broke the calculator

Well the answer was way way in excess of 10,000 years so we ant going to run out of air any time soon even if trees were lazy good for nothing who didn't recycle CO2 into oxygen so the scientists can put that into their pipes and smoke it .
In fact we can chop down all the trees in the planet and it wouldn't have any real affect on CO2 levels killing off life from lack of oxygen for at least a 1000 years.
But my maths could be wrong it could be as little as 100 years or it could be 10,000 but it sure is a very long time

Finally 1998 era got hold of some facts of recycling data that showed trees did some very very small amount of recycling and it showed that my basic assumption was correct and that ¾ of the fossil fuel burnt was not recycled and 50% was dissolved in the sea so the scientists think and sure helped explain where some of the missing CO2 had gone to .

It showed we needed some 20 South American rain forests to recycle the CO2 that we made and even if we did have that there was a problem that CO2 in trees was really only a sink of sorts so in simple terms we look like we are exceeding the earth's ability to recycle the CO2 but every few weeks new numbers change the story every which way.

Ok that meant there was this sudden new hot of the press issue of CO2 warming up the planet or as they prefer to call it the green house affect from green house gases.

Green house affect was nothing new and even 200 years ago some scientists had made a link with CO2 and heating affects and its possible affect on planet climate but it wasn't very fashionable then to preach prophets of doom stuff based on a few choo choo trains huffing and puffing.
Probably the same scientists that put a mouse in sealed glass jar with some cabbages and declared trees make oxygen.

Well the CO2 dooms day brigade were still cast out in the wilderness in the 1970 to 1980 era from the frigid Iceberg lot and it wasn't until about 1995 that the CO2 brigade started to get all the money for checking global warming and Iceberg lot were ejected and later CO2 brigade were showing a definitive link with human activity with burning of fossil fuels as the cause.
The sun a mere million times larger than the earth with a tendency to expand and contract 1% in size with a known erratic and violent history was toppled from this post as possible source of global warming and was declared formly a loser last year.


Continued next frame ....

[flyingpinkelephants]

So I became interested in this new rehashed idea a variation the famous alternative three conspiracy that existed in 1974 ( Channel 4 April fool fake documentary that showed earth was doomed from CO2 and America had already secretly got human colony's evacuated to the moon consisting of all the top scientists to keep humanity going called project alternative 3 ) and was this a real threat that I decided if the earth was a glass house how thick is this glass that surrounds the earth and that took some time to figure out

I looked for any information and then with the NET came more easier access to some more information of sorts often disinformation.


But this time in some ways getting the real facts were harder. Everybody giving facts seemed to have some axe to grind and were hell bent keen to convert you to their trip.
So stupid as it may seem it still requires a few trips to the local library to verify is some fact is correct or a down right lie or is the number fudged or slanted to give their case the best results to prove their point.

Anyway there is in maths a important fact.
If you take a very immense big number and you divide it into a very immensely small number the result is so close to zero that it normally doesn't matter

Equally so there exists another fact that the top of the atmosphere contains O3 or ozone molecules
and this very very very thin layer acts as a shield from harmful suns rays and without it life could probably not exist.
And we do seem to have found ways to muck up that thin layer with body deodorants and hair sprays
This thin layer is some one Ten Billionth or 1/10,000,000 of the atmosphere or close to zero and nearly immeasurable but no ozone no party time

So this shows that sometimes small mathematics can be very important and other times it not relevant
And there in is the problem are the prophets of doom correct that our goose is cooked with each gallon of petrol we use or are we mere mortal hostage to scientists ability to distort computer models in their favour to put the fear of getting cooked into us.

Well I for one am keen to get to the real truth of what is the real story is and is it us mere talking monkeys have reached the zenith of our abilities and can actually affect a really realy huge planet or are we suffering delusions of some jumped up monkey stupidity.
Are our ability for the planet that we are barely worth noting along with the ants, or has the sun got it in for us and we all going to be cooked, or is the sun going through it 100,000 year cycle sometime hot sometimes cold and its presently a bit hot.

Well I cant solve all these issues but I take the pragmatic attitude
I will prefer to actively campaign for the environment where I can more reasonably prove some affect like oil pollution or heavy metals etc. and will strive to protect wildlife and fauna world wide from mine stripping farming practices or similar profit greedy practices that reduce bio deversity or degrade the environment.

My personal opinion which might be wrong for global warming is more simple based on my basic simple maths now done with a spread sheet a bit of a jump up from a calculator ,which indicates
the total amount of MTOE burnt every second seems to me to be ~400 every second
this make approximately 1000 tons of CO2 each second.
Coincidently if you want to imagine how big is that fire 400 tons per second the 2001 911 event supplied the size of this as each jet carried ~200 tons of fuel roughly and so the two plumes of fire combined is approximately the size of the fire each second so multiply that out each second and that's the size of the engine in the world combined in one spot

There are other sources of CO2 some measurable some not so easy to measure but a single active volcano can sometimes spew out in a few days or weeks more CO2 than man makes in a year and there is a lot of volcanoes rumbling away.

Anyway to explain and get to know what is the size of the green house we live in and how thick is the glass that covers it and if again if we didn't have some thickness the climate would probably be much colder I prefer to again paint a picture .
If the CO was a heavier than air gas that sat on the planet surface like a green gas or fog we could see in 1800 it was approximately 35 feet deep ( based on deciding to have a uniform gas pressure of 1 atmosphere from sky to ground and compressing the entire atmosphere into 5 miles high with space starting at 5 miles upwards)
2007 the now period the thickness would be 50 odd feet deep
So we can then say roughly if we put this thick layer of green stuff in the sky the thickness of the glass in the planet has doubled .

But i am sure if you talk to green house owners a glass thickness of 2mm versus 4mm on a very large glass house will have a very minor affect but then who knows so i prefer to look at the history of the world to get other clues.



Well it seems that 90% plus the time or some few million years we are in a ice age with less than 10% a warmer time like now lasting a mere few hundred thousand years so there seems to be big cycles both cold and warm and that's the big cycles hot cold
Now when you run the numbers for the small cycles and you look into history it seems clear that there were warm poeriods and cold in the past and the Viking were successful sailors in relativity flimsy boat craft in a warm period and had a strong 100,000 people colony in both Greenland and Iceland plus a colony in Ireland where they had a big colony and good time raiding the English churches of the gold and taking English girls as wife's or slaves in those non PC days .
It seems in that period that it was warm and and in Ireland they had forests and game to eat every where and the climate was more similar to Mediterranean than the present climate and the Irish didn't even have to farm to eat they were in a paradise and just whiled away their time away breeding with the richer Viking .

Something happened it went cold and the Viking in Greenland got cut off and died off and the Viking in Iceland were nearly wiped out.
The Viking sailing system and trading was to fragile and was unable to cope with the new adverse bad stormy weather and the Viking lost out.
In the much colder1700 periods every year the Londoners would have a three month long market on the frozen river Thames without fail.
So severe weather change patterns exist in history long before man made motor cars or electric power stations.

Anyway the burning of fossil fuels when compared to the size of the planet is so very small even at 400 MTOE a sec that if it were a flea in a jumbo jet passing wind every second it would take 10,000 years before there was a detectable odour and I cant worry about 10,000 years in advance if its for some trace gas.

I can worry about oil spill products polluting the water tables for melina to come with heavy metals or similar.

I can worry about leaving nuclear waste that is toxic for ¼ million years or similar.

I can worry about toxic PCB chemicals building up in the food chains from oil related products and activities.


Continued next frame ....

[flyingpinkelephants]

But really one of my biggest worry is that science is now so totally corrupted by something I prefer to call money science that the science world .world wide WWW when this fashion trend is found to be the real driving force of science instead of science for sake of science will if we are lucky find itself in the dock to answer questions where they get off winding us all up with these nonsense facts that they dream up often from nowhere logical.

Really when you look into science and all these millions and million of scientists that exist we find all the major developments were often from non scientists like Wright brothers and (Mercedez) Benz and similar and all we done since is enhace the original basic idea with nicer paint job .

We find that often scientists will follow the herd worse than the joe soaps and not verify the facts such as scientists in the nazi regime , who often probably got all their really bad ideas from the other universities spread across the world spouting these same crazy ideas , but only the nazi scientist,s were in court for being stupid to actualy practice the ideas .
The others scientist had dropped the ideas for some other nonsense such as smoking was good for you and that killed more people than Hitler .
Hitler was bad but he used distorted science to back up his case and often the source of this was not german universities or intelegentsia or germman science but non german stuff .
Bad science will untimitly lead us into a similar cul de sac but the new Hitler might not be a single person but a whole movement that wont wont allow real debate on thier pet subject in case they lose the funds or the prestige whatever.

No for me it seems to be a few half decent scientists that did it for the love of science like Louis Paster or similar and a bucket load of for sale to the highest bidder like tobacco industry or similar to prove smoking was good for you even if they had to fudge the numbers.

I will personally strive to reduce fossil fuel usage for many good environmental reasons like it polutes the ground water I drink and city air I breathe and also the fact that Ireland is on the wrong end of the pipe line and will push for solution like wind or tidal whatever but I really have severe doubts that the CO2 issue relevant for the near future inside a 1000 years.

Unfortunately I can expect the scientists to now go into a mad search to drum up some other nonsense and make it more difficult to go for a more gentle technology solutions as there is probably not the same doom scenario funding in gentle technology solutions .

So me I will stick to my quirky maths and get involved with a lively debate but I will not be brow beaten by these scientists some who are clean off the wall and who are often barely better than than the local witch doctor with their mirrors of distortion and should be dragged more frequently into a court to prove their case .
Often as they do not have to answer to any body as they winged it to the top of the University tree with cut and paste methods and is why they come up with crazy ideas like the world is overpopulated when clearly its 99.9% empty .
Maybe the theory of overpopulation has its origins because the price of beach front property went up in their city due to local demand and that demands a paper on overpopulation and they forget there's thousands of miles of empty beaches in 99.999999999% empty Mauritania and come to think of it ireland is only 1/4 the poulation density of the UK a relitivly empty place compared to Holland so even Ireland is a really empty place

Scientists when this CO2 fashion ends what's next ah yeah smoking crack is good for you
For me science is on trial they just don't know it yet as they wing it with ever more fanciful nonsense

Anyway the sun wont listen to any body it will do its own thing good bad or indifferent


Flyingpinkelephants NQS non qualified Scientist


PS regret need to break into three frames but there is a 10000 chars limit per frame