Of all the media stories blaming everything on global warming and the human carbon footprint, this story of research from Robert Gordon University in Scotland takes the prize for stupid association:

Researchers at the Robert Gordon University have completed a study that addresses the link between climate change and obesity.

The academics suggest that global weight loss would result in a drop in the production of the major greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide.

The study was carried out by a trio of researchers within the university’s Centre for Obesity Research and Epidemiology (CORE). It suggests that if every obese and overweight person in the world lost 10 kilograms (or 1.58 stone), the resulting drop in greenhouse emissions would be the equivalent of 0.2% of the CO₂ emitted globally in 2007 (49.560Mt).

The calculations were based on a previous weight loss study that investigated the effects of a low-carbohydrate diet on body weight, body composition and resting metabolic rate of obese volunteers with type 2 diabetes. After six months of following the diet, the volunteers’ weight, fat mass, fat free mass and CO₂ production were observed.

Dr Catherine Rolland was one of the lead researchers on the study. She explains: “This decrease can be explained by the principles of respiration – the process by which organisms breathe in oxygen, which is then converted to CO₂ and then exhaled.

“CO₂ production is proportionate to body mass and heavier individuals naturally produce more than those of a healthier weight. The global obesity epidemic, therefore, has resulted in humans producing a higher volume of a major greenhouse gas.”

The initial study was carried out by Phd student Ania Gryka as supervised by Dr Rolland and Professor Iain Broom, director of CORE. It was published in International Journal of Obesity on 26 July this year.

The team were inspired to investigate the link between obesity and global warming after reading a paper written by academics Ian Roberts and Robin Stott in November 2010 which put out a call for collective action from health professionals against the causes of climate change.

Dr Rolland continues: “The current climate change has been most likely caused by the increased greenhouse gas emissions, and one of the direct producers of these gases is human beings. As such, Professor Broom felt that we were in an ideal position to present our data in a way that responded to this call by Roberts and Stott.

“While the reality is that global weight loss of this magnitude is unlikely to happen anytime soon, it is clear that working towards this reduction could help meet the CO₂ emission reduction targets and be of a great benefit to global health. It also makes the point that by improving our own health we can play a part in improving the health of our planet.”

The CORE team have no immediate future plans for this research, but will continue to contribute to the global understanding and management of obesity.

Comment: This study shows the lengths to which researchers go to get their study into a politically-correct, grant producing mode.

By the way, I’m doing my part to reduce my carbon footprint. I have been on a low-carbohydrate diet the last six months and have lost 26 pounds.

UPDATE: Statistician William Briggs take an amusing look at this study here. He poses the interesting question: Since fat contains carbon, wouldn’t we sequester just as much carbon dioxide if more people got fat?

See also:

Your Carbon Footprint doesn’t Matter

A recent news release from the Department of Energy titled “Carbon hitches a ride from field to market” reports on government research that discovered crops grown in one state may be consumed in another state, thereby releasing carbon dioxide in a place different from where it was originally sequestered by growing the crops. (The report seems to ignore the fact that produce is imported from Mexico and South America.)

This report is an example of our tax dollars being wasted by foolish, politically correct, totally useless government programs. DOE frets “That geography matters for those who track every bit of carbon on Earth in an effort to estimate the potential impacts of greenhouse gases.” Yes, our government spends time and money keeping track of that, but, as I show in a recent post, “Temperature variations, not humans, control atmospheric CO₂ content.”

Apparently the Department of Energy doesn’t have enough real work to do so it wastes resources on nonsense like this study. We should not waste resources, so let’s eliminate one source of waste: the Department of Energy.

See also:

Your Carbon Footprint doesn’t Matter

Triple your carbon footprint. Does that sound crazy? Read on. By some estimates, our increasing use of fossil fuels will raise atmospheric carbon dioxide to about 1,000ppm (versus about 390ppm currently) by the end of this century. Climate alarmists and governments have decreed that this is undesirable and even dangerous because it might lead to uncontrolled global warming, so they say. They propose various schemes to reduce our carbon footprint. I contend that more carbon dioxide will not significantly affect climate change, and that government policy to curb emissions is exactly the opposite of what we should do. Why? Because we need to increase food production for our increasing population, and to preserve habitat for wildlife. Increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide will help do both.

Human population is about 6 billion and is projected to rise to 11 billion by the end of the century. How are we going to feed all those people? There are several methods to increase food production. One is to increase the area of cultivated land, but that would displace wildlife, and we would have to divert more water to raise the crops. Currently, agriculture uses about 75% of all freshwater resources. Other methods of increasing production include increasing crop yield per unit land area, increasing crop yield per unit of fertilizer applied, and increasing crop yield per unit of water used. But, for many crops we are reaching the genetic limit of yield per acre. Use of ever increasing amounts of fertilizer has other undesirable consequences.

The answer to all these problems is to let atmospheric carbon dioxide rise, because carbon dioxide is plant food. There are many studies which show that doubling of the air’s carbon dioxide concentration increases the productivity of earth’s herbaceous plants by 30- to 50% , and of woody plants by 50- to 80% or more. These studies also show that more carbon dioxide increases plants’ efficiency in use of nutrients and water.

But what about global warming? The fact is, there is no physical evidence which shows that carbon dioxide has a significant effect on global temperature, only computer modeling speculations. For background, see my articles: Your Carbon Footprint Doesn’t Matter, A Basic Error in Climate Models, and Natural Climate Cycles. If you are concerned about the potential for human diseases in a warming world, see these articles.

In fact, the “normal” temperature for the planet is about 18 F higher than now. By “normal,” I mean the temperature which has existed for most of the time. And, for most of the time, atmospheric carbon dioxide has been more than 1,000ppm; see the reconstruction based on geologic evidence below.

Both temperature and carbon dioxide concentration are lower than “normal” now because the planet is in an ice age. (See the distinction between Ice ages and glacial epochs here .)

Concerns about runaway global warming and “tipping points” are unfounded. If run-away warming were possible, it would have already happened, especially since carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere have been more than ten times the current level for most of Earth’s history.

Run-away warming cannot happen on this planet because Earth is a water world. Warming increases evaporation. Water vapor, and its latent heat, is carried aloft by convection. Heat is lost to space when the water vapor condenses. The condensation also produces clouds which reflect incoming solar radiation. That is Earth’s negative feedback mechanism to prevent run-away warming, and it has been regulating Earth’s temperature for about 4.5 billion years.

To preserve nature and feed humanity, we must let carbon dioxide levels rise. Help it rise back to “normal” concentrations faster by tripling your carbon footprint, or at least discouraging the futile government schemes to reduce emissions.

If you are one who believes that carbon dioxide actually does have a significant effect on global temperature (please cite some evidence), then you should join the program anyway to help forestall onset of the next glacial epoch which would really impact food production.

After all, Al Gore, the charlatan of carbon, has recently increased his already enormous carbon footprint with the purchase of a mansion in California.