Climate change natural says new study

Aunty Em

Well-Known Member
According to Al Gore, the dabate is over. According to real scientists, the debate is just starting.

Climate warming is natural, not human caused, says new study
International Journal of Climatology of the Royal Meteorological Society [DOI: 10.1002/joc.1651] (December 2007)

Climate scientists at the University of Rochester, the University of Alabama, and the University of Virginia report that observed patterns of temperature changes ('fingerprints') over the last thirty years are not in accord with what greenhouse models predict and can better be explained by natural factors, such as solar variability. Therefore, climate change is 'unstoppable' and cannot be affected or modified by controlling the emission of greenhouse gases, such as CO2, as is proposed in current legislation.

These results are in conflict with the conclusions of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and also with some recent research publications based on essentially the same data. However, they are supported by the results of the US-sponsored Climate Change Science Program (CCSP).

The report is published in the December 2007 issue of the International Journal of Climatology of the Royal Meteorological Society [DOI: 10.1002/joc.1651]. The authors are Prof. David H. Douglass (Univ. of Rochester), Prof. John R. Christy (Univ. of Alabama), Benjamin D. Pearson (graduate student), and Prof. S. Fred Singer (Univ. of Virginia).

The fundamental question is whether the observed warming is natural or anthropogenic (human-caused). Lead author David Douglass said: "The observed pattern of warming, comparing surface and atmospheric temperature trends, does not show the characteristic fingerprint associated with greenhouse warming. The inescapable conclusion is that the human contribution is not significant and that observed increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases make only a negligible contribution to climate warming."

Co-author John Christy said: "Satellite data and independent balloon data agree that atmospheric warming trends do not exceed those of the surface. Greenhouse models, on the other hand, demand that atmospheric trend values be 2-3 times greater. We have good reason, therefore, to believe that current climate models greatly overestimate the effects of greenhouse gases. Satellite observations suggest that GH models ignore negative feedbacks, produced by clouds and by water vapor, that diminish the warming effects of carbon dioxide."

Co-author S. Fred Singer said: "The current warming trend is simply part of a natural cycle of climate warming and cooling that has been seen in ice cores, deep-sea sediments, stalagmites, etc., and published in hundreds of papers in peer-reviewed journals. The mechanism for producing such cyclical climate changes is still under discussion; but they are most likely caused by variations in the solar wind and associated magnetic fields that affect the flux of cosmic rays incident on the earth's atmosphere. In turn, such cosmic rays are believed to influence cloudiness and thereby control the amount of sunlight reaching the earth's surface-and thus the climate." Our research demonstrates that the ongoing rise of atmospheric CO2 has only a minor influence on climate change. We must conclude, therefore, that attempts to control CO2 emissions are ineffective and pointless. - but very costly."

"Who paid for the study?" is probably the most pertenant question regarding those results. Research is never truly independent, there's always an angle.

I'm sure all the big corporations must be really happy with it.
 

Gato_Solo

Out-freaking-standing OTC member
"Who paid for the study?" is probably the most pertenant question regarding those results. Research is never truly independent, there's always an angle.

I'm sure all the big corporations must be really happy with it.

Climate change is not really the issue, anyway. If the first world stopped producing CO2 immediately, it wouldn't change a thing because the vaunted Kyoto treaty allows developing nations...including China...to pollute as they please. If you notice, even those countries that signed the treaty have severe problems meeting the goals. Don't be fooled by the hype about the US not signing the treaty. It was never more than a paper tiger, used only to affix blame, rather than clean up the environment.
 

jimpeel

Well-Known Member
Re: Still doing everything in his power ...

This John Aglionby sounds like a moron if he said "the bastard hates his country".

Nice article :laugh:

My aplogy for doing what I had scolded someone, perhaps you, for doing which is to insert a comment without identifying it as my own. I have since done so and I shall endeavor not to repeat this breach of etiquette.

Again, I apologize.
 

jimpeel

Well-Known Member
"Who paid for the study?" is probably the most pertenant question regarding those results. Research is never truly independent, there's always an angle.

I'm sure all the big corporations must be really happy with it.

Everything you need to find that answer is contained below. A simple e-mail should suffice.

SOURCE

Research Article
A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions
David H. Douglass 1 *, John R. Christy 2, Benjamin D. Pearson 1, S. Fred Singer 3 4
1Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY 14627, USA
2Department of Atmospheric Science and Earth System Science Center, University of Alabama in Huntsville, Huntsville, AL 35899, USA
3Science and Environmental Policy Project, Arlington, VA 22202, USA
4University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 22903, USA

email: David H. Douglass ([email protected])

*Correspondence to David H. Douglass, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY 14627, USA.

Keywords
climate trend • troposphere • observations


Abstract
We examine tropospheric temperature trends of 67 runs from 22 Climate of the 20th Century model simulations and try to reconcile them with the best available updated observations (in the tropics during the satellite era). Model results and observed temperature trends are in disagreement in most of the tropical troposphere, being separated by more than twice the uncertainty of the model mean. In layers near 5 km, the modelled trend is 100 to 300% higher than observed, and, above 8 km, modelled and observed trends have opposite signs. These conclusions contrast strongly with those of recent publications based on essentially the same data. Copyright © 2007 Royal Meteorological Society



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Received: 31 May 2007; Accepted: 11 October 2007
Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

10.1002/joc.1651 About DOI
 

jimpeel

Well-Known Member
The following is an open letter sent to the Secretary General of the United Nations December 13, 2007 and signed by over 100 leading scientists throughout the world.

Note the link to the list of signatories at the bottom of the article.

SOURCE

Don't fight, adapt
We should give up futile attempts to combat climate change

Open Letter to the Secretary-General of the United Nations

Dec. 13, 2007

His Excellency Ban Ki-Moon

Secretary-General, United Nations

New York, N.Y.


Dear Mr. Secretary-General,

Re: UN climate conference taking the World in entirely the wrong direction

It is not possible to stop climate change, a natural phenomenon that has affected humanity through the ages. Geological, archaeological, oral and written histories all attest to the dramatic challenges posed to past societies from unanticipated changes in temperature, precipitation, winds and other climatic variables. We therefore need to equip nations to become resilient to the full range of these natural phenomena by promoting economic growth and wealth generation.

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has issued increasingly alarming conclusions about the climatic influences of human-produced carbon dioxide (CO2), a non-polluting gas that is essential to plant photosynthesis. While we understand the evidence that has led them to view CO2 emissions as harmful, the IPCC's conclusions are quite inadequate as justification for implementing policies that will markedly diminish future prosperity. In particular, it is not established that it is possible to significantly alter global climate through cuts in human greenhouse gas emissions. On top of which, because attempts to cut emissions will slow development, the current UN approach of CO2 reduction is likely to increase human suffering from future climate change rather than to decrease it.

The IPCC Summaries for Policy Makers are the most widely read IPCC reports amongst politicians and non-scientists and are the basis for most climate change policy formulation. Yet these Summaries are prepared by a relatively small core writing team with the final drafts approved line-by-line by government *representatives. The great *majority of IPCC contributors and reviewers, and the tens of thousands of other scientists who are qualified to comment on these matters, are not involved in the preparation of these documents. The summaries therefore cannot properly be represented as a consensus view among experts.

Contrary to the impression left by the IPCC Summary reports:

z Recent observations of phenomena such as glacial retreats, sea-level rise and the migration of temperature-sensitive species are not evidence for abnormal climate change, for none of these changes has been shown to lie outside the bounds of known natural variability.

z The average rate of warming of 0.1 to 0. 2 degrees Celsius per decade recorded by satellites during the late 20th century falls within known natural rates of warming and cooling over the last 10,000 years.

z Leading scientists, including some senior IPCC representatives, acknowledge that today's computer models cannot predict climate. Consistent with this, and despite computer projections of temperature rises, there has been no net global warming since 1998. That the current temperature plateau follows a late 20th-century period of warming is consistent with the continuation today of natural multi-decadal or millennial climate cycling.

In stark contrast to the often repeated assertion that the science of climate change is "settled," significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming. But because IPCC working groups were generally instructed (see http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/docs/wg1_timetable_2006-08-14.pdf ) to consider work published only through May, 2005, these important findings are not included in their reports; i.e., the IPCC assessment reports are already materially outdated.

The UN climate conference in Bali has been planned to take the world along a path of severe CO2 restrictions, ignoring the lessons apparent from the failure of the Kyoto Protocol, the chaotic nature of the European CO2 trading market, and the ineffectiveness of other costly initiatives to curb greenhouse gas emissions. Balanced cost/benefit analyses provide no support for the introduction of global measures to cap and reduce energy consumption for the purpose of restricting CO2 emissions. Furthermore, it is irrational to apply the "precautionary principle" because many scientists recognize that both climatic coolings and warmings are realistic possibilities over the medium-term future.

The current UN focus on "fighting climate change," as illustrated in the Nov. 27 UN Development Programme's Human Development Report, is distracting governments from adapting to the threat of inevitable natural climate changes, whatever forms they may take. National and international planning for such changes is needed, with a focus on helping our most vulnerable citizens adapt to conditions that lie ahead. Attempts to prevent global climate change from occurring are ultimately futile, and constitute a tragic misallocation of resources that would be better spent on humanity's real and pressing problems.

Yours faithfully,

[List of signatories]

Copy to: Heads of state of countries of the signatory persons.

Close
 

jimpeel

Well-Known Member
Note that the signatories of the above letter are from:

  • Australia
  • Canada
  • Czech Republic
  • Denmark
  • Estonia
  • Finland
  • France
  • Germany
  • Italy
  • The Netherlands
  • New Zealand
  • Norway
  • Paraguay
  • Poland
  • South Africa
  • Sweden
  • U.K.
  • U.S.
 

spike

New Member
Re: Still doing everything in his power ...

My aplogy for doing what I had scolded someone, perhaps you, for doing which is to insert a comment without identifying it as my own. I have since done so and I shall endeavor not to repeat this breach of etiquette.

Again, I apologize.

So why the hell would you say it? Why does everyone that disagrees with your point of you have to "hate America".

Ridiculous.
 

spike

New Member
Policy-makers and the media, particularly in the United States, frequently assert that climate science is highly uncertain. Some have used this as an argument against adopting strong measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. For example, while discussing a major U.S. Environmental Protection Agency report on the risks of climate change, then-EPA administrator Christine Whitman argued, "As [the report] went through review, there was less consensus on the science and conclusions on climate change" (1). Some corporations whose revenues might be adversely affected by controls on carbon dioxide emissions have also alleged major uncertainties in the science (2). Such statements suggest that there might be substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the reality of anthropogenic climate change. This is not the case.

The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Programme, IPCC's purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action, primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed and published scientific literature (3). In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: "Human activities ... are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents ... that absorb or scatter radiant energy. ... [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations" [p. 21 in (4)].

IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise" [p. 1 in (5)]. The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: "The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue" [p. 3 in (5)].

Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8).

The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9).

The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point.

This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect.

The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong. If the history of science teaches anything, it is humility, and no one can be faulted for failing to act on what is not known. But our grandchildren will surely blame us if they find that we understood the reality of anthropogenic climate change and failed to do anything about it.

Many details about climate interactions are not well understood, and there are ample grounds for continued research to provide a better basis for understanding climate dynamics. The question of what to do about climate change is also still open. But there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists have repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to listen.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
 

jimpeel

Well-Known Member
Re: Still doing everything in his power ...

So why the hell would you say it? Why does everyone that disagrees with your point of you have to "hate America".

Ridiculous.

Holy Christ, man, read for comprehension will ya?

I wasn't apologizing for what I said. I was apologizing for failing to attribute it to myself and leaving the impression that it was the suthor's comment.

... insert a comment without identifying it as my own.

Gore DOES hate America and he is doing everything he can possibly do to ruin this country. He is an idiot of the highest order.
 

spike

New Member
Re: Still doing everything in his power ...

Holy Christ, man, read for comprehension will ya?

I wasn't apologizing for what I said. I was apologizing for failing to attribute it to myself and leaving the impression that it was the suthor's comment.

I understood that perfectly. I was wondering why you would make such a ridiculous statement.


Gore DOES hate America and he is doing everything he can possibly do to ruin this country. He is an idiot of the highest order.

Only an idiot of the highest order who hates America would be so hell bent on environmental irresponsibility.
 

jimpeel

Well-Known Member

Your link is three years old. Ya think you can come up with anything a bit more current?

By the way, do a search in the Science mag page on "global warming" and you will not find anything that is not written from the doom and gloom standpoint. They seem to ignore all articles and studies to the contrary.

Try S. Fred Singer and you will find nothing later than 2005.

John R. Christy 2005

Benjamin D. Pearson No hits

David H. Douglass 1982

These are big names in the scientific arena and not the silent types by any means and Science mag has nothing more current than 2005?




Science 3 December 2004:
Vol. 306. no. 5702, p. 1686
DOI: 10.1126/science.1103618

The referenced texts are older than that.

References and Notes


A. C. Revkin, K. Q. Seelye, New York Times, 19 June 2003, A1.
S. van den Hove, M. Le Menestrel, H.-C. de Bettignies, Climate Policy 2 (1), 3 (2003).
See www.ipcc.ch/about/about.htm.
J. J. McCarthy et al., Eds., Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2001).
National Academy of Sciences Committee on the Science of Climate Change, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions (National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 2001).
American Meteorological Society, Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 84, 508 (2003).
American Geophysical Union, Eos 84 (51), 574 (2003).
See www.ourplanet.com/aaas/pages/atmos02.html.
The first year for which the database consistently published abstracts was 1993. Some abstracts were deleted from our analysis because, although the authors had put "climate change" in their key words, the paper was not about climate change.
This essay is excerpted from the 2004 George Sarton Memorial Lecture, "Consensus in science: How do we know we're not wrong," presented at the AAAS meeting on 13 February 2004. I am grateful to AAAS and the History of Science Society for their support of this lectureship; to my research assistants S. Luis and G. Law; and to D. C. Agnew, K. Belitz, J. R. Fleming, M. T. Greene, H. Leifert, and R. C. J. Somerville for helpful discussions.
10.1126/science.1103618
 

jimpeel

Well-Known Member
Re: Still doing everything in his power ...

I understood that perfectly. I was wondering why you would make such a ridiculous statement.




Only an idiot of the highest order who hates America would be so hell bent on environmental irresponsibility.

So it is better to do something, even if it costs innumerable hardship, lives, and treasure, than it is to wait ands see if this set of predictions comes to the same conclusion as the rest of their predictions?

Global cooling?

DIDN'T HAPPEN

Loss of all marine life?

DIDN'T HAPPEN

Loss of major species?

DIDN'T HAPPEN

The best they can come up with is the theory -- that's THEORY -- that species are becoming extinct at such a fantastic rate that we have NO TIME TO DISCOVER THEM. So "They're out there; but they are dying before we can find them. But they were there, we just can't prove they were there. Believe us."

Global warming is a hoax. You just haven't discovered it yet. In the mean time we are supposed to believe you that it is really out there.
 

spike

New Member
Your link is three years old. Ya think you can come up with anything a bit more current?

Yeah, everything has been fixed since then :laugh:

By the way, do a search in the Science mag page on "global warming" and you will not find anything that is not written from the doom and gloom standpoint. They seem to ignore all articles and studies to the contrary.

Kinda how you ignore everything to the contrary huh?

Reports from last month here.

http://www.ipcc.ch/
 

spike

New Member
Re: Still doing everything in his power ...

So it is better to do something, even if it costs innumerable hardship, lives, and treasure, than it is to wait ands see if this set of predictions comes to the same conclusion as the rest of their predictions?

Obviously better to wait until it's too late. :laugh:


The best they can come up with is the theory -- that's THEORY --

Like the best you can come up with is theory. Only yours are supported by far less scientists/

Global warming is a hoax. You just haven't discovered it yet. In the mean time we are supposed to believe you that it is really out there.

Your theories are bullshit. Hopefully not many will believe you.
 

chcr

Too cute for words
Spike, empirical observations do not support the models and yet so many people mindlessly accept the models as "gospel." It reminds me of the creationists (sorry, the "proponents of intelligent design"). If the preponderance of data fails to support the theory then it's not a viable one.
 

chcr

Too cute for words

:rofl4:

In point of fact the models predict a much more rapid rise in upper atmosphere temperatures than have been observed and it's the upper atmosphere that matters in a global climatological change. Nice propaganda site though. Golly such things are easy to find, aren't they? Too bad that more and more scientists are starting to notice that CO2 levels follow rather than precede global temperature changes. :shrug:
 
Top