Climate change natural says new study

jimpeel

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."
 

2minkey

bootlicker
the bulk of scientists still believe it is "anthrogenic." by pure volume of news snippets (and credentialed opinions), jim, i think you're still losing this battle.

but, i wonder, why is it so important for you to believe that we're NOT causing global warming. what's the angle? and, no, it's not just "truth," "accuracy," or "objectivity."

because them tree-huggers are anti-BIGbusiness? gee, even wal-mart has adopted sustainability and is building green stores!

(i, by the way, lack a firm position in either direction.)
 

Gonz

molṑn labé
Staff member
but, i wonder, why is it so important for you to believe that we're NOT causing global warming. what's the angle?

Blaming mankind for things that he cannot possibly affect, thereby afftecting official gov't policy, hurts us on many levels. Stupid crap like making laws the force the automakers to increase CAFE standards on all vehicles. If we all wanted to drive Yugos, we'd be driving yugos. Let the market decide.
 

markjs

Banned
As I have said before, and as I'll say again and again....

SCREW ALL THE DAMN SCIENCE!!!

Science is not capable of figuring this out out in the short term. It seems to me the only way we are going to know what is true is however many 100s of years down the line, when we see what actually happens!

So that leaves us two options:

A. Go on as we are now, live for today, worry first about profits and keep the status quo.

This is what 'merica will most likely do....(Option A)

B. Be responsible and act under the assumption of "good stewardship of the planet. Be responsible and start using environmentally friendly energy sources, and renewable resources. This would require bravery, something few politicians on either side, and for that matter, few human beings possess. It would open up new industries, and most likely in the long term stimulate the economy. The primary reason I see for this is that if all the "Man Made Global Warming Naysayers" are wrong, and we go "option A" then by the time we find out Mr. Gore was right it'll be too late. It's just common sense for us to work on transitioning into environmentally friendly options.

The "big oil men", like our own "idiot son of an asshole", would have to use their money and resources, but if they were smart (him smart? :rofl: :rofl2: :rofl3: :rofl4: um, yeah right!), they could keep profitable, but it would require change and adaptability, and many would lose their fortunes. But hell that's the very essence of capitalism isn't it?

In the final analysis, I don't think this country is capable of the smart choice. Sure there are some brave souls like Gore on a mission, but even most democrats are enough in the pocket of big money that I never see us changing. I personally have no real worry in the matter. I will speak my mind and vote my conscience, but I also know that "god" will handle it one way or another, and I fully believe this planet will kill us before we kill it.

I know people, like the people who post articles like this have to find evidence to convince them their political choices are right and help them sleep at night, and I could look at how pathetic that is, in depth, but I won't. I personally also choose to look at it as encouraging, because at least it shows they want to believe they are doing right by the planet, and what that might translate into is them having children who actually are willing to actually do right by the planet.
 

Gonz

molṑn labé
Staff member
Be responsible and start using environmentally friendly energy sources, and renewable resources.

I completely agree. I do, as much as possible.

Just DO NOT make it law.
 

chcr

Too cute for words
My problem with "global warming" (oh, and it's "climate change" now just to cover their asses) is and has always been the incredible exaggeration and politicization of it. Is the climate changing? When did it ever stop? Pointing at a single factor, any single factor, is moronic. The global climate is a complex system. I know that if you look at rather than simply accept someone else's interpretation of the data that there are serious questions regarding the claims and projections put forth by the doomsayers. As I've often said, we are all going to die. I don't think it will be from this.

Al Gore said:
Nobody is interested in solutions if they don't think there's a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous (global warming) is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are...

"over-representation of factual presentations"

Political double-speak for "lie about it" any way you slice it. :shrug: And they gave him the Nobel Prize. Kind of cheapens it (even more), don't you think?
 

chcr

Too cute for words
Gonz said:
things that he cannot possibly affect

Wouldn't you say that the Dust Bowl was climate change on a continental scale? Largely caused by man?
 

jimpeel

Well-Known Member
the bulk of scientists still believe it is "anthrogenic." by pure volume of news snippets (and credentialed opinions), jim, i think you're still losing this battle.

It is not my battle to lose. We all lose if this thing continues.

but, i wonder, why is it so important for you to believe that we're NOT causing global warming. what's the angle? and, no, it's not just "truth," "accuracy," or "objectivity."

LINK: I am concerned about this because it is a SCAM. It is the biggest scam in world history to be exact.

LINK: There is even a movie which refutes the evidence put out by the BBC entitled "The Great Global Warming Swindle".

LINK: GW is nothing more than a big business.

LINK: They started the "carbon credit" scam and they are bringing down big bucks.

LINK: One of these people is Al Gore who takes money out of his left pocket, places it his right pocket and tells you how that makes him live a "carbon neutral" lifestyle.

LINK: Those who espouse GW are saying WE should all change OUR lifestyles while THEY continue to live in the style to which they have become accustomed.

LINK: The U.N. wants a global tax on nations which continue to create CO2 and that tax would go to <drumroll> the U.N.

LINK: It has been shown that the Kyoto Treaty would bring the developed countries to their knees; which is the point of the whole excercise anyway.

LINK: Those countries who signed onto Kyoto have missed their goal and Japan, Italy, and Spain are looking at 33 Billion dollars in fines. Those fines are going to be taken from the taxpayers of those countries just as they will be taken from you, as a taxpayer, if the U.S. signs on to this thing.

LINK: The environmental movement is the new Communism. This is where those who wanted to see the fall of America went after the fall of the Soviet Union.

LINK: Many see it as a religion.

because them tree-huggers are anti-BIGbusiness? gee, even wal-mart has adopted sustainability and is building green stores!

I have said for some time now that there is a nut at the helm of Wal-Mart. Lee Scott has tied Wal-Mart's tail to Al Gore and now to Bill Clinton. They set a goal of selling 100 million mercury-laden light bulbs this year and met that goal in October. They are a major force in the green movement because of Scott All he is doing is trying to deflect criticism of Wal-Mart by kissing the asses of anyone he has to.
 
Top