Posted on 03/14/2006 3:26:11 PM PST by grandpa jones
A new theory to explain global warming was revealed at a meeting at the University of Leicester (UK) and is being considered for publication in the journal "Science First Hand". The controversial theory has nothing to do with burning fossil fuels and atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. According to Vladimir Shaidurov of the Russian Academy of Sciences, the apparent rise in average global temperature recorded by scientists over the last hundred years or so could be due to atmospheric changes that are not connected to human emissions of carbon dioxide from the burning of natural gas and oil. Shaidurov explained how changes in the amount of ice crystals at high altitude could damage the layer of thin, high altitude clouds found in the mesosphere that reduce the amount of warming solar radiation reaching the earth's surface
(Excerpt) Read more at physorg.com ...
But, will this idea - and it is NOT yet proven - get any publicity and exposure and analysis?
I think this is an exact duplicate
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1595507/posts
Two things: first, I'd feel more confident if it wasn't from the Russian Academy. Second, CO2 levels tend to be a lagging indicator in global warming rather than a leading one, i.e. it's a response to atmospheric warming (resulting in increased plant growth which in turn resequesters the CO2 through photosynthesis) rather than a cause.
Great, now we just need to compare Earth with the control group, to determine whether a correlation exists between global temperature and the Tunguska Event.
Interesting. I have read of this before but never knew it was this large.....
Why, Russian scientists are as educated as any and this event did happen in their neck of the woods....
Having worked with more than a few, I can assure you they are not.
That has already been prove, the whole fraud of greenhouse theory and other enviromental junk-science was created to do one thing, to hurt U.S. citizens and the U.S. nation itself.
Well, well, well.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
--Hamlet, I, v 166
I see. So we should take the word of American academia, such as yourself, that preach global warming as gospel?
The source sounds sketchy. "Science First Hand"??? This journal doesn't have a web page, google search turns up nothing. Not likely to shake the foundation.
This may help explain how an asteroid hit wiped out the dinosaurs, not right away but over a period of time after the hit.
If you think mere facts and logic are going to get in the way of the "Global Warming Bandwagon" I have a bridge to sell you.
Large enough that if it had dropped into Central Europe, most of Europe wouldn't be here now.
(Voice balloon coming out of clouds: "DAMN! MISSED!"
"Second, CO2 levels tend to be a lagging indicator in global warming rather than a leading one, i.e. it's a response to atmospheric warming (resulting in increased plant growth which in turn resequesters the CO2 through photosynthesis) rather than a cause."
How can it be a lagging indicator when it supposed to the cause?
Some relevant citations (emphasis mine):
From Science, Vol 283, Issue 5408, 1712-1714 , 12 March 1999
Ice Core Records of Atmospheric CO2 Around the Last Three Glacial Terminations Hubertus Fischer, Martin Wahlen, Jesse Smith, Derek Mastroianni, Bruce Deck
Air trapped in bubbles in polar ice cores constitutes an archive for the reconstruction of the global carbon cycle and the relation between greenhouse gases and climate in the past. High-resolution records from Antarctic ice cores show that carbon dioxide concentrations increased by 80 to 100 parts per million by volume 600 ± 400 years after the warming the last three deglaciations.
Scientists at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography at the University of California, San Diego, reported in the March 12 issue of Science that CO2 levels did not rise until hundreds of years after the warming periods that triggered the end of the last three ice ages.
Said Martin Wahlen, a professor in the Scripps Geosciences Research Division who coauthored the paper. "What we have found is that at these periods when the climate is transitioning from a glacial to an interglacial period, the atmospheric CO2 concentrations lag behind the rise in temperature by about 600 years."
Then Fischer et al. 1999 used ice core records from the period of the last three glacial terminations. They concluded that "the time lag of the rise in CO2 concentrations with respect to temperature change is on the order of 400 to 1000 years during all three glacial-interglacial transitions."
Then Indermuhle et al. (2000) studied the relationship between temperature rise and CO2 levels from 60,000 to 20,000 years ago. They concluded that the rise in the air's CO2 content lagged shifts in air temperature. His mean value was 1,200 years.
Then Monnin et al. (2001). Studied this relationship but used CO2 data from Dome Concordia, Antarctica. They concentrated on the period that includes the most recent transition to interglacial temps Monin found that the CO2 increase lagged the start of the temperature increase by 800 years.
This last report is on the corollary to the rise in CO2 lagging behind temperature rises, in this case the lag is in the response of CO2 to falling temperatures, but its clear, temperatures fall and THEN CO2 concentrations fall.
However, the most potent greenhouse gas is water, explains Shaidurov and it is this compound on which his study focuses. According to Shaidurov, only small changes in the atmospheric levels of water, in the form of vapour and ice crystals can contribute to significant changes to the temperature of the earth's surface, which far outweighs the effects of carbon dioxide and other gases released by human activities. Just a rise of 1% of water vapour could raise the global average temperature of Earth's surface more then 4 degrees Celsius.
In which case, melting of the ice caps will be the new disaster to replace the old disaster....except they aren't melting.
Perhaps because Shaidurov suggests....that the rise, which began between 1906 and 1909.....is now taking affect. Did you actually READ the article?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.