Two New Books Confirm Global Warming is Natural; Not Caused By Human Activity

Drudge ^ | jan 30, 2007 | Matt Drudge

[NeilGus]

This can't be true or there would be warming on Mars and others planets.

Wait a second, there is warming on Mars and other planets.

Sorry.

[syriacus]

Interesting stories!

[Matchett-PI]

bttt

[cogitator]

Singer's book will be dismissed by the greens because they say he's a shill for the oil industry.

Singer/Avery's book has already been dismissed by the scientists because it's not very good science.

Avery and Singer: Unstoppable Hot Air The discussion of this article has several very good points, notably the one excerpted below:

"The thrust of the Avery/Singer paper to which you point to the summary, seems to be that the D-O cycles (1500 years or so) are continuing to the present. They quote Greenland ice core data, Antarctic data, sedimentation, cave crystal growth, tree rings and a number of other pieces of evidence for this. And yet, according to the discussion on realclimate a couple of weeks back, D-O cycles ended (by definition?) at the end of the last ice age 11,000 years ago. Is there any peer-reviewed literature on this "continuation"? They seem to be making a big deal out of it..."

[Response:Climate variations whatever their periodicity are much weaker in the Holocene. Gerard Bond reported a 1500 year cycle in some sediment characteristics in the North Atlantic, and you do have medieval and Little Ice Age climates that suggest 1500 years. G. C. Bond et al., Mechanisms of Global Climate Change at Millennial Time Scales, Geophysical Monograph Series, vol. 112 (American Geophysical Union, Washington, DC, 1999), pp. 35-58. If the 1500 year cycle does exist in the Holocene, it's weak, and can't explain all of our record-breaking weather. David]"

[cogitator]

Climate change on other planets is not caused by the Sun or by SUVs. The warming trend on Earth right now is probably not caused by the Sun.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1774298/posts?page=76#76

[GBA]

But wait...there has to be human caused global warming right? Algore and all the other experts all say so, so it must be so. I will now close my mind to any other possibility.

What nonsense...the sun causes the Earth to get warm...anybody who says so ought to have their certification pulled!

[cogitator]

Add to that the evidence of increased solar output (from Mars, Triton and Pluto) and it's looks to me like a slam-dunk that the models 'proving' human induced global warming are a great example of GIGO.

There is no evidence of increased solar output based on observations of Mars, Triton, and Pluto. See the information at the link in the post directly above this one.

Regarding Svensmark, see this page:

The Role of the Sun in 20th Century Climate Change

[cogitator]

I fail to understand why it is "good" news to find that we have no influence over a changing climate.

Don't worry, or worry, depending on your bent: Singer and Avery are wrong. I expect that Svensmark and Calder will have about the same impact.

[cogitator]

Does this mean that man-made pollution did not cause the Wisconsin Ice Sheet to recede thousands of years ago?

Man-made pollution had nothing to do with that; but the changing concentration of atmospheric CO2 did.

[reformedliberal]

I am not comfortable with having some government agency *regulate* solar radiation. Besides the cost, one needs to carefully consider all the agendas of those in charge of such a process.

If the tech is feasible, then do it on a small, individual scale: the area around one's own home, for example. Prior to instituting some sort of global solar regulatory process, it should be proved to be risk-free, applying the same Precautionary Principle the Greens want us to consider for every other aspect of life.

Since none of this is about climate change, but instead, is about wealth redistribution and penalties applied to the US economy, I fully expect the Progressives and the GW crowd to go ballistic over any attempt to intervene in natural solar processes.

[cogitator]

Our species has survived this cycle before. Today, we also have technology to insulate us even further from these cyclic changes.

Our civilizations arose during a period of remarkable climate stability. There are scholarly papers that have indicated civilization could only have arose under such remarkable stability. And technology won't be able to counter the effects of massive crop failures and significant reduction in freshwater resources -- two possible scenarios of rapid global warming. In the following century, accelerated sea level rise could happen if the Greenland ice sheet melts drastically or breaks up, affecting coastal communities globally.

[cogitator]

I've wondered how having to use less fuel for heat and having a longer growing season could have a negative impact.

Global Warming Threatens Pollination Timing

Dire consequences if global warming exceeds 2 degrees says IUCN

"The consensus of international conservation organizations is that if temperatures rise above 2 degrees Celsius from pre-industrial levels, massive species extinctions and dramatic changes in ecosystems will have severe consequences for human wellbeing."

...

"Extinction of species and changes in habitats put human well-being at risk. Human livelihoods are affected if plant or animal species go extinct, since many communities use them as sources of food, fuel and income. Furthermore, changes in rainfall and temperatures will impact agriculture—the crops that are produced and the contribution that biodiversity makes to these production systems, for instance through pollination, water provision, or pest control."

[Labyrinthos]

Dr. Singer is a real scientist with all the credentials to comment intelligently on the subject matter.

[cogitator]

There must be a way to hold scientists accountable for their opinions on this issue, as they will carry such enormous weight. If global warming is real and man-made, then guys like this need to be called to account when we realize he was wrong but that it has become too late to do anything about it. On the other hand, if it is NOT man-made, then the alarmist scientists must be called to account for the damage they have done to the qworld economy with their alarmism.

The so-called "alarmist" scientists are not the ones who are going to have a problem with their predictions. Singer used to say there was no global warming at all, less than a decade ago. Now he's in print saying it's natural and unstoppable. So what is it really, Dr. Singer?

[cogitator]

Then they present these facts in a clear, understandable fashion... It's a great book !

See post 84.

[cogitator]

See link at post 85.

[Phantom Lord]

In the following century, accelerated sea level rise could happen if the Greenland ice sheet melts drastically or breaks up, affecting coastal communities globally.

You are giving the impression through your posts you know what you are talking about. So a question.

"Accelerated sea level rise" implies there is current sea level rise that will accelerate. Can you point out some areas where there has been a rise in the sea level in the past 20 years?

[cogitator]

"Accelerated sea level rise" implies there is current sea level rise that will accelerate. Can you point out some areas where there has been a rise in the sea level in the past 20 years?

Like everywhere? Current sea level rise is due mainly to thermal expansion of the oceans' waters.

Ocean Surface Topography from Space

Sea Level Change

Sea level in the Arctic

"A recent conference presentation at AGU (reported here) while confirming that global sea level is indeed rising (in line with other estimates), showed that Arctic sea levels may actually be falling. On the face of it these preliminary results are a little puzzling (though note that this isn't yet a properly peer reviewed paper, and so may not reflect what ends up in the journal), but it does reveal some of the complexities in analysing sea level in relatively small enclosed basins and so a brief overview of the different factors involved is probably useful."

[mywholebodyisaweapon]

If you're talking about science, you might be surprised about economists' qualifications. The average Ph.D. economist is better-trained at formulating and testing mathematical and statistical models than is Dr. Cullen. Economists are hands-down the best analysts of simultaneous equations models, among other techniques, many of which are used by "global warming" researchers. I don't know where you got your opinion about economics training, but you really shouldn't shoot from the hip like that.

In addition, a VERY large part of the global-warming-is-caused-by-humans crowd's argument is the bogus "economic" report that surfaced last year about how global warming was going to destroy the world's economy. How else would you suggest the economic impact of alternative scenarios be assessed? By a physicist?

[ButThreeLeftsDo]

Here's the link to the interview Jason Lewis did with Fred and Dennis.

http://www.ktlkfm.com/cc-common/podcast/single_podcast.html?podcast=jasonlewis.xml

Scroll down to the 12/4 show the 6P hour. You can choose to listen, download or podcast.

Enjoy....