Call me when retirees begin to move to the Arctic Circle to
avoid global warming instead of Florida, Texas and Arizona.
.
Posted on 12/11/2007 6:46:22 AM PST by Between the Lines
A new peer-reviewed study disputes the claim of former Vice President Al Gore and other green activists that global warming is caused by human activity and constitutes a "planetary emergency."
The study -- conducted by climate scientists at the University of Rochester, the University of Alabama, and the University of Virginia -- finds that atmospheric warming patterns, or "fingerprints," over the last 30 years are not caused by greenhouse gas emissions. The report is published in the December issue of the International Journal of Climatology. Results from the study greatly contradict the findings of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Dr. S. Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental science at the University of Virginia -- and president of the Science and Environmental Policy Project -- says he is "fairly" sure that the current warming trend is due to changes in the activities of the sun. "The sun is constantly active, emitting particle streams that carry magnetic fields; and they in turn have an influence on the climate of the earth," he says.
Singer says he and other global warming skeptics have grown accustomed to claims that they are beholden to the oil and gas industry. "Of course that's not only untrue, but it's completely immaterial," says Singer. "In other words, we are using the data that is furnished by the IPCC. They are published, we use only published work. What we are basically doing is to make a comparison of model results and observations."
The report concludes that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant and therefore "attempts to control CO2 emissions are ineffective and pointless -- but very costly."
I found a better article about the paper:
New Study Increases Concerns About Climate Model Reliability
Here's the key finding:
""Models are very consistent in forecasting a significant difference between climate trends at the surface and in the troposphere, the layer of atmosphere between the surface and the stratosphere," said Dr. John Christy, director of UAH's Earth System Science Center. "The models forecast that the troposphere should be warming more than the surface and that this trend should be especially pronounced in the tropics.
"When we look at actual climate data, however, we do not see accelerated warming in the tropical troposphere. Instead, the lower and middle atmosphere are warming the same or less than the surface. For those layers of the atmosphere, the warming trend we see in the tropics is typically less than half of what the models forecast."
What's funny is that an allusion to this paper a few days ago allowed me to anticipate it. See below. The posting has a link to a 137 page compilation discussion climate change and tropospheric temperature trends.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1935839/posts?page=66#66
I'm posting this now and then I'll reply again, because sometimes pulling up a large PDF crashes my browser.
The cited document extensively critiques the failings of the 2004 paper. Feel free to read it.* I am certainly not the one to do it; it will be the task of scientists to address the more recent paper. Given the example of the previous paper and the POV of the authors, I am fairly certain that this contribution will be effectively addressed and subsequently dismissed.
* There is a particularly noteworthy section in which it is noted that there is a discrepancy between a model and the University of Alabama - Huntsville atmospheric temperature record (co-authored by Christy and Roy Spencer), but the RSS atmospheric temperature record -- which has a stronger warming signal than the UAH record -- does not demonstrate a similar discrepancy. This immediately leads me to wonder if the discrepancies in the more recent paper are due to comparisons only to the UAH temperature record. Given that Christy is a co-author, I think this is indeed possible.
.
Piercing alarmist sentiments with a single-fact arrow ping for you!
Rush played it yesterday and talked about it. It might be at his web site. I have not checked today.
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_121007/content/01125114.guest.html
>> Sorry, Cogitator.
g
Thanks for the link!
Thanks for posting the article, and MERRY CHRISTMAS!!!
“The sun is constantly active, emitting particle streams that carry magnetic fields; and they in turn have an influence on the climate of the earth,” he says.
AND FURTHERMORE... Children are taught this in first grade, so it’s not like you must ‘suspend your disbelief’ ....(per Hillary)... oh, wait a minute. It is like that.
People must quit pretending that the SUN is not the source of weather.
“The fact that it can be harmful in high levels is not.”
The Kudzu would overtake the nation.
Vines everywhere, an epidemic of vines.
CO2 is necessary for plant life. The more plants there are the more CO2 is absorbed out of the atmosphere. But, there are only so many plants, and they only absorb as much as they need. The excess remains in the atmosphere, where it slows the process of energy (heat) leaving the Earth and dispersing into space. The energy doesn’t stay trapped forever, but if there is enough greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, it traps enough heat to raise the atmospheric temperature slightly.
The effect is logarithmic, which means that the increase in the impact gets smaller as more build up occurs. I think that is what you were trying to say.
I don’t know of any scientist that disputes these basic facts. (even global warming skeptics) It is also fact that CO2 levels in the atmosphere are increasing rapidly, which means that the flourishing plant life you describe isn’t absorbing the increased levels of CO2.
The dispute over global warming is whether greenhouse gasses are responsible for all of the increase in atmospheric temps, how much human activity is affecting greenhouse gas levels, and how much heat additional CO2 will retain in the atmosphere.
Saying that very high CO2 levels in the atmosphere are a bad thing is not the same as supporting global warming.
http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html#Q2
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/01/calculating-the-greenhouse-effect/
Yeah, but why do you think you can throw down facts in the middle of an argument?
The whole key to Global Warming is that it is an appeal to ‘emotion’, not reason.
;o)
I have just learned that too much CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere — more than say 10 times the current level — might be injurious to human health. However, the current public controversy is about human-induced global warming, and there the skeptics seem to be rational, and the alarmists seem to be following a non-fact-driven agenda.
Speculation about what may or may not be responsible for the atmospheric conditions on Venus and Mars is not very persuasive evidence to me.
I’d recommend the several speeches on this subject by Dr. Michael Crichton M.D., on his website: http://michaelcrichton.com/speeches.html
In my opinion Dr. Crichton is a brilliant man with no ax to grind.
Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, the Albert Sloan Professor of Meteorology at M.I.T. is well-qualified in this area. Everything he has written about global warming is worth reading. Here is one of his oldest articles to get you started:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html
The many fine references provided in post 21 are also worth reading.
Here’s an interesting new article I just happened upon:
http://brneurosci.org/co2.html
The author seems to be out of his field, but the reasoning seems sound.
I believe that there really now is a scientific consensus on this subject. The consensus is that there is some minor warming occurring due to CO2 emissions, but it is not enough to require remedial action at this time, and possibly never will be. Or as Dr. Crichton puts it, “There are many reasons to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, and I support such a reduction. But global warming may not be a good or a primary reason.”
I have no idea what you are trying to tell me, especially your CO2 binding with organic materials to create plant and animal matter. Plants and animals are created through reproduction, not chemical reactions with the atmosphere. (yes, prevalent CO2 creates the potential for greater reproduction, but there are a variety of other things needed for it to occur) I also don’t understand your point about equilibrium. Yes, the Earth has a variety of balancing mechanisms to maintain stability. However, equilibrium obviously hasn’t been reached, because CO2 levels in the atmosphere are building, and are up 30% in the last decade. please explain this further to me.
“All soda and most beer is “artificially” carbonated with CO2, has ANYONE even suggested that we stop doing that?”
Were it to get out that more CO2 is used for production of beer and soda pop than 1000 trips in Al Gore’s Jet, the GW group would fall into ‘dead silence’.
Not to mention what would happen to Budweiser and Coca-Cola.
“I believe that there really now is a scientific consensus on this subject. The consensus is that there is some minor warming occurring due to CO2 emissions, but it is not enough to require remedial action at this time, and possibly never will be. Or as Dr. Crichton puts it, “There are many reasons to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, and I support such a reduction. But global warming may not be a good or a primary reason.”
I fully agree. Thank you for the links, I will take a look at them.
Yes. But is is possible for ‘us’ to create enough CO2 to overwhelm the plants, and radically alter the weather?
We should be more worried about the change in water vapor.
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.