A different spin on Global Warming ?-

[Mark of Australia]

What ?   We aren't causing the warming??!!! No ,Nonsense Of course we are causing the global warming ,we are wrecking the planet ,We are just so powerful and advanced ,there's no way we aren't affecting the Earth. We can't help being so influential ,All we have to do is be a little more careful and then we can totally alter the climate of the Earth, it just requires a little effort and caution coz we don't know our own strength ,....Damn ,,I lament being a member of this species that is just so intelligent and smart and powerful and stuff ,and has so much powerful technology that we can't even control it .Dang ,Dang ,Dang. I wish I was a honey badger instead, no cares in the world then ,and a clear conscience coz honey badgers don't wreck the environment !! take heed you bad ,bad, naughty humans 

Since I've decided to believe what scientists say I can't turn back now, Humans cause the global warming and that's all there is to it. When a bunch of other scientist totally contradict the scientists that I've chosen to believe in then I guess I'll..... err...  just ignore them of course. yeah  , coz the scientists I've chosen to believe are the correct ones ,so of course the other scientists who disagree must be wrong then.  ..........

( That was fun)

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/908

New Peer-Reviewed Study Finds ‘Warming is naturally caused and shows no human influence’
 By EPW Blog  Monday, December 10, 2007

An inconvenient new peer-reviewed study published in the December 2007 issue of the International Journal of Climatology.
Climate warming is naturally caused and shows no human influence:

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.

[Brandon]

Hi Mark,

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.

This study is bogus as solar variation has long been ruled out as the cause of global warming:

Sun's Variations Have Little Effect on Global Warming
By Sara Goudarzi, LiveScience Staff Writer

posted: 13 September 2006 01:01 pm ET

Variation in the brightness of the Sun is not the major factor behind the unusual warming the Earth has experienced over the past few centuries, a new study suggests.
Researchers traced changes in our parent star's energy output back to the 17th century and found that solar cycles, peaking nearly every 11 years, did not play a significant role in contributing to global warming.
Earth's warming trend, which climate reconstructions show began in the 17th century, has accelerated in the last 100 years. Most studies reveal that this temperature rise could be attributed to the increase of greenhouse gases in the Earth's atmosphere.
In addition to man-made factors, natural inconsistencies in Earth's climate could also play a role in climate change. Additionally, some scientists have speculated that changes in the Sun's brightness affect temperatures on Earth.
About once every 11 years, changes in the Sun's magnetic field result in increases in the number and magnitude of sunspots and solar flares, which bombard Earth with charged particles.
During times of high activity, like in year 2000, the Sun shines about 0.07 percent brighter, researchers report in the September 14 issue of the journal Nature.
The researchers used a combination of data on solar brightness obtained by spacecrafts since 1978 and isotope data --collected from Earth's atmosphere and in ice sheets of Antarctic and Greenland--to recreate the Sun's influence on terrestrial temperatures over the past several centuries.
Although events such as sunspots have increased in the last 400 years, their effect only contributed a small amount to global warming, the results show.
"Our results imply that, over the past century, climate change due to human influences must far outweigh the effects of changes in the Sun's brightness," said study co-author Tom Wigley of the National Center for Atmospheric Research.

http://www.livescience.com/environment/060913_sun_warming.html


Of course if you stll want to believe in the scientists you've chosen to believe in, that's up to you.   

[Brandon]

This one words it a little better:

No Sunshine for Global Warming Skeptics

By JR Minkel

 
 

G?RAN SCHARMER, Institute for Solar Physics of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
Known variations in the sun's total energy output cannot explain recent global warming, say researchers who have reviewed the existing evidence. The judgment, which appears in the September 14 Nature, casts doubt on the claims of some global warming skeptics who have argued that long-term changes in solar output, or luminosity, might be driving the current climate pattern.

The evidence for human-induced global warming is neatly captured in a plot of the planet's reconstructed temperature over the last 1,000 years. The temperature takes a dramatic upswing starting 100 years ago, creating the so-called hockey stick graph. A reasonable question is whether natural changes such as solar activity could have caused or contributed to the upturned blade of that stick, perhaps because the sun's luminosity varies widely over centuries or more. "The question is, were there times in the past when it was equally warm, and the answer is no," says Tom Wigley of the National Center for Atmospheric Research. He and three colleagues compared the average of a number of temperature reconstructions based on tree rings, ice cores and other data with models of Northern Hemisphere temperature that include different levels of solar variation, from little to a speculatively high amount. In all cases, "what you get out looks very much like the observations" from real samples, he says. "The warming [of the past 100 years] is greater than any in the last 1,000 years."

The consistency meshes with solar physicists' latest understanding of how the sun works, the group notes. The sun's luminosity swings up and down by less than 0.1 percent in accord with an 11-year cycle of sunspots and faculae, bright areas of heightened output [see image above]. This cycle accounts for most of the sun's variability. Recent simulations reinforce the idea that convection inside the sun rapidly smoothes out internal hot spots before their concentrated heat can escape like an upwelling of magma, the researchers note. This inertia allows surface changes to have a discernible effect and explains why no additional sources of variation have been identified so far, they say.

Skeptics might hope to take refuge in some lingering uncertainties. Variability in solar ultraviolet or magnetized plasma output are poorly understood and could affect the climate in ways that luminosity doesn't. Some researchers have also claimed to see signs of longer-term or hyperactive solar luminosity in the last 10,000 years, although "if they are playing some role, these possible longer-term solar effects are small compared to the unprecedented human-induced changes," says geologist Feng Sheng Hu of the University of Illinois, who has reported evidence for one type of longer cycle.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000D4CF1-4202-1508-820283414B7F0000

[Brandon]

Mark, here is a bio on your pal, Fred Singer, one of the co-authors of this report. It seems his organization is one of the many funded by Exxon, which, of course, has a lot to lose in terms of profits if people become more environmentally conscious:

FACTSHEET: S. Fred Singer

President, The Science & Environmental Policy Project.

Editorial Advisory Board Member, Cato Institute. Advisory Board Member, American Council on Science and Health. Adjunct Scholar, National Center for Policy Analysis. Research Fellow, Independent Institute. Distinguished Research Professor, Institute for Humane Studies, George Mason University. Former Adjunct Fellow, Frontiers of Freedom. Former Fellow, Hoover Institution. Former Fellow, Heritage Foundation. Former Fellow, The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition. Editor, Global Climate Change newsletter.

Singer, a leading climate change skeptic, is a frequent contributor to the Wall Street Journal and other publications.

In a February 2001 letter to the Washington Post, Singer denied receiving funding from the oil industry, except for consulting work some 20 years prior. SEPP, however, received multiple grants from ExxonMobil, including 1998 and 2000. In addition, Singer's current CV on the SEPP website states that he served as a consultant to several oil companies. The organizations Singer has recently been affiliated with - Frontiers of Freedom, ACSH, NCPA, etc. - have recieved generous grants from Exxon on an annual basis. Singer Letter to the Editor -Washington Post February 12, 2001 It is ironic that the attempt by two environmental activists to misrepresent my credentials [letters, Feb. 6] coincides with a sustained cold spell in the United States that set a 100-year record. As for full disclosure: My resume clearly states that consulted for several oil companies on the subject of oil pricing, some 20 years ago, after publishing a monograph on the subject. My connection to oil during the past decade is as a Wesson Fellow at the Hoover Institution; the Wesson money derives from salad oil. S. FRED SINGER Singer is listed as a $500 plus contributer to the Center for Individual Rights. Singer's publications include "The Scientific Case Against the Global Climate Treaty" (SEPP, 1997), "Hot Talk, Cold Science: Global Warming's Unfinished Debate" (The Independent Institute, 1997) Singer signed the Leipzig Delcaration.

PhD in Physics, Princeton. Former Director, US National Weather Satellite Center. Former Professor of Environmental Sciences, Univeristy of Virginia (1971-94). Former Deputy Administrator EPA (1970-71). See: http://www.sepp.org/about%20sepp/bios/singer/cvsfs.html

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=1

David Douglas works for the Heartland Institute, another Exxon-funded company, John Christy is a hack who believes that global warming is a "positive thing," who's findings have been widely disputed and the other guy is just a grad student.

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=903

[Brandon]

Here's a second, more recent study on solar variations that reaffirms the original point:

Solar variations not behind global warming: study
Wed Jul 11, 2007 2:38pm EDT 

By Ben Hirschler



Smoke billows from a cement plant in Baokang, central China's Hubei province June 2, 2007. The sun's changing energy levels are not to blame for recent global warming and, if anything, solar variations over the past 20 years should have had a cooling effect, scientists said on Wednesday.

REUTERS/Stringer


LONDON (Reuters) - The sun's changing energy levels are not to blame for recent global warming and, if anything, solar variations over the past 20 years should have had a cooling effect, scientists said on Wednesday.

Their findings add to a growing body of evidence that human activity, not natural causes, lies behind rising average world temperatures, which are expected to reach their second highest level this year since records began in the 1860s.

There is little doubt that solar variability has influenced the Earth's climate in the past and may well have been a factor in the first half of the last century, but British and Swiss researchers said it could not explain recent warming.

"Over the past 20 years, all the trends in the sun that could have had an influence on Earth's climate have been in the opposite direction to that required to explain the observed rise in global mean temperatures," they wrote in the Proceedings of the Royal Society.

Most scientists say emissions of greenhouse gases, mainly from burning fossil fuels in power plants, factories and cars, are the prime cause of the current warming trend.

A dwindling group pins the blame on natural variations in the climate system, or a gradual rise in the sun's energy output.

In order to unpick that possible link, Mike Lockwood of Britain's Rutherford Appleton Laboratory and Claus Froehlich of the World Radiation Centre in Davos, Switzerland, studied factors that could have forced climate change in recent decades, including variations in total solar irradiance and cosmic rays.

The data was smoothed to take account of the 11-year sunspot cycle, which affects the amount of heat the sun emits but does not impact the Earth's surface air temperature, due to the way the oceans absorb and retain heat

They concluded that the rapid rise in global mean temperatures seen since the late 1980s could not be ascribed to solar variability, whatever mechanism was invoked.

Britain's Royal Society -- one of the world's oldest scientific academies, founded in 1660 -- said the new research was an important rebuff to climate change skeptics.

"At present there is a small minority which is seeking to deliberately confuse the public on the causes of climate change. They are often misrepresenting the science, when the reality is that the evidence is getting stronger every day," it said in a statement.

The 10 warmest years in the past 150 years have all been since 1990 and a United Nations climate panel, drawing on the work of 2,500 scientists, said this year it was "very likely" human activities were the main cause.

The panel gave a "best estimate" that temperatures would rise 1.8 to 4.0 degrees Celsius (3.2 to 7.8 Fahrenheit) this century.



http://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUSL101501320070711

[Brandon]

I had another one that actually measures how small the radiation is from the sun and I'll dig it out for you when I find it, but I think the point has already been made:

+Solar variation is not the cause of global warming and those guys still making the suggestion are mostly in the pocket of Exxon (as are most who make that charge).

[Mark of Australia]

Hi Brandon ,

I agree that solar variations are not the cause of global warming... or human activity.

It's caused by little fairies stoking their furnaces in Middle Earth.

[Jennifer O'Dell]

Gee, Mark, don't take this the wrong way, but I never figured someone who prides themselves on such a scientific approach to their work would ever be a global warming skeptic.

We used to argue global warming all the time with the fundies at AR. The point is, the only people who don't believe that human beings are causing global warming these days are the ones who haven't looked at the evidence or those who don't want to believe in it.

We went on for some forty pages on the old Inconvenient Truth thread back at AR - me, Brandon, Psycho, Jason, Bee Cha, Byron and Allison - presenting evidence afrer evidence to refute each one of their bogus statements. Their only reply was that they didn't have any faith in science so therefore everything that climatologists said shouldn't be trusted.  I have never argued with a more backwards (backwoods) group of people in my life.

Science does not have all the answers, but don't let that confuse you into thinking that it doesn't have any of the answers.

[Mark of Australia]

Hi Jennifer,

heh ,oh the fairies comment. Well actually that answer is sort of alluding to my best guess at the cause of global warming.

You see ,it's not that I don't think global warming is real... I acknowledge the scientific observations that it's real.  It's just the cause of the warming which I don't think any scientist really knows anything about.

I see why some think it is caused by the Sun one way or another.That is just their assumption because the Sun obviously has the most powerful affect on Earth. But it's just an assumption like those who assume it's caused by human activity.

I think both sides are wrong.

I 'suspect' that the warming is caused by the heat variations from the interior of the Earth.

That's way out of left field I know and I haven't really studied geophysics so for now that can be my 'belief'.

Since you seem to believe that global warming is caused by humans. What should we do about it if that is the case ??

[Jennifer O'Dell]

Mark,

Have you studied the Greenhouse Effect at all and, if so, can you explain to me how it works?

[Mark of Australia]

Jenn,

I haven't studied the Greenhouse affect at all .I've only read articles about it in laymen's language. That article that I posted says that basically the Greenhouse Effect is severely exaggerated. That's good enough for me. It suits my beliefs. So I'll go with that for now.

 This climate change stuff is not exactly my forte anyway . As I said I have the beginnings of a theory about it ,but it needs lots of work.

So I will still consider the athropogenic theory but I'm yet to be convinced .I haven't seen any strong evidence at all.

Have you studied the Greenhouse Effect at all and, if so can you explain to me how it works?

[Jennifer O'Dell]

If you can't explain to me how it works, chances are, you never bothered to find out how it works.

[Jennifer O'Dell]

By the way, don't you feel that the scientific beliefs should have at least some basis in fact?
Not to mention evidence to support them?

[Mark of Australia]

Jennifer ,

I realise I'm not making too much sense ,frankly ,you're putting me to shame. I'll try to justify myself.

First and foremost I study Atlantis. My theory about Atlantis is pretty much in it's final stages and a couple of years ago I'd already started looking into the implications my theory had for geological history.

to cut a long story short ,I figure that basically Hapgood's explanation for Ice Ages is correct and that Earth Expansion is the cause of continental drift among other things, there's lots more to it but you can see I believe some heretical ideas about the Earth.
      My explanation for the mechanism behind Hapgood's Ice Age theory leads me to believe that it is the heat from the Earth's interior that causes any global warming we may experience.

So ,my views about global warming are based on my view of geological theory. And it just so happens to be 'incompatible' with the current theory about human-caused-global-warming.
 
So that's why I am not really interested in anthopogenic global warming and why I've kind of dismissed it without even knowing much about it. I figure my theory supercedes the other theories on the explanation for global warming. And it happens to be a natural phenomenon.

Of course ,I may be mistaken about everything ,in which case , it'll be time for me to start studying Carbon content etc. 

I know I haven't given you much on my theory. As I said ,It's not ready.

But that is the reason for my seemingly unwarranted rejection of anthropogenic global warming.

oh, and you're right about science. It's just that scientists often mistake their interpretation of the facts , to be facts themselves. I think that's what's happening with the hysteria surrounding this global warming caper . And that's why I don't like to get bogged down arguing about it too much.... But arguing with you is fine  ,  since you ask decent questions.

Oh , I hope I'm not as bad as the AR trolls ,but I guess I am 'backwoods'. You can't get any more out of the way than Perth.   Officially the most isolated city in the world.

[Mark of Australia]

Brandon ,

,nevermind my joking around... I hope it didn't offend.

I'll be serious for a second...

I have taken the time to read the articles you posted and it appears to me that just as much as my article made bold assertions without much substance , so did yours. 

It just illustrates to me what a mine-field this subject is. The only thing I take from it all is that none of them have a clue. In what other science do you have professional scientists publishing findings that totally contradict their 'colleagues' findings on a regular basis.?

For years now it's been back and forth.  One group says ," yep it's proven! Humans cause global warming"  then another group will come out with  "yep it's proven! global warming is entirely natural" .

From all this I just take it that none of them know what's going on.

Do you notice how all the 'facts'  are just statistics ?  things like , "The 10 warmest years in the past 150 years have all been since 1990 "  and  "The warming [of the past 100 years] is greater than any in the last 1,000 years."

Oh ...1000 years? wow     what about the warming that happened 11000 years ago around say...Chicago.  I'm sure I don't need to spell it out.

My point is ,if they can't explain the amazing global warming that happened in America at the end of the Ice Age ,how can they claim to know anything about the measly warming happening in our own day??

To this day Ice Ages are a mystery.

Yet...In Australia last year now ,there was a big television presentation about climate change ,and they got all the viewers to do a survey of some kind. I didn't participate ,I wouldn't waste my time with it. They had a 'celebrity scientist' give a little talk about the Ice Ages in an attempt to show that the warming is not natural. He presented that old Milankovich Ice Age theory as if it was science fact !!! he got about 1 minute to make his pathetic presentation and that was the end of it !... Therefore humans are causing the change 

What saddens me is the way all this has become linked with politics.

...

It's all statistics and it does not stand up as science in my opinion.