Climate change not due to human influences?

10 posts / 0 new
Last post
Mr. Anonymous
Climate change not due to human influences?

Just passing through here, though I have posted here in the past. Is it just me or is the (new) information tracking a little intrusive/unnecessary? I've always been a big fan of privacy, but still see no reason why someone couldn't "opt-out" of this tracking...

 

Anyway, like I noted I have been a regular poster here years back (never in favor of big polluters or anything close), so I hope this thread won't elicit knee-jerk reactions such as implications that I am some oil-company shill for bringing this up...

 

Just recently I saw a review of this book http://www.amazon.com/Deniers-Renowned-Scientists-Political-Persecution/... regarding how some highly respected climatologists (noted bottom) seem to believe the current most popular model is highly suspect. From the page above:

Al Gore says any scientist who disagrees with him on Global Warming is a kook, or a crook.

Guess he never met these guys

Dr. Edward Wegman--former
chairman of the Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics of the
National Academy of Sciences--demolishes the famous "hockey stick"
graph that launched the global warming panic.

Dr. David Bromwich--president
of the International Commission on Polar Meteorology--says "it's hard
to see a global warming signal from the mainland of Antarctica right
now."

Prof. Paul Reiter--Chief of Insects and Infectious
Diseases at the famed Pasteur Institute--says "no major scientist with
any long record in this field" accepts Al Gore's claim that global
warming spreads mosquito-borne diseases.

Prof. Hendrik Tennekes--director
of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute--states "there
exists no sound theoretical framework for climate predictability
studies" used for global warming forecasts.

Dr. Christopher Landsea--past
chairman of the American Meteorological Society's Committee on Tropical
Meteorology and Tropical Cyclones--says "there are no known scientific
studies that show a conclusive physical link between global warming and
observed hurricane frequency and intensity."

Dr. Antonino Zichichi--one
of the world's foremost physicists, former president of the European
Physical Society, who discovered nuclear antimatter--calls global
warming models "incoherent and invalid."

Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski--world-renowned
expert on the ancient ice cores used in climate research--says the U.N.
"based its global-warming hypothesis on arbitrary assumptions and these
assumptions, it is now clear, are false."

Prof. Tom V. Segalstad--head
of the Geological Museum, University of Oslo--says "most leading
geologists" know the U.N.'s views "of Earth processes are implausible."

Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu--founding
director of the International Arctic Research Center, twice named one
of the "1,000 Most Cited Scientists," says much "Arctic warming during
the last half of the last century is due to natural change."

Dr. Claude Allegre--member,
U.S. National Academy of Sciences and French Academy of Science, he was
among the first to sound the alarm on the dangers of global warming.
His view now: "The cause of this climate change is unknown."

Dr. Richard Lindzen--Professor
of Meteorology at M.I.T., member, the National Research Council Board
on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, says global warming alarmists "are
trumpeting catastrophes that couldn't happen even if the models were
right."

Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov--head of the space
research laboratory of the Russian Academy of Science's Pulkovo
Observatory and of the International Space Station's Astrometria
project says "the common view that man's industrial activity is a
deciding factor in global warming has emerged from a misinterpretation
of cause and effect relations."

Dr. Richard Tol--Principal
researcher at the Institute for Environmental Studies at Vrije
Universiteit, and Adjunct Professor at the Center for Integrated Study
of the Human Dimensions of Global Change, at Carnegie Mellon
University, calls the most influential global warming report of all
time "preposterous . . . alarmist and incompetent."

Dr. Sami Solanki--director
and scientific member at the Max Planck Institute for Solar System
Research in Germany, who argues that changes in the Sun's state, not
human activity, may be the principal cause of global warming: "The sun
has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be
affecting global temperatures."

Prof. Freeman Dyson--one
of the world's most eminent physicists says the models used to justify
global warming alarmism are "full of fudge factors" and "do not begin
to describe the real world."

Dr. Eigils Friis-Christensen--director
of the Danish National Space Centre, vice-president of the
International Association of Geomagnetism and Aeronomy, who argues that
changes in the Sun's behavior could account for most of the warming
attributed by the UN to man-made CO2.

And many more, all in Lawrence Solomon's devastating new book, The Deniers

 

 

 

Years ago I had come across the NASA-supplied information that our entire solar system (including most of its planets) is heating up, I had assumed that this might be a cause of global warming, perhaps the main cause. Out of curiosity tonight, I thought I would check out Google Video for the other side of this debate, and was interested in what I found, namlely some (apparently) very solid and well-presented scientific evidence that global warming is unlikey to be caused by human influences, if indeed it is happening at all to any significant (historical) degree. FWIW, I am wholly supportive of cleaner energy research and impementation, if only for the political and health effects of cleaner/more local energy.

http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=climate+change&hl=en&emb=0#q=globa... (Scientist Bob Carter speaks on the issue using climate graphs over varying periods of time, and some reasons why the data may be skewed. This is about 35 mins long, the most interesting stuff can be found in the first 10-15 mins or so. The rest is also interesting re. skewed science and politics in the presenters opinion.

http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=climate+change&hl=en&emb=0#q=globa... Something that ran on CBC last year "Global Warming Doomsday Called Off", most interesting part IMO re. how the more accurate means of measuring climate change (Satelites/weather balloons) seem to suggest little if any meaningful shift in climate over recent years. Most interesting parts IMO being about 6 mins in, about 20 mins in (*falling* sea levels), about 37 mins in, re. the general idea that climate is extremely difficult to model accurately via computer models and why politics may be at play in choosing computer models over human observations.

 

 

With appologies to those who wish to debate me on this issue, I claim no personal expertise and wont be sticking around, I present this mainly to (I hope) balance out the media reports which overwhelmingly focus on the pro-human-caused-warming side. I do however suggest that everybody truly interested in this subject look into the material above as it seems to me to be highly intelligent and relevant, and from respectd sources in the recognized scientific community.

pogge

From [url=http://www.desmogblog.com/the-deniers-the-world-renowned-scientists-who-... review[/url] of Solomon's book at DeSmogBlog:

Quote:

The problem is that Solomon's "deniers" don't actually deny climate change. They quibble about the details. They criticize Michael Mann's now entirely dated hockey stick graph. They argue about snow temperatures in Antarctica, but they all still allow - what's the phrase? - that observed warming is real and particularly strong in the last 20 years.

Solomon even says so. He says that while reflecting on his own research, "I ... noticed something striking about my growing cast of deniers. None of them were deniers."

If you ask me how someone could make that concession on page 45 and then string the book out to page 213 (not counting footnotes), I have to say that I am still suffering some confusion. And all of it intentional, I am convinced.

George Victor

Why waste time arguing with the vacuously anonymous?

 It would be better spent focusing on what must be done!

 

 

 

 

remind remind's picture

pogge wrote:

From [url=http://www.desmogblog.com/the-deniers-the-world-renowned-scientists-who-... review[/url] of Solomon's book at DeSmogBlog:

Quote:

The problem is that Solomon's "deniers" don't actually deny climate change. They quibble about the details. They criticize Michael Mann's now entirely dated hockey stick graph. They argue about snow temperatures in Antarctica, but they all still allow - what's the phrase? - that observed warming is real and particularly strong in the last 20 years.

Solomon even says so. He says that while reflecting on his own research, "I ... noticed something striking about my growing cast of deniers. None of them were deniers."

If you ask me how someone could make that concession on page 45 and then string the book out to page 213 (not counting footnotes), I have to say that I am still suffering some confusion. And all of it intentional, I am convinced.

 

 

Yes, thank you for posting that pogge, as I had garnered  from just reading the snippets posted, that they were no real denying climate change going on. There was only denial of the varying aspects of how it was being discussed, represented and portrayed, in most.

Moreover, has anyone done any research on these gentlemen, to see what their historical connections are?

 

 

 

Noise

From his List:

Quote:
Dr. Christopher Landsea--past
chairman of the American Meteorological Society's Committee on Tropical
Meteorology and Tropical Cyclones--says "there are no known scientific
studies that show a conclusive physical link between global warming and
observed hurricane frequency and intensity."

 

Funny to see him on this list...  Landsea's major objection is Global Warming increases Wind Shear which inhibits Hurricane developement (IE, Global warming would inhibit hurricanes).  As far as I know, he does not dispute the science behind global warming.  I'd imagine most of those on that list are misleading quotes suggesting their position is complete denial instead of their actual position.

Noise

Always funny to see this presented as a legitimate debate...  Might as well continue:

 

Quote:
Years ago I had come across the NASA-supplied information that our entire solar system (including most of its planets) is heating up, I had assumed that this might be a cause of global warming, perhaps the main cause.

This notion is one of the silliest ones out there...  This is the 'Pluto is warming' arguement (I've seen neptune variations of it, they morph like urban legends).  Pluto takes hundreds of years to orbit the sun...  Looking at any of these planets and determining they're warming over a 10 year period is the equivlent of looking at earth and concluding it must be warming because average temperature in the northern hemisphere raised from April 20th to May 1st.  Funny how Global Warming sceintist can be held to such a standard, yet these standards suddenly dissapear the second a denier opens their mouth.

 

On that note:

Quote:
Dr. Sami Solanki--director
and scientific member at the Max Planck Institute for Solar System
Research in Germany, who argues that changes in the Sun's state, not
human activity, may be the principal cause of global warming: "The sun
has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be
affecting global temperatures."

This is a refined version of the original 'Strongest it's been in 1150 years!!!!' arguement that was dubunked when it became apparent we lacked solar records for 1000 AD to compare todays records with ^^  For what it's worth, at realclimate they can tell you how much the sun has increased in energ output and the additional amount of energy per square meter.

 

Quote:
With appologies to those who wish to debate me on this issue, I claim no personal expertise and wont be sticking around, I present this mainly to (I hope) balance out the media reports which overwhelmingly focus on the pro-human-caused-warming side. I do however suggest that everybody truly interested in this subject look into the material above as it seems to me to be highly intelligent and relevant, and from respectd sources in the recognized scientific community.

With the same apologies, I think you're full of shit going around spamming these cherry picked quotes as legitimate science.

Fidel

After the last people have died off, it's expected that most traces of human civilization will disappear in about 200 years post-humanity. Stainless steel products will last quite a while strewn around the world and covered by lush vegetation.  Fish will make a comeback, and the oceans will be teeming with life again. Whales will thrive without ocean-going freighters interfering with whale communication.  Most of our largest monuments to capitalism will crumble after a few decades and well on their way to the ground millenia before glaciers pulverize and grind them into sand in a few thousand years' time. Whatever we will have done on the moon will be preserved as a snapshot in time. Capitalism or a habitable planet but not both.

Noise

200 years?  That's underestimating our ability to poison this planet

Fidel

Noise wrote:
200 years?  That's underestimating our ability to poison this planet

Well the radioactive stuff will likely endure to the end of the earth, and a few traces of us will last for millenia, especially stainless steel trinkets and baubles. But this thing on TV showed how New York City would return to swampy marshland in record time. Once the power is shutoff, all those pumps keeping groundwater out of subways and sewer systems stop working. I imagine the Sphynx in Egypt and pyramids might survive longer than Mount Rushmore. Alexander was said to have  observed the statue buried neck deep in sand. But once the next ice age is in full swing, hardest of granites will be ground into pebbles under mile thick sheets of ice, sand, and giant boulders washed far away by glacial meltwaters carving new rivers and spectacular surface features along the way over long, long periods of time. A new broom sweeps clean as they say. Genesis and re-genesis, and everything under the sun is made new again.

Noah_Scape

There are two reasons to REDUCE EMISSIONS - one is that global
warming might be due to CO2 increases in the atmosphere, and the other
is that pollution from fossil fuel emissions is killing us.

 There is no valid excuse to delay the change to renewable energy sources, as much as possible, as soon as possible.