[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
Science-Technology Title: Consensus Shattered As Major Scientific Study Says Global Warming Is Natural. 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. Now on the web at http://science-sepp.blogspot.com/2007/12/press-release-dec-10-2007.html Contact: Dr S Fred Singer, President, SEPP singer@SEPP.org 703-920-2744 Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 6. We must conclude, therefore, that attempts to control CO2 emissions are ineffective and pointless. – but very costly. "Follow the money." (About the only wise thing I learned from GOP operative Rush Windbag.) Speaking of "wind":
"...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."
I suspect the solar wind speed is directly proportional to the transmission wattage used to broadcast Rush Windbag, Hannity and other hot air, oxygen thieves like Savage. (sarcasm/off)
#4. To: barkentine (#1) Here is the way I see it. There is plant life under the ice at antartica and the North Pole. We are still in the ice age and coming out of it. That's why both poles are still covered in ice. We are returning to the way it has been in the past. Probably triggered by the flood of Noah in the Bible.
#6. To: A K A Stone (#4) We are returning to the way it has been in the past. Probably triggered by the flood of Noah in the Bible. That sounds reasonable. Better explanation than Kyoto and the environmental communists.
I have also read that Nothern England (UK) had an Ice Age as recent as 1000 - 1100 AD. This suggests the Ice Ages come and go.
Replies to Comment # 6. Better explanation than Kyoto You know about the "greens" don't you? They are watermelons. Green on the outside but red on the inside.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 6. Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|