Many scientist backpeddling on Global Warming...
Subject: The real deal?
Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 08:25:25 -0500
The real deal?
Against the grain: Some scientists deny global warming exists
Lawrence Solomon, National Post
Published: Friday, February 02, 2007
Astrophysicist Nir Shariv, one of Israel's top young scientists, describes the logic that led him -- and most everyone else -- to conclude that SUVs, coal plants and other things man-made cause global warming.
Step One Scientists for decades have postulated that increases in carbon dioxide and other gases could lead to a greenhouse effect.
Step Two As if on cue, the temperature rose over the course of the 20th century while greenhouse gases proliferated due to human activities.
View Larger Image
ice
AFP Getty
Step Three No other mechanism explains the warming. Without another candidate, greenhouses gases necessarily became the cause.
Dr. Shariv, a prolific researcher who has made a name for himself assessing the movements of two-billion-year-old meteorites, no longer accepts this logic, or subscribes to these views. He has recanted: "Like many others, I was personally sure that CO2 is the bad culprit in the story of global warming. But after carefully digging into the evidence, I realized that things are far more complicated than the story sold to us by many climate scientists or the stories regurgitated by the media.
"In fact, there is much more than meets the eye."
Dr. Shariv's digging led him to the surprising discovery that there is no concrete evidence -- only speculation -- that man-made greenhouse gases cause global warming. Even research from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change-- the United Nations agency that heads the worldwide effort to combat global warming -- is bereft of anything here inspiring confidence. In fact, according to the IPCC's own findings, man's role is so uncertain that there is a strong possibility that we have been cooling, not warming, the Earth. Unfortunately, our tools are too crude to reveal what man's effect has been in the past, let alone predict how much warming or cooling we might cause in the future.
All we have on which to pin the blame on greenhouse gases, says Dr. Shaviv, is "incriminating circumstantial evidence," which explains why climate scientists speak in terms of finding "evidence of fingerprints." Circumstantial evidence might be a fine basis on which to justify reducing greenhouse gases, he adds, "without other 'suspects.' " However, Dr. Shaviv not only believes there are credible "other suspects," he believes that at least one provides a superior explanation for the 20th century's warming.
"Solar activity can explain a large part of the 20th-century global warming," he states, particularly because of the evidence that has been accumulating over the past decade of the strong relationship that cosmic- ray flux has on our atmosphere. So much evidence has by now been amassed, in fact, that "it is unlikely that [the solar climate link] does not exist."
The sun's strong role indicates that greenhouse gases can't have much of an influence on the climate -- that C02 et al. don't dominate through some kind of leveraging effect that makes them especially potent drivers of climate change. The upshot of the Earth not being unduly sensitive to greenhouse gases is that neither increases nor cutbacks in future C02 emissions will matter much in terms of the climate.
Even doubling the amount of CO2 by 2100, for example, "will not dramatically increase the global temperature," Dr. Shaviv states. Put another way: "Even if we halved the CO2 output, and the CO2 increase by 2100 would be, say, a 50% increase relative to today instead of a doubled amount, the expected reduction in the rise of global temperature would be less than 0.5C. This is not significant."
The evidence from astrophysicists and cosmologists in laboratories around the world, on the other hand, could well be significant. In his study of meteorites, published in the prestigious journal, Physical Review Letters, Dr. Shaviv found that the meteorites that Earth collected during its passage through the arms of the Milky Way sustained up to 10% more cosmic ray damage than others. That kind of cosmic ray variation, Dr. Shaviv believes, could alter global temperatures by as much as 15% --sufficient to turn the ice ages on or off and evidence of the extent to which cosmic forces influence Earth's climate.
In another study, directly relevant to today's climate controversy, Dr. Shaviv reconstructed the temperature on Earth over the past 550 million years to find that cosmic ray flux variations explain more than two-thirds of Earth's temperature variance, making it the most dominant climate driver over geological time scales. The study also found that an upper limit can be placed on the relative role of CO2 as a climate driver, meaning that a large fraction of the global warming witnessed over the past century could not be due to CO2 -- instead it is attributable to the increased solar activity.
CO2 does play a role in climate, Dr. Shaviv believes, but a secondary role, one too small to preoccupy policymakers. Yet Dr. Shaviv also believes fossil fuels should be controlled, not because of their adverse affects on climate but to curb pollution.
"I am therefore in favour of developing cheap alternatives such as solar power, wind, and of course fusion reactors (converting Deuterium into Helium), which we should have in a few decades, but this is an altogether different issue." His conclusion: "I am quite sure Kyoto is not the right way to go."
Lawrence Solomon@nextcity.com
Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 08:25:25 -0500
The real deal?
Against the grain: Some scientists deny global warming exists
Lawrence Solomon, National Post
Published: Friday, February 02, 2007
Astrophysicist Nir Shariv, one of Israel's top young scientists, describes the logic that led him -- and most everyone else -- to conclude that SUVs, coal plants and other things man-made cause global warming.
Step One Scientists for decades have postulated that increases in carbon dioxide and other gases could lead to a greenhouse effect.
Step Two As if on cue, the temperature rose over the course of the 20th century while greenhouse gases proliferated due to human activities.
View Larger Image
ice
AFP Getty
Step Three No other mechanism explains the warming. Without another candidate, greenhouses gases necessarily became the cause.
Dr. Shariv, a prolific researcher who has made a name for himself assessing the movements of two-billion-year-old meteorites, no longer accepts this logic, or subscribes to these views. He has recanted: "Like many others, I was personally sure that CO2 is the bad culprit in the story of global warming. But after carefully digging into the evidence, I realized that things are far more complicated than the story sold to us by many climate scientists or the stories regurgitated by the media.
"In fact, there is much more than meets the eye."
Dr. Shariv's digging led him to the surprising discovery that there is no concrete evidence -- only speculation -- that man-made greenhouse gases cause global warming. Even research from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change-- the United Nations agency that heads the worldwide effort to combat global warming -- is bereft of anything here inspiring confidence. In fact, according to the IPCC's own findings, man's role is so uncertain that there is a strong possibility that we have been cooling, not warming, the Earth. Unfortunately, our tools are too crude to reveal what man's effect has been in the past, let alone predict how much warming or cooling we might cause in the future.
All we have on which to pin the blame on greenhouse gases, says Dr. Shaviv, is "incriminating circumstantial evidence," which explains why climate scientists speak in terms of finding "evidence of fingerprints." Circumstantial evidence might be a fine basis on which to justify reducing greenhouse gases, he adds, "without other 'suspects.' " However, Dr. Shaviv not only believes there are credible "other suspects," he believes that at least one provides a superior explanation for the 20th century's warming.
"Solar activity can explain a large part of the 20th-century global warming," he states, particularly because of the evidence that has been accumulating over the past decade of the strong relationship that cosmic- ray flux has on our atmosphere. So much evidence has by now been amassed, in fact, that "it is unlikely that [the solar climate link] does not exist."
The sun's strong role indicates that greenhouse gases can't have much of an influence on the climate -- that C02 et al. don't dominate through some kind of leveraging effect that makes them especially potent drivers of climate change. The upshot of the Earth not being unduly sensitive to greenhouse gases is that neither increases nor cutbacks in future C02 emissions will matter much in terms of the climate.
Even doubling the amount of CO2 by 2100, for example, "will not dramatically increase the global temperature," Dr. Shaviv states. Put another way: "Even if we halved the CO2 output, and the CO2 increase by 2100 would be, say, a 50% increase relative to today instead of a doubled amount, the expected reduction in the rise of global temperature would be less than 0.5C. This is not significant."
The evidence from astrophysicists and cosmologists in laboratories around the world, on the other hand, could well be significant. In his study of meteorites, published in the prestigious journal, Physical Review Letters, Dr. Shaviv found that the meteorites that Earth collected during its passage through the arms of the Milky Way sustained up to 10% more cosmic ray damage than others. That kind of cosmic ray variation, Dr. Shaviv believes, could alter global temperatures by as much as 15% --sufficient to turn the ice ages on or off and evidence of the extent to which cosmic forces influence Earth's climate.
In another study, directly relevant to today's climate controversy, Dr. Shaviv reconstructed the temperature on Earth over the past 550 million years to find that cosmic ray flux variations explain more than two-thirds of Earth's temperature variance, making it the most dominant climate driver over geological time scales. The study also found that an upper limit can be placed on the relative role of CO2 as a climate driver, meaning that a large fraction of the global warming witnessed over the past century could not be due to CO2 -- instead it is attributable to the increased solar activity.
CO2 does play a role in climate, Dr. Shaviv believes, but a secondary role, one too small to preoccupy policymakers. Yet Dr. Shaviv also believes fossil fuels should be controlled, not because of their adverse affects on climate but to curb pollution.
"I am therefore in favour of developing cheap alternatives such as solar power, wind, and of course fusion reactors (converting Deuterium into Helium), which we should have in a few decades, but this is an altogether different issue." His conclusion: "I am quite sure Kyoto is not the right way to go."
Lawrence Solomon@nextcity.com
0
-
so now instead of reducing CO2 emission we have to get a giant sheet of polarizer into space to tweak the intensity of solar radiation reaching earth... 0 -
A little bit country, a little bit rock 'n roll.
D.0 -
There is a show about the Sun running on the Science Channel. It basically says the same thing, sun spots are to blame. They tracked back the world's temperature variations and the sun spot activity variations and they match up quite nicely. 0 -
I thought aerosol cans caused global warming.
Dang flip-floppers.0 -
The global warming argument is the same as the argument of eggs being bad for you. Some scientist say yes, some say no, others blame Bush. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by catpealer111
The global warming argument is the same as the argument of eggs being bad for you. Some scientist say yes, some say no, others blame Bush.
But we all know BJ's don't cause it, therefore it wasn't Clinton's fault.0 -
Wow, a whole ONE scientist changed his mind. Great article there ECC, you've really convinced me.
Nevermind the fact that manmade global warming is the theory endorsed by the National Academy of Sciences, the national academies of the other G8 nations plus Brazil, India, and China, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NASA, the governments of 113 countries who signed the recent International report on global warming (including the United States), a Coalition of over 100 top Evangelical Christian leaders, and President Bush's own scientific advisors.
Sorry, but every scientific body in the United States government is unanimous in their agreement that global warming is real and that man is a major contributor, and so are the scientists and governments of almost EVERY OTHER INDUSTRIALIZED NATION ON EARTH. And so it seems is President Bush, who has finally acknowledged global warming to be a fact and that human industrial activity is a contributing factor.
But hey ECC, if you are privy to information that our government and our President and the scientists of NASA and the NOAA aren't privy too, I'd like to see it.0 -
Warriorsfan: do you ever have something positive to say about ANYTHING?
If you have, I've never seen it.
Lighten up man, all those negative vibes will take years off your life! [:D]0 -
damn it!!!!!!!!!!
Now what am I supposed to worry about and demand more govt. intervention for?!?!!?!?!?0 -
One day last week one of the "experts" on TV was talking about chunks of the Antarctic "permanent ice shelf" breaking off being the final definite proof of Global Warming.
I know forty-two years isn't very long when you're talking about intervals between Ice Ages, but I was on the Ross Permanent Ice Shelf when it broke in 1965. We had been promised by the "experts" that wouldn't happen for several thousand years. Yeah, I trust the weather guessers. I figure their guess is about as good as mine.0 -
Another thing you don't hear mentioned in the main media is that while the Arctic ice is melting, the Antarctic ice is growing. The Science channel did talk about that too. 0 -
...There are just as many scientist that say man made global warmming is bunk...as there are scientist that claim "we" caused it.
It's just the self absorbed, "I am GREAT!" scientist that think it's caused by man....and Gore the HO.
The research is out there, one just need s to get off their azz to find/see it...I vote BUNK that man caused it...[;)]
0 -
"Global warming" is just more of the green agenda. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by MT357
"Global warming" is just more of the green agenda.
Global warming, MY ASS!!!!! It's 6 below this morning!!!
So cold, I saw a witch going in for a breast exam...........0 -
If 'scientists' look at average temp for as long as records have been kept, we're warming. I geologic terms, that's a blink of the eye. Looking at 50,000yr of history, we're right where we're supposed to be in the heating/cooling cycle. The earth has been doing this long before we got here. I'm all FOR anything that improves the environment. CO2 is not our enemy, though and FAR more is produced in nature than by man.
This is why the greenies have switched their focus from warming to 'extreme climate change'. It's easier to substantiate and FAR more shocking to watch on the tube. Trouble is, we can't do anything about that, either. Where do 'averages' come from, anyway? Add the extremes and divide over time.
They have to get us pumped up over something. Otherwise they don't get funding. MY humble opinion.0 -
When "El Nino" and the "Alberta Clipper" are out of the picture then maybe I could consider global warming!! 0 -
quote:Originally posted by warriorsfan
Wow, a whole ONE scientist changed his mind. Great article there ECC, you've really convinced me.
Nevermind the fact that manmade global warming is the theory endorsed by the National Academy of Sciences, the national academies of the other G8 nations plus Brazil, India, and China, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NASA, the governments of 113 countries who signed the recent International report on global warming (including the United States), a Coalition of over 100 top Evangelical Christian leaders, and President Bush's own scientific advisors.
Sorry, but every scientific body in the United States government is unanimous in their agreement that global warming is real and that man is a major contributor, and so are the scientists and governments of almost EVERY OTHER INDUSTRIALIZED NATION ON EARTH. And so it seems is President Bush, who has finally acknowledged global warming to be a fact and that human industrial activity is a contributing factor.
But hey ECC, if you are privy to information that our government and our President and the scientists of NASA and the NOAA aren't privy too, I'd like to see it.
Politics & theory don't mix well, the "governments of almost EVERY OTHER INDUSTRIALIZED NATION ON EARTH" would love to see our industries saddled by the Kyoto accords.
Now, just for grins, how much greenhouse gas is emitted in 1 volcanic eruption?
Don0 -
Someone once posed a very simple question:
What harm does it do us if we are wrong and we try to do something to reduce emissions?
In terms of global warming, we could waste some money - something that does not seem to bother Congress or the White House (dominated by either party) very much.
But what if the theory is correct and we do nothing?
What I enjoy so much about this debate is that those who accuse others of sticking their heads in the sand regarding such items as Iraq are the biggest head-stickers of them all when it comes to global warming.
"It was cold outside today! No global warming! See?"
"This one scientist says there's no cause for alarm! Guess that puts the entire theory to rest!"
If we reduce emissions, what will it have cost us? Chances are not that much since getting such technology out into the marketplace will require the employment of many, many engineers, technicians, and other workers. I know it's not as glamorous as employing them to turn out the latest tenth generation stealth VSTOL suborbital Joint Task Strike Strategic Tactical Rapid Reaction Scramjet Fighter-Bomber with the kung-fu grip, but they'll get paid all the same.
Since Iraq is still so popular, let us use its logic for global warming: the consequences of being right and doing nothing are too dangerous, so something must be done.
The only difference is that if we do something, lives will not be lost.0 -
quote:Originally posted by PC800Another thing you don't hear mentioned in the main media is that while the Arctic ice is melting, the Antarctic ice is growing. The Science channel did talk about that too....as was predicted by the current model they have of global warming.
the first "major" things to happen before things get really screwed up (besides what has happend so far already) is changes in the weather patterns.
for the creationists here, doesn't it say in the bible that in the 'end times' the seasons would be all changed around?0 -
EMM:
sure, lets just pretend it it real, b/c it could be, and shut down all our factories, and cars too
Think the unions are unhappy now?
I bet China will follow our lead too[:o)]0 -
quote:Originally posted by ElMuertoMonkey
Someone once posed a very simple question:
What harm does it do us if we are wrong and we try to do something to reduce emissions?
In terms of global warming, we could waste some money - something that does not seem to bother Congress or the White House (dominated by either party) very much.
But what if the theory is correct and we do nothing?
What I enjoy so much about this debate is that those who accuse others of sticking their heads in the sand regarding such items as Iraq are the biggest head-stickers of them all when it comes to global warming.
"It was cold outside today! No global warming! See?"
"This one scientist says there's no cause for alarm! Guess that puts the entire theory to rest!"
If we reduce emissions, what will it have cost us? Chances are not that much since getting such technology out into the marketplace will require the employment of many, many engineers, technicians, and other workers. I know it's not as glamorous as employing them to turn out the latest tenth generation stealth VSTOL suborbital Joint Task Strike Strategic Tactical Rapid Reaction Scramjet Fighter-Bomber with the kung-fu grip, but they'll get paid all the same.
Since Iraq is still so popular, let us use its logic for global warming: the consequences of being right and doing nothing are too dangerous, so something must be done.
The only difference is that if we do something, lives will not be lost.
Perhaps you should peruse the Kyoto accords, this is the best Al could do.0 -
quote:Originally posted by ElMuertoMonkey
Someone once posed a very simple question:
What harm does it do us if we are wrong and we try to do something to reduce emissions?
In terms of global warming, we could waste some money - something that does not seem to bother Congress or the White House (dominated by either party) very much.
But what if the theory is correct and we do nothing?
What I enjoy so much about this debate is that those who accuse others of sticking their heads in the sand regarding such items as Iraq are the biggest head-stickers of them all when it comes to global warming.
"It was cold outside today! No global warming! See?"
"This one scientist says there's no cause for alarm! Guess that puts the entire theory to rest!"
If we reduce emissions, what will it have cost us? Chances are not that much since getting such technology out into the marketplace will require the employment of many, many engineers, technicians, and other workers. I know it's not as glamorous as employing them to turn out the latest tenth generation stealth VSTOL suborbital Joint Task Strike Strategic Tactical Rapid Reaction Scramjet Fighter-Bomber with the kung-fu grip, but they'll get paid all the same.
Since Iraq is still so popular, let us use its logic for global warming: the consequences of being right and doing nothing are too dangerous, so something must be done.
The only difference is that if we do something, lives will not be lost.
Can I assume you have thought this through? Most scientists, even the "Doom Sayers", admit that if we did everything the "Greens" and "Tree Huggers" want us to do it would probably reduce the temperature by about one or one and a half degrees Fahrenheit over a period of a hundred years. The other thing it would do is put the world into a depression that would make the 1930s look like a picnic.
"What harm does it do us if we are wrong and we try to do something to reduce emissions?" It would cost more lives than you can imagine. That's "what harm".0 -
Know why I don't buy CO2 as the culprit for global warming?
Because this earth was being polluted so bady in the 19th and early 20th centuries with CO and CO2 and so many other noxious substances it makes your head spin. There seemed to be no evidence of global warming during that time. We have ACTUALLY improved in the pollution sector immensely from 100 yrs ago. I remember all the ads as a kid showing the polution we were making at the time. I remember seeing the dark haze of smog over LA when I was a kid. I know it hasn't completely gone away but there are nowhere near as many "unsafe" days to go outside there.
If there is anything causing global warming it would be the natural growth of the sun and seismic/volcanic activity here on earth. A single volcano erupting does more than 20 billion cans of aerosol each year can do over 20 years.
My kid is about to embark on a part of the Will Steger expedition this spring. In which he is going to travel by sled around Baffin Island to show that the polar bear population is being reduced by global warming. I happen to disagree that the polar bear numbers are dwindling simply due to global warming. While I agree their numbers are down and we need to protect them. We need to find the right answer. All one needs to do is follow their food chain down and find that seal numbers are down as well. Why? because we overfish their natural hunting grounds. Seals have to travel farther to get food. Less time on the shores means less time on target for the polar bears. We need to regulate fishing internationally or both numbers will continue to decline. We may or may not be taking too many fish but sometimes even the disturbance of the fish schools disrupts seals feeding. that puts a strain on them and thus the polar bears.
Global Warming in my opinion is simply scientists learning how to manipulate the system and make their research economically viable. Scads of money has been dedicated to it and their is no definate way to measure what they even talk about. Their research is way too unsubstantiated to make the claims that they do.
I've also heard every defense in the book by them. Like when we had record cold in Montana in '95. -42F in Helena that year. They say, "Yup, global warming causes extreme temps. Just wait you'll see this cold will cause higher temperatures later on." I got snowed on the following July. Whatever!0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
23 comments