Climate Change - Human Induced or Not?

[bamachem]

http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/g.../10/55974.html


New Study Explodes Human-Global Warming Story

Monday, December 10, 2007 9:55 AM

By: Philip V. Brennan



As much of the U.S. is being blasted by vicious ice storms, a blockbuster report published in a prestigious scientific journal insists that the evidence shows that climate warming is both natural and unstoppable and that carbon dioxide (CO2) is not a pollutant.


Writing in the International Journal of Climatology of the Royal Meteorological Society, professor David H. Douglass (of the University of Rochester), professor John R. Christy (of the University of Alabama), Benjamin D. Pearson and professor S. Fred Singer (of the University of Virginia) report that observed patterns of temperature changes ("fingerprints") over the last 30 years disagree with what greenhouse models predict and can better be explained by natural factors, such as solar variability.


The conclusion is that 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.


According to Dr. Douglass: “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.�


One of his co-authors, Dr. John Christy, added: “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.�


And the third co-author, Dr. 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 surfaceÂ* 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."




___________________________________________


Yet another valid viewpoint from renowned researchers debunking the theory of human-induced climate change... Thoughts?

[AxleIke]

Awesome.

I'm not going to bother cutting this one up.

Beers to you all for not giving a shit.

[calrockx]

I don't buy it.
Esp a link from newsmax.

[BruceTS]

finally someone has come to their senses, all this bogus talk that CO2 is causing global warming........ hahahaha

[oly884]

I'll believe in the infamous computer models, and all the trends they produce, IF then can produce models that can predict the weather/temperature in 1, 5, 10, and 20 years. If they'll be able to get within a 5% margin of error to predict the weather in those allotted times, THEN I'll believe they have a proper model. And I'm not talking about a model every year. Come up with one this year that meets these criteria for all 20 years.

However, they still have to prove to me that the very small percentage of greenhouse gases man produces is the sole cause of global warming.

By the way, how was the hurricane season this year? Come to think about it, how about last year?

For some reason, I recall reading articles about how bad the hurricane seasons were going to be due to global warming. Hmmm....

This all boils down to one thing. The day you were born was not how the world was for the last, oh, COUPLE BILLION YEARS. The idea that the climate MUST be the same as it is now is absurd and arrogant. I'm sure most global warming "experts" know that the climate changes, but they use fear tactics to get us to believe them. Things like the 28 foot rise in ocean levels <- that's a great fact*

*actually a lie

Furthermore, the idea that the climate will be changing faster is another bogus idea. The earth has been MUCH hotter and cooler than it is now. Instead of this constant bitching about the world ending JUST because the USA is emitting CO2 is sad. If the climate is going to change, let's prepare for it.

And my final point. What's the purpose of putting up sand bags on the river bank if your neighbors won't do it, and you can't afford to do it for them? <- We're all smart enough to make the analogy here, and I'd actually like a response to this.

[arjan]

If there is no climate change, then that would probably be the first time in history. Around 1600 there were very few sunspots (low sun activity) and they had a mini iceage.
During the nineties the sun was very active, solar flares actually knocking out the powergrid in eastern Canada, and we have climate temperature increases.
The sun sends a tremendous amount of energy our way, and if that increases or decreases slightly, we will notice the changes over here.

I agree with Oly, if we want to spend money, lets spend it to prepare for a warmer future. We wont be able to change it, we can prepare for certain things like rising sea levels etc.

[bamachem]

and to be fair:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,316501,00.html

Scientists: 'Arctic Is Screaming,' Global Warming May Have Passed Tipping Point
Wednesday, December 12, 2007


WASHINGTON — An already relentless melting of the Arctic greatly accelerated this summer, a warning sign that some scientists worry could mean global warming has passed an ominous tipping point. One even speculated that summer sea ice would be gone in five years.

Greenland's ice sheet melted nearly 19 billion tons more than the previous high mark, and the volume of Arctic sea ice at summer's end was half what it was just four years earlier, according to new NASA satellite data obtained by The Associated Press.

"The Arctic is screaming," said Mark Serreze, senior scientist at the government's snow and ice data center in Boulder, Colo.

Just last year, two top scientists surprised their colleagues by projecting that the Arctic sea ice was melting so rapidly that it could disappear entirely by the summer of 2040.

This week, after reviewing his own new data, NASA climate scientist Jay Zwally said: "At this rate, the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012, much faster than previous predictions."

So scientists in recent days have been asking themselves these questions: Was the record melt seen all over the Arctic in 2007 a blip amid relentless and steady warming? Or has everything sped up to a new climate cycle that goes beyond the worst case scenarios presented by computer models?

"The Arctic is often cited as the canary in the coal mine for climate warming," said Zwally, who as a teenager hauled coal. "Now as a sign of climate warming, the canary has died. It is time to start getting out of the coal mines."

It is the burning of coal, oil and other fossil fuels that produces carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, responsible for man-made global warming. For the past several days, government diplomats have been debating in Bali, Indonesia, the outlines of a new climate treaty calling for tougher limits on these gases.

What happens in the Arctic has implications for the rest of the world. Faster melting there means eventual sea level rise and more immediate changes in winter weather because of less sea ice.

In the United States, a weakened Arctic blast moving south to collide with moist air from the Gulf of Mexico can mean less rain and snow in some areas, including the drought-stricken Southeast, said Michael MacCracken, a former federal climate scientist who now heads the nonprofit Climate Institute. Some regions, like Colorado, would likely get extra rain or snow.

More than 18 scientists told the AP that they were surprised by the level of ice melt this year.

"I don't pay much attention to one year ... but this year the change is so big, particularly in the Arctic sea ice, that you've got to stop and say, 'What is going on here?' You can't look away from what's happening here," said Waleed Abdalati, NASA's chief of cyrospheric sciences. "This is going to be a watershed year."

2007 shattered records for Arctic melt in the following ways:

— 552 billion tons of ice melted this summer from the Greenland ice sheet, according to preliminary satellite data to be released by NASA Wednesday. That's 15 percent more than the annual average summer melt, beating 2005's record.

— A record amount of surface ice was lost over Greenland this year, 12 percent more than the previous worst year, 2005, according to data the University of Colorado released Monday. That's nearly quadruple the amount that melted just 15 years ago. It's an amount of water that could cover Washington, D.C., a half-mile deep, researchers calculated.

— The surface area of summer sea ice floating in the Arctic Ocean this summer was nearly 23 percent below the previous record. The dwindling sea ice already has affected wildlife, with 6,000 walruses coming ashore in northwest Alaska in October for the first time in recorded history. Another first: the Northwest Passage was open to navigation.

— Still to be released is NASA data showing the remaining Arctic sea ice to be unusually thin, another record. That makes it more likely to melt in future summers. Combining the shrinking area covered by sea ice with the new thinness of the remaining ice, scientists calculate that the overall volume of ice is half of 2004's total.

— Alaska's frozen permafrost is warming, not quite thawing yet. But temperature measurements 66 feet deep in the frozen soil rose nearly four-tenths of a degree from 2006 to 2007, according to measurements from the University of Alaska. While that may not sound like much, "it's very significant," said University of Alaska professor Vladimir Romanovsky.

- Surface temperatures in the Arctic Ocean this summer were the highest in 77 years of record-keeping, with some places 8 degrees Fahrenheit above normal, according to research to be released Wednesday by University of Washington's Michael Steele.

Greenland, in particular, is a significant bellwether. Most of its surface is covered by ice. If it completely melted — something key scientists think would likely take centuries, not decades — it could add more than 22 feet to the world's sea level.

However, for nearly the past 30 years, the data pattern of its ice sheet melt has zigzagged. A bad year, like 2005, would be followed by a couple of lesser years.

According to that pattern, 2007 shouldn't have been a major melt year, but it was, said Konrad Steffen, of the University of Colorado, which gathered the latest data.

"I'm quite concerned," he said. "Now I look at 2008. Will it be even warmer than the past year?"

Other new data, from a NASA satellite, measures ice volume. NASA geophysicist Scott Luthcke, reviewing it and other Greenland numbers, concluded: "We are quite likely entering a new regime."

Melting of sea ice and Greenland's ice sheets also alarms scientists because they become part of a troubling spiral.

White sea ice reflects about 80 percent of the sun's heat off Earth, NASA's Zwally said. When there is no sea ice, about 90 percent of the heat goes into the ocean which then warms everything else up. Warmer oceans then lead to more melting.

"That feedback is the key to why the models predict that the Arctic warming is going to be faster," Zwally said. "It's getting even worse than the models predicted."

NASA scientist James Hansen, the lone-wolf researcher often called the godfather of global warming, on Thursday was to tell scientists and others at the American Geophysical Union scientific in San Francisco that in some ways Earth has hit one of his so-called tipping points, based on Greenland melt data.

"We have passed that and some other tipping points in the way that I will define them," Hansen said in an e-mail. "We have not passed a point of no return. We can still roll things back in time — but it is going to require a quick turn in direction."

Last year, Cecilia Bitz at the University of Washington and Marika Holland at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Colorado startled their colleagues when they predicted an Arctic free of sea ice in just a few decades. Both say they are surprised by the dramatic melt of 2007.

Bitz, unlike others at NASA, believes that "next year we'll be back to normal, but we'll be seeing big anomalies again, occurring more frequently in the future." And that normal, she said, is still a "relentless decline" in ice.

[bamachem]

OK, and here's my take:

CO2 is a greenhouse gas and a pollutant. However, it's much less worrisome than 99.9% of the other junk that is pumped into the atmosphere. How do we get rid of CO2? Plant more grass and trees. Green vegetation converts CO2 into oxygen via photosynthesis. If there's more trees and grass, then more CO2 can be processed.

However, we are paving land and cutting trees at record rates all over the globe. Now THAT will have a huge effect on the increase of CO2 in our atmosphere when you combine it with increased use of fossil fuels and combustion engines - even those that run on ethanol or other carbon-based fuels.

We need to get away from fossil fuels for many reasons, but going to an ethanol-based fuel will still produce carbon emissions. Ethanol is C2H5-OH. There's still carbon in there. However, by using ethanol as an energy source, we have to plant more corn and switchgrass, which in turn will pull some of that CO2 from combustion out of the atmosphere. It's much better than the current status-quo for sure.

The simple answer - there's not one.

Seriously, our planet is warmer, but is it human-induced or is it just another cyclic change? I think that we are making a very tiny and insignificant contribution to a "global warming" cycle that is actually just part of a warming trend that started after the last ice age and will continue.

Why is the evidence so dramatic now? One of the main reasons is that we finally have the technology to measure and track the data. Another reason is that we're just now reaching the artic temperatures where ice melts. Remember that Ice is still Ice at -30, -20, -10, etc until you finally get to the melting point at +32F for pure water. ONLY THEN will you see any physical changes in the properties of the Ice as it changes to Water. THAT is the primary reason in my opinion that the results are just now becoming so DRAMATIC. This has been going on for decades, and even centuries if not millenia. This is NOT new, but we are just now witnessing the PHYSICAL change as the ice melts to water. That does NOT mean that something has suddenly changed in the last 5 years. That means that the progression that the earth has made for quite some time is just now reaching the melting point after a very slow warming trend that started before we could collect the data.

Now, what makes more sense? The idea that humans could change the climate of the entire world in the matter of a few years, or that we're just witnessing something that has been going on unnoticed until we see the physical evidence - ice melting.

[randver]

don't forget the smaller a peace of ice gets the faster it melts

[bamachem]

don't forget the smaller a peace of ice gets the faster it melts

not necessarily. the rate of melting is directly proportional to the amount of heat that is absorbed. the heat can only be absorbed at the surface, so it would be logical to assume that as the size of the ice reduces, so does the surface area, and therefore the rate of melting...