Challenge to Scientific Consensus on Global Warming: Analysis Finds Hundreds of Scientists Have Published Evidence Countering Man-Made Global Warming Fears
|
| Posted
:
Wed, 12 Sep 2007 14:58:42 GMT |
| Author
:
Hudson Institute |
| Category
:
Press Release |
| News
Alerts by Email click
here ) |
|
|
|
News |
Home
|
|
|
WASHINGTON, Sept. 12 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- A new analysis of peer-reviewed literature reveals that more than 500 scientists have published evidence refuting at least one element of current man-made global warming scares. More than 300 of the scientists found evidence that 1) a natural moderate 1,500-year climate cycle has produced more than a dozen global warmings similar to ours since the last Ice Age and/or that 2) our Modern Warming is linked strongly to variations in the sun's irradiance. "This data and the list of scientists make a mockery of recent claims that a scientific consensus blames humans as the primary cause of global temperature increases since 1850," said Hudson Institute Senior Fellow Dennis Avery.
Other researchers found evidence that 3) sea levels are failing to rise importantly; 4) that our storms and droughts are becoming fewer and milder with this warming as they did during previous global warmings; 5) that human deaths will be reduced with warming because cold kills twice as many people as heat; and 6) that corals, trees, birds, mammals, and butterflies are adapting well to the routine reality of changing climate.
Despite being published in such journals such as Science, Nature and Geophysical Review Letters, these scientists have gotten little media attention. "Not all of these researchers would describe themselves as global warming skeptics," said Avery, "but the evidence in their studies is there for all to see."
The names were compiled by Avery and climate physicist S. Fred Singer, the co-authors of the new book Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years, mainly from the peer-reviewed studies cited in their book. The researchers' specialties include tree rings, sea levels, stalagmites, lichens, pollen, plankton, insects, public health, Chinese history and astrophysics.
"We have had a Greenhouse Theory with no evidence to support it-except a moderate warming turned into a scare by computer models whose results have never been verified with real-world events," said co-author Singer. "On the other hand, we have compelling evidence of a real-world climate cycle averaging 1470 years (plus or minus 500) running through the last million years of history. The climate cycle has above all been moderate, and the trees, bears, birds, and humans have quietly adapted."
"Two thousand years of published human histories say that the warm periods were good for people," says Avery. "It was the harsh, unstable Dark Ages and Little Ice Age that brought bigger storms, untimely frost, widespread famine and plagues of disease." "There may have been a consensus of guesses among climate model-builders," says Singer. "However, the models only reflect the warming, not its cause." He noted that about 70 percent of the earth's post-1850 warming came before 1940, and thus was probably not caused by human-emitted greenhouse gases. The net post-1940 warming totals only a tiny 0.2 degrees C.
The historic evidence of the natural cycle includes the 5000-year record of Nile floods, 1st-century Roman wine production in Britain, and thousands of museum paintings that portrayed sunnier skies during the Medieval Warming and more cloudiness during the Little Ice Age. The physical evidence comes from oxygen isotopes, beryllium ions, tiny sea and pollen fossils, and ancient tree rings. The evidence recovered from ice cores, sea and lake sediments, cave stalagmites and glaciers has been analyzed by electron microscopes, satellites, and computers. Temperatures during the Medieval Warming Period on California's Whitewing Mountain must have been 3.2 degrees warmer than today, says Constance Millar of the U.S. Forest Service, based on her study of seven species of relict trees that grew above today's tree line.
Singer emphasized, "Humans have known since the invention of the telescope that the earth's climate variations were linked to the sunspot cycle, but we had not understood how. Recent experiments have demonstrated that more or fewer cosmic rays hitting the earth create more or fewer of the low, cooling clouds that deflect solar heat back into space-amplifying small variations in the intensity of the sun.
Avery and Singer noted that there are hundreds of additional peer-reviewed studies that have found cycle evidence, and that they will publish additional researchers' names and studies. They also noted that their book was funded by Wallace O. Sellers, a Hudson board member, without any corporate contributions.
Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years is available from Amazon.com:
http://www.amazon.com/Unstoppable-Global-Warming-Every-Years/dp/0742551172 /ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-6773465-0779318?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1189603742&sr=1-1
For more information, please contact Dennis Avery, Hudson Institute Senior Fellow and co-author of Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years, at 540-337-6354: Email: cgfi@hughes.net
Hudson Institute
|
Copyright © 2008
PR Newswire. All rights reserved.
|
|
Article
:
Challenge to Scientific Consensus on Global Warming: Analysis Finds Hundreds of Scientists Have Published Evidence Countering Man-Made Global Warming Fears
Print
this article
Share
this article
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
idiots
By:
JeffS ,
Sat, 31 May 2008 20:38:28 GMT |
|
This global warming hoax has infected are children and is becoming a disease in its self. I've talked to some of the youth and they are convinced that we are going to die in twenty to fifty years. The school system are indoctrinating our youth with this filth. I think we need to worry about the next ice age if anything.
|
|
for profit global warming
By:
Mike ,
Wed, 23 Apr 2008 14:13:17 GMT |
|
If someone gave you a million dollars, would you continue to lie? Al Bore, mr pizza brain is clueless when it comes to the truth, but knows how to play the political cards to make money. He doesn't live in that big greenhouse gasser because he drives a hybrid jet. In the seventies the scientific community agreed that the imminent threat to the globe was global cooling and that we should somehow find a way to melt the polar ice caps. Well we did that and they still aren't happy. Most people will say anything for a buck especially if there are no consequences for the lie. Let's cryogenically freeze Al Gore and if his predictions don't come true don't thaw him out. What do you think?
|
|
Science Turned Upside Down
By:
Rodney Dierking ,
Mon, 14 Jan 2008 03:47:20 GMT |
|
Scientific Method: observe natural phenomena- formulate hypotheses-test it via rigerious experiment then establish theory based on reported validation of results. Global Warming Method; Make up theory based on funding agency- then design minimum experiments that suggest theory true- publish paper reinforcing the original hypotheses pretending that you used valid simulation data- then defend the theory dispite all evidence to the contrary.
|
|
americans vs Global Warming
By:
david Bianchini ,
Mon, 07 Jan 2008 05:32:58 GMT |
|
Michael Savage could say it better, but I will start. I am an American, and proud of it. We have invented and ADAPTED to so many issues from venturing to new land, To farming, To the industrial revolution. To automobiles. To computers and silicon chips. We were never Victims. (1700's thru 1800's) When we didn't like the religion, crime, crowds, of our early settlements we moved, adapted AND MADE IT BETTER . We did not scream as Victims would.
Going back, Hell we invented the best and longest lasting government system, because of changes taking place. I'm sure there were the AL Gore Victims of the Day siding with the unrepresented taxing from across the pond.
The Real Americans I know and associate with will adapt to any climate change. They will get rich helping people adapting across the world if and when it comes. Real Americans will not be victims to a change, "weather" or not we have caused it over 150 years.
Liberals STOP WHINING, NO MORE VICTIMS, Join in to the ADAPTING Team. face it we can get richer adapting than you can scaring. Victims will be our marketing to sell North Dakato as a winter getaway.
|
|
what the heck
By:
trintiy ,
Tue, 23 Oct 2007 01:43:22 GMT |
|
i wasnt able to find how the scientists learned about the sun's interior. can you put that somewhere in your ar tical?
|
|
global warming
By:
Jim Black ,
Sun, 14 Oct 2007 20:51:52 GMT |
|
Man is not the major cause of the small rise in global temperatures, the sky is not falling and Gore is full of baloney.
|
|
Time Of Madness
By:
Major ,
Thu, 04 Oct 2007 05:43:36 GMT |
|
The question is will logic and common sense prevail as the overwhelming evidence indicates in this article
Or, do we have to suffer the madness of the anti-establishment idiots that have been spawned in vast numbers since the sixties generation declared 'all you need is love'
|
|
warming V Climate change
By:
mike ,
Wed, 03 Oct 2007 23:01:46 GMT |
|
I am glad, there are 500 scientist that say "global warming is cyclical and it a natural process" because I know most scientist would agree. However, "global warming" is different than "climate change", I am glad that everyone has agreed to the premise that warming and cooling does happen, now based on that knowledge we can observe that the OUR impact on the environment and measure the effects therein which, MAY POTENTIALLY cause unprecedented climate change that will lead to cataclysmic disasters . More the MAJORITY of the scientific community agrees with this, not just 500 no named scientists. I applaud the skepticism, but I prefer to take Pascals environmental wager, if scientist are wrong then we lose nothing, we might change our lifestyle a little save some money, help the environment in the process. BUT IF THEY ARE RIGHT, then we would have done the the right thing. The question may be, are we too late?
|
|
Yep
By:
Chris ,
Wed, 03 Oct 2007 11:50:35 GMT |
|
" Our country, making up 4% of the world's population, produces 25% of the world's carbon dioxide pollution. Rising levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere undeniably lead to rising temperatures -- carbon dioxide levels hadn't risen above 600 billion tons for almost a million years -- now we've burned so much coal and oil and cut down so many forests that carbon dioxide levels are at 800 billion tons."
I am sorry, but where are you getting this undeniable proof that rising CO2 levels cause temperature to rise? I have said this before, but is it not possible for rising temperatures to also cause a rise in CO2? Just because two things are linked does not mean one thing or another. Correlation is not causation. If you are presented with two graphs that look similar, you can pick whichever point of view you want about it. But it is not necessarily the correct point of view.
Take gaming for example. The number of games available to the public has greatly increased since the 70's. On top of this, there are far more people that actively play video games. Also since the 70's, there has been an increase in school related violence. Does this mean video games cause violence? No.
"Oh, and refute this: people are losing drinking water almost everywhere due to the well-known consequences of global warming: melting glaciers (Asia's Himalayan-fed major rivers are doomed, for example -- that's drinking water for over a billion people), spreading deserts (Africa is an obvious example, but so is Australia, southern Europe, and the US Southwest), and crazy rainfall patterns (just look at Texas where years of drought are now followed by terrible flooding)."
Africa has problems with drinking water because the British (I believe it was the british) planted foreign trees down there that sucked up a lot of the water. There are several organizations there that help the locals know which trees are foreign and which are local so that they can cut down the trees that drink their water. The deserts you mention for australia and southwest US have been that way long before "Global Warming".
" 1) - Just because there are papers published contrary to what is the consensus, that doesn't change the overwhelming scientific evidence in favor of the consensus. Science works by obtaining all the evidence for and against a model so just because there are papers that don't fit the model, doesn't mean the model should be thrown out."
Perhaps you missed the point of every person that doesnt believe in GW, there is no consensus. This is just something that good ole Gore invented to help push his views. Nothing more.
|
|
'How about wildlife protection?'
By:
Barry ,
Tue, 02 Oct 2007 02:30:35 GMT |
|
Increase carbon dioxide causes increased photosynthesis, which causes increased growth of vegetation. This has been well documented in numerous controlled laboratory experiments.
|
|
Global Warming? How about wildlife protection?
By:
Jacob ,
Mon, 01 Oct 2007 10:45:06 GMT |
|
Lets face it. It doesn't really matter if you believe in wildlife or not acid rain caused my greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide damage and destroy forests near heavy epic centers of acid rain every year. It can't hurt to go to cleaner fuels. It's safer for the public as well as the environment.
|
|
Carbon
By:
Barry ,
Sat, 29 Sep 2007 03:28:40 GMT |
|
Dear Wade,
On Tue, 18 Sep. you wrote:
"I think that there is room to question whether man is responsible for the so called GW, but what I do know is that it cannot hurt to improve our output of Carbons. It is a foreign substance that we do create, so cutting back on it cannot be a bad thing."
Carbon is an element essential to all life on Earth. In fact, the term 'organic chemistry' specifically refers to: "(1) : of, relating to, or containing carbon compounds (2) : relating to, being, or dealt with by a branch of chemistry concerned with the carbon compounds of living beings and most other carbon compounds." Look in the dictionary under 'organic'. There would be no life on Earth without carbon. 'Carbon-based' life forms are the only kind known to exist.
Has public education become anything other than a means of indoctrinating America's youth with this Anthropogenic Global Warming Ideology?
|
|
bases of theories
By:
brianne clark ,
Thu, 27 Sep 2007 20:57:06 GMT |
|
In order for many of these discoveries of probable causes of climate increase to be accurate wouldn't the concept of evolution have to be true? Scientists say that they can judge climate increase by studying back however many million years and compare it to now, but if they cannot even learn how far back in time the earth began how could they ever even begin to judge when its temperature was increasing or not? So maybe instead of trying to find an answer for climate control they should try to base their belief of the worlds existence on the proper ideas, to then learn about its temperature time line.
|
|
Yellow press
By:
J ,
Wed, 26 Sep 2007 09:49:16 GMT |
|
All those articles talking about that GW is only a big lie, are simply yellow press.
Is anybody to deny that industries and polution do not cause any damage to oatmosphere? Anybody has stop to think a little bit about the amount of gases that are thrown every day? A simple calculus could give you an idea of that. Hundred of thausands litres per day. Does not this volume of gases affect at all the behaivour of climate? Do not make me laugh.
All of those articles and tv-shows about GW lie has not a scitific base at all. Most of the scientist theorist are completely changed of context, so it is very easy to manipulate people that do not have a deep sctific knowledge.
|
|
Research is Irrelevant
By:
Paul ,
Fri, 21 Sep 2007 05:32:35 GMT |
|
The true GW believers don't care about research, facts, history, or studies that go against their religion. Science can't disprove God, so nothing it does can disprove their faith in Global Warming.
|
|
Global Warming
By:
Robert Fountain ,
Thu, 20 Sep 2007 04:30:43 GMT |
|
I am happy that sane scientists have brought some bright sunlight to an overheated controversy. There are many other (non-GW related) reasons to seek out more efficient means to provide energy to run civilization.
|
|
GW???
By:
Wade ,
Tue, 18 Sep 2007 13:08:12 GMT |
|
I think that there is room to question whether man is responsible for the so called GW, but what I do know is that it cannot hurt to improve our output of Carbons. It is a foreign substance that we do create, so cutting back on it cannot be a bad thing.
|
|
global warming
By:
beth ,
Sun, 16 Sep 2007 18:31:26 GMT |
|
I'm sure Hudson is supported by grants, which is true of them all. Who supports Al and his private jetting?
|
|
Thanks
By:
gene p ,
Sat, 15 Sep 2007 19:32:34 GMT |
|
Had great luck one night surfing C-Span. I caught a Marlo Lewis talk which peaked my interest in GW. He led me to the book "UNSTOPABLE GLOBAL WARMING" BY SINGER AND AVERY, which in turn to books and papers by Patrick J. Michaels, Christopher C. Horner et al. These works are all very well documented. I even purchased the so call books and movie by the greatest hypocrite of our time al gore, whose books have no scientific references ( Oh I bought them used-- so he got NO revenue from me)
In reading IPCC lll Ch 2 I had the feeling it was written to confuse me. I checked the authors list and counted 150 author for about 70 pages.
After my nearly 80 decades witnessing climate change I feel we will survey. But I wonder if we want to survive in the politicians and media want to build for us. I recall Mother Day snow storms tha kept us home for days before the plows got to our street and also worry how Santa was going to bring our Christmas toy cause we hadn’t had snow in December.
Here in California we have an Attorney General and our City Attorney hot to trot suing cities and counties for failing to incorporate laws that haven’t been written into their community plans. Oh we are also preparing regulations on color of cars that can be bought by state agencies and even sold to the public.
Enough already for now! I hope I made my point.
|
|
what can we do for global warming???
By:
cathy ,
Sat, 15 Sep 2007 18:22:03 GMT |
|
i would like to know more about the facts of our climate and the dirty news on oil and what is real age??
|
|
wishful thinking leading to genocide
By:
Adam ,
Sat, 15 Sep 2007 16:47:39 GMT |
|
Our country, making up 4% of the world's population, produces 25% of the world's carbon dioxide pollution. Rising levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere undeniably lead to rising temperatures -- carbon dioxide levels hadn't risen above 600 billion tons for almost a million years -- now we've burned so much coal and oil and cut down so many forests that carbon dioxide levels are at 800 billion tons.
So, yeah, you're foolish to believe that we humans haven't already messed up the Earth's thin atmosphere. Do you really think that all this pollution doesn't affect the planet? Do you really think that our civilization isn't powerful enough to disrupt natural cycles? Really? Don't these global warming deniers sound just like the drug addict who says, "the cocaine isn't killing me, I just feel funny when there's a full moon"?
Oh, and refute this: people are losing drinking water almost everywhere due to the well-known consequences of global warming: melting glaciers (Asia's Himalayan-fed major rivers are doomed, for example -- that's drinking water for over a billion people), spreading deserts (Africa is an obvious example, but so is Australia, southern Europe, and the US Southwest), and crazy rainfall patterns (just look at Texas where years of drought are now followed by terrible flooding).
Wake up folks, your 1500 year cycle, real as it is, can't explain what's happening already, and doesn't eliminate the fact that we're destroying the planet's ability to support our lifestyle. Your wishful thinking is leading to genocide.
|
|
what I gather again
By:
kent ,
Sat, 15 Sep 2007 14:38:11 GMT |
|
Sorry people, I think I read a comment wrong. There was no admittion that we had cycles in the last 10,000 years but only during the last glaciation. however, I still think there is much room to diagree on man-made global warming, and I still think we will survive.
|
|
what I gather
By:
kent ,
Sat, 15 Sep 2007 14:10:14 GMT |
|
It is ascerted that ice cores, wiggle matches, and solar radiation matches are all bad science. However, the article mentioned many other disciplines than just those that deal with ice cores and sea bottom sediments.I do agree that cycles going back 1 million years based on proxy data is a stretch.
However, it was admiited that there is evidence suggesting that we had cycles tht go back 10,000 years-at least three-and I think three might be an underestimate because of the historical data. I think this is worth taking notice of-maybe we are in one of those natural cycles.
I must admit that I do have a leaning against the idea of man-made warming, but I do try to be objective and not hurl insults.
Don't worry people. We will survive.
|
|
global warming
By:
Peter Anrico ,
Sat, 15 Sep 2007 12:26:20 GMT |
|
Until someone can come up with what the earth temp. is suppose to be then how in the world can anyone say it's warming up!All I have to say is people wake up.
|
|
Global Warming Scam
By:
Dan ,
Sat, 15 Sep 2007 05:49:28 GMT |
|
I think its funny that someone would call the Hudson Institute a farce but a person like this would embrace the garbage produced by the IPCC which is run by the same group (UN) that supposedly lacks credibility for how they handled Iraq. Everything the IPCC comes out with is a joke. NASA's number one man Hansen is a fraud. The guy mucks up his numbers and doesn't even publish a report to correct his numbers. Sorry guys but 1998 wasn't the warmest. That happened 60 years ago.
More and more reports are coming out that prove the latest Global Warming claim to be nothing more than a scam. Sorry guys but you've been exposed.
|
|
Peer Reviewed only when it counts for your point
By:
stuckonempty ,
Sat, 15 Sep 2007 02:32:06 GMT |
|
1) - Just because there are papers published contrary to what is the consensus, that doesn't change the overwhelming scientific evidence in favor of the consensus. Science works by obtaining all the evidence for and against a model so just because there are papers that don't fit the model, doesn't mean the model should be thrown out.
2)- It doesn't matter how many studies are published, it matters what the studies say.
3)- Where is the peer reviewed listing of these studies and how it contributes to the overall picture? There likely isn't one because the number of studies, and the importance of their findings, are nothing compared to those in favor of the theory.
|
|
Challenge to Scientific Consensus on Global Warming
By:
uboherb ,
Sat, 15 Sep 2007 01:55:56 GMT |
|
I agree that the current global warming is part of a natural cycle and not man made. It never ceases to amaze me how these 300 or so scientists, after years of study, were able to conclude the obvious fact that climate is cyclical. WOW! This article fails to address is that our current practices of environmental destruction, air pollution, overpopulation and other self-destructive methodology will only add to the problem. The implication is that since human kind is not the cause of global warming and therefore we are absolved of any responsibility to clean up our act.
|
|
Cause and effect
By:
John ,
Sat, 15 Sep 2007 00:42:34 GMT |
|
The big Gorilla in the "Global Warming" room is the fact that cause and effect can't be inferred on the basis of observational data. The latest IPPC report actually alludes to the principle. For example, on page 98 of its Physical Science Basis report, you can find this:
"A characteristic of Earth sciences is that Earth scientists are unable to perform controlled experiments on the planet as a whole and then observe the results. In this sense, Earth science
is similar to the disciplines of astronomy and cosmology that cannot conduct experiments on galaxies or the cosmos. This is an important consideration, because it is precisely such whole-Earth, system-scale experiments, incorporating the full
complexity of interacting processes and feedbacks, that might ideally be required to fully verify or falsify climate change hypotheses."
On page 668, you can find:
"...unequivocal attribution would require controlled experimentation with the climate system."
That's true, and controlled experimentation obviously isn't possible (and the IPCC says that too). But the IPCC nevertheless creates the general perception that there is unequivocal evidence that there is a cause and effect relationship between human activity and certain climate changes.
Lastly, statements about there being a 10% probability that humankind has affected the climate in certain ways are nonsense. Humankind has either affected it or it hasn't. The probability is either 1 or 0.
And what they're talking about isn't a confidence level, because there's no way they can possibly have done what's necessary to establish any particular confidence level associated with a cause and effect inference (that controlled experiment thing again).
To me, this whole global warming thing is a manifestation of a larger problem involving a lack of discipline in science; a failure to follow certain basic rules (such as those on what it takes to infer cause and effect). I think the problem is particularly prevalent in the disciplines of environmental, public health, and psychiatric/psychological sciences.
|
|
consensus?
By:
maynedge ,
Sat, 15 Sep 2007 00:23:38 GMT |
|
from 2004 to 2007 Less Than Half of all Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory
Thus not a consensus.
|
|
Challenge to Scientific Consensus
By:
Challenge to Scientific Consensus ,
Sat, 15 Sep 2007 00:05:03 GMT |
|
The Hudson Institute is supported by donations from companies and individuals. Corporate contributors include Eli Lilly and Company, Monsanto, DuPont, Dow-Elanco, Sandoz, Ciba-Geigy, ConAgra, Cargill, and Procter & Gamble.
|
|
math
By:
pepe ,
Fri, 14 Sep 2007 23:58:59 GMT |
|
go to wikipedia to know about Fred Singer
|
|
Non-combustion engine a step in right direction
By:
antigravity ,
Fri, 14 Sep 2007 22:52:15 GMT |
|
Give this a look
http://www.gravitycontrol.org
|
|
Global Warming and what to do about pollution
By:
David Bennett ,
Fri, 14 Sep 2007 22:42:55 GMT |
|
There may be room for argument about the effect that man is having on global warming. There may even be room for argument about whether we are experiencing global warming as anything other than a blip in the graph.
What is not in doubt is that we are raping this planet with pollution. Don't let arguments about global warming be a red herring to deflect from the fact that we should clean up the mess we are making.
|
|
Is there any truth to global warming?
By:
Tyler ,
Fri, 14 Sep 2007 22:25:06 GMT |
|
Is there any truth to global warming?
Can it be proven?
|
|
Waste not, want not
By:
Shannon ,
Fri, 14 Sep 2007 22:20:21 GMT |
|
1) China has 3X the people we have. They have not yet passed us in CO2 emission levels. That they are going to sooner than we thought doesn't change the fact that the USA obviously is a big ol' piggy. This is really no defense at all.
2) What is the price of doing nothing about GW and it turns out it IS largely our fault? Now, what is the price of doing something about GW and GW has nothing to do with human action?
Which price would you rather pay? I choose "better safe than sorry," and I'm doing a hell of a lot more about it than ranting in someone else's blog.
By the way, since when did conservative come to mean the opposite of "conserve?"
|
|
Global Warming
By:
Rockdog43 ,
Fri, 14 Sep 2007 18:40:44 GMT |
|
I think this Hudson Institute is a farce. Run by Political organizations for the dilution of fact based information. People have a profound effect on their environment.
|
|
RE: response to ME
By:
ME ,
Fri, 14 Sep 2007 17:12:21 GMT |
|
Indeed there are likely a lot of intellignet scientists who don't agree with me on the 1500-year cycle, but I believe that 99.99% of those working in paleo do.
I don't take acception to healthy debate on GW, but I was simply so shocked to see that someone is saying the 1500-year cycle has been persistant for the past million years, that I couldn't help but post here. There is simply no quality manuscript to support that in the peer-reviewed paleo literature. I may have to buy the book just for a gander at the references.
The results of G.C. Bond over the past 40,000 years were very intriguing re the 1500-year cycle. Problem is that nobody can reproduce the results. As more have tried and failed, the paleo community has come to believe less and less in the existance of a 1500-year climate cycle, just as someone writes a book on it to discredit global warming.
Interesting.
BTW, I do indeed have an open mind re global warming. But to say the 1500-year cycle for persists for 1 million years... ridiculous.
|
|
'Settled science'
By:
John Link ,
Fri, 14 Sep 2007 16:07:52 GMT |
|
Man-made global warming is "settled science", eh....?
Then how did Galileo overthrow 2,000 years of Aristotelian "settled science" on falling bodies and the unmoving earth? Ditto Copernicus, who unsettled the earth-centered planetary system of Ptolemy. Or Kepler who undid all of Ptolemy's ideas about "perfect" circular orbits? Or Einstein, who greatly extended Newton's "long-settled" ideas about gravity.
I'll tell you how: they performed experiments and made observations that others were able to repeat. They weren't pony-tailed software geeks ginning up "models" of the earth's atmosphere that leave out many of chief sources of atmospheric feedback and forcing, and worse yet, cannot be verified via experiment.
Basically the AGW crowd (all leftists, btw) screech ""Trust us" and do what we say!" Some "science"!!!
|
|
responce to ME
By:
kent ,
Fri, 14 Sep 2007 14:23:59 GMT |
|
Me, I want you to know that the title of my first response wasn't about discrediting you. And its true that I don't have the expert training to really be certain about all this. However, there are a lot of very intelligent scientist who don't agree with you and I try to understand their points also.
From your last response, I gather that a 1500 year cycle could have extended back in time close to 40,000 years. If that is true, shouldn't we take notice.
Also, what about the periods that grapes were able to be grown in Britain?
I can't list all of the other ascertions contrary to man made global warming but I have to take them seriously.
Have, a good day ME and keep an open mind on this subject.
|
|
Milankovitch
By:
ME ,
Fri, 14 Sep 2007 03:43:15 GMT |
|
Malankovitch? Milankovitch! Someone who mentions Milankovitch as a discredit to global warming always makes me laugh due to their pitiful lack of understanding of time scales and forcings. I get amused by the absurdity of some people's assertions. Debate and dissenting opinions are good. I can think of several good counterpoints to the global warming argument. Unfortunately for Mike, orbital forcing ain't one of them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_%28logic%29
Just because ice ages paced 100,000 years apart correspond to variations in the earth's orbit doesn't mean that there is a pervasive 1500-year cycle (can't forget the 'plus minus' part) for the last million years. Geez.
Milankovitch = obital forcing. The earth wobbles through space because of the pull of other celestial bodies. This makes the earth get progressively closer and farther from the sun with a regular periodicity that can be (and was) calculated (by Milankovitch last century). Berger and Laskar have extended these calcuations forward and backward in time.
So, on average the earth receives less energy from the sun (or less energy at a critical region - the northern hemisphere) for a period of geologic time and the earth cools, snow falls, summers are cooler (very important), more snow persists through to the next year, albedo increases. Finally an ice age.
DIFFFERENCES between Milankovitch and G.C. Bond's 1500-year cylce:
Milankovitch: periodic with periods of approximately 20,000, 41,000, 100,000 and 400,000 thousand years (note that 1500 years is not a Milankovitch period). 1500: not periodic
Milankovitch: response to orbital forcing is predictable. 1500: not predictable
Milankovitch: product of known forcing (the sun). 1500: unknown forcing (there is no evidence that it is a product of the sun - ask an astrophysicist)
Milankovitch: periodic orbital variations exhibited in every paleo time series: 1500: (AGAIN, TRUST ME OR LOOK IT UP) present in only G.C. Bonds hematite-stained grain proxy, and even this is questioned because it was not reproducible by other researchers - the key to scientific acceptance.
|
|
tobin tax and world government
By:
no3gods ,
Fri, 14 Sep 2007 03:42:38 GMT |
|
It's not global warming, it's Global Goring. Let's stop in insane politicians before we all die from over taxation without representation!
|
|
RE: ME's discrediting
By:
ME ,
Fri, 14 Sep 2007 02:57:05 GMT |
|
"ME claims that the ice cores are quetionable. What about the other evidence?"
OK, I guess you'll either need to 1) trust me or 2) learn to search the peer-reviewed literature for your self AND develop the ability to critically evaluate the manuscript you are reading.
Assuming the latter is impossible, I will reiterate my original post: 1500-year 1) pacing 2) periodicity and 3) cyclicity has only been reliably shown to exist in two paleo proxies, the greenland ice core delta O-18 and G.C. Bond's hematite-stained grain proxy. Period.
THE BELOW STATEMENT IS FALSE!!! trust me or search the literature. Up to you.
"...said co-author Singer. "On the other hand, we have compelling evidence of a real-world climate cycle averaging 1470 years (plus or minus 500) running through the last million years of history."
Singer has not only plagarized the late G.C. Bond with the 1470 +/- 500 phrase, but has also exaggerated the extent of this cycle. There is no scientific means currently known/available to resovle a 1500-year cycle beyond the range of radiocarbon dating, which becomes increasingly problematic beyond 40,000 years (depending on the material to be dated). You will rarely find any geologic radiocarbon dates in the literature older than 40,000 - 50,000 years.
NYQUIST FREQUENCY - look it up, keeping in mind that with a noisy paleo time series you will need at least twice as good a resolution to publish in a refereed journal. That is a data point every 200 - 300 years.
----------
"He claimed one man but I read 300 scientist see evidence."
You can see evidence for a 1500-year cycle, but a good paleoceanographer/paleoclimatologist would know that the cycle could just as easily be 3000 years, or 4500 years given the inherent age model uncertainties that only increase the deeper in geologic time you look.
Paleoceanographers went ga-ga for 1500-year cycles about 10 years ago, albeit it was all contained within the last glacial cycle due to 1) availability of radiocarbon dating as tool 2) overlap with greenland ice cores for correlation. This is how it worked: I have a paleo time series from a sediment core somewhere outside of the N. Atlantic. This exhibits relatively high-frequency "wiggles" (yes, wiggles is a technical term). I will "wiggle-match" this to GISP2, thereby improving my age model. This peak must be this D-O event. This trough must be this stadial. This really deep trough must be this Heinrich Event (which gets even more tenuous since H-Events aren't in ice cores).
The dangers of the assumed wiggle matching procedure have been realized by the community and it is now done with care, using additional information to further constrain the assumptions - if it is done at all. Unfortunately there are publications out there with wiggle-matched conclusions that are now questioned within the community. A good scientist knows to take these results with a grain of salt, but I guess they make good political fodder.
|
|
Globalista-ness
By:
Jeff J Wright ,
Fri, 14 Sep 2007 02:51:16 GMT |
|
Oh my god! Do you mean to tell me that my teachers from 1956 to 1972 were not full of it? There actually have been Ice Ages, glaciers covering my native land of central Wisconsin, subsequent WARMINGS! Don't tell Algore. He and his Globalista mates jjust won't believe it.
jjw
|
|
Global Warming
By:
Doc Badger ,
Thu, 13 Sep 2007 23:58:53 GMT |
|
Everybody talks about GlobalWarming, but nobody is doing anything about it
to fix "the problem". In fact, nobody will say exactly what the problem is!
Nothing is more fearful that ignorance in action! These both are modifications of old and true sayings.
Who will we believe when everybody seems to have some axe to grind, or money to make, etc.
Let us have some competent citations to layman readable magazines like, say, Scientific American.
|
|
OMEGA POINT & WIKIPEDIA - REDUX
By:
john K a.k.a. THYLACINE (Allegedly extinct marsupial wolf that occasionally re-appears just long enough to correct misguided thinking) ,
Thu, 13 Sep 2007 21:56:42 GMT |
|
To Omega Point,
Correction: the quotes in my last commentary from your previous comment did include unsupported declarations as well as speculative projections.
I apologize as well for saying the speculation provided was mindless. However, the factual basis for these projections have not been provided for any of them. This makes rational discussion of such claims impossible. So the question remains, why bring them up in the first place?
John K
|
|
Challenge to Scientific Consensus - Yes!
By:
Camillus ,
Thu, 13 Sep 2007 21:50:48 GMT |
|
Consensus has nothing directly to do w/Science... It's good to see that we're looking at the past to explain what we're seeing presently, rather than running off like Chicken Little! Keep abreast of what Lord Monckton has been writing - I believe that he has it right!
|
|
Do u want to save trees!!!!!!!!!!!!!
By:
Morgan ,
Thu, 13 Sep 2007 21:22:25 GMT |
|
i think they should be pooped
|
|
OMEGA POINT & WIKIPEDIA
By:
john K a.k.a. THYLACINE (Allegedly extinct marsupial wolf that occasionally re-appears just long enough to correct misguided thinking) ,
Thu, 13 Sep 2007 18:56:28 GMT |
|
To Omega Point,
Is the psuedonym "Omega Point" supposed to suggest that you have the last word and everyone else is supposed to sheepishly run and hide while you pontificate and provide dubious information?
In any case, you should know for the record in case you are unfamiliar with the internet 1) many of us are quite familiar with Wikipedia and various climate change claims and 2) Wikipedia allows browsers to alter data on their website with no guarantee as to the accuracy, reliability and/or integrity of the information. You spout several statistical claims without a shred of support as to the source of the information except Wikipedia itself (hardly meaningfull) and seem to expect everyone to accept it without question. You do claim at one point to refer to the IPCC documents themselves, but from your previous statment that was taken from Wikipedia as well. Have you engaged in any independent research, thought or investigation yourself?
Examine of the many bizzare IPCC quotes made in your comment:
"According to the most recent (2007) IPCC report:
* Warming of the climate system is unequivocal.
* Most of (>50% of) the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely (confidence level >90%) due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (human) greenhouse gas concentrations.
* Hotter temperatures and rises in sea level "would continue for centuries" even if greenhouse gas levels are stabilized[16], although the likely amount of temperature and sea level rise varies greatly depending on the fossil intensity of human activity during the next century.
* The probability that this is caused by natural climatic processes alone is less than 5%.
* World temperatures could rise by between 1.1 and 6.4 °C (2.0 and 11.5 °F) during the 21st century (table 3) and that:
** Sea levels will probably rise by 18 to 59 cm (7.08 to 23.22 in)
** There is a confidence level >90% that there will be more frequent warm spells, heat waves and heavy rainfall.
** There is a confidence level >66% that there will be an increase in droughts, tropical cyclones and extreme high tides."
Notice that in this entire quote from your comment compiled of claims made supposedly by the IPCC their exists not one observable fact, merely asserted projections about some dubious future scenarios. Last I heard science consisted of the facts and laws of nature not dubious and yes mindless speculation.
John K
|
|
REASON - WHAT A CONCEPT
By:
john K a.k.a. THYLACINE (Allegedly extinct marsupial wolf that occasionally re-appears just long enough to correct misguided thinking) ,
Thu, 13 Sep 2007 18:07:04 GMT |
|
To David,
Unfortunately, you fail to address many relevant points made against your previous comments. Let me repeat and expand on one very important one I made from a previous comment. The 500 number (the article actually states more than 500) you repeatedly and as far as I can tell pointlessly employ in your comments has nothing to do with the total quantity of scientific peer reviewed (or otherwise) publications questioning or refuting alleged anthropogenic global warming. The number simply reflects the quantity of peer reviewed publications chosen for this analysis that question at least one aspect of alleged man made global warming. The 500 figure may likely be only an infinitessimal fraction of the entire volume of peer reviewed publications questioning and/or refuting at least one aspect or many aspects of anthropogenic global warming. Without apparent rational foundation you assert:
"It's plainly obvious by the comments listed here that there's a political bent to one's beliefs concerning global warming. It has little to do with evidence."
Correction, it's seems from your response that at least one person suffering from a political bent is yourself since you apparently have not even taken a few moments to deconstruct the many arguments made against your previous comments and have declined to provide any evidence supporting it. As for my own political bents and those of other commentators, it's probably not wise to pretend one doesn't have them and that goes for you too David.
Keep trying David. One day you may make a valid point. Please let us not have to wait for some not too distant millenium - long after this web-site has shut down - to know what that point is. Your main stumbling block seems to be a desire to attack your opponents without bothering to analyze exactly what they have said. In this regard your seem to share company with far too many anthropogenic global warming believers.
As for evidence against anthropogenic global warming, I will encourage you and others once again to examine the NASA-MSU satellite data(obtained by Roy Spencer and I believe John Christy and others) that clearly refutes any significant man made influence to Global Warming. Accurate global temperature data (over the surface of the entire planet) has only existed since 1979 when satellites with accurate enough thermometors were employed to directly measure it. Prior to 1979 scientists largely relied on spotty surface temperature readings of varying accuracy, high altitude balloon and aircraft data and other isolated thermometor readings to piece together some kind of global average temperature. Only recently, have scientist been able to accurately measure global atmospheric temperatures. This fact alone should give any global warming fanatic pause, but since many appear scientifically challenged at best they continue to spew the same nonsense without factual basis. Indeed, MSU satellite data has shown global cooling for the entire atmosphere since measurements have begun to be made. Recently, since 1998 their was a warm spike in the lower troposphere temperatures from 0 to 5 miles up but this has declined since then. In addition, in the first eighteen years (from 1979 to 1997-8) MSU data reveals a cooling trend in lower troposheric temperatures as well. The microscopic appx. .08 degree Celsius per decade average increase (if memory serves well) in lower troposheric temperature (since 1979-again no reliable data exists for global temperatures prior to this)should not alarm anyone but the most unwilling to face facts. Hopefully, your not one of them.
John K
P.S. - TO REPEAT ONE OTHER POINT MADE EARLIER, IN ANY GIVEN FINITE TIME PERIOD GLOBAL TEMPERATURES CAN ONLY MUTATE IN TWO DIRECTIONS. THE ODDS OF THEM REMAINING PRECISELY THE SAME ARE SO SMALL AS TO BE IRRELEVANT. IF ONE KNEW NOTHING ELSE THAN THAT, ONE COULD CONCLUDE THEIR WAS AT LEAST A 50/50 CHANCE OF TEMPERATURES INCREASING OR DECREASING OVER TIME. IF ONE WAITS LONG ENOUGH GLOBAL WARMING OR COOLING WILL EVENTUALY HAPPEN. HENCE WHY THE ALARM OVER A MICRO-SCOPIC FRACTION OF A DEGREE CELSIUS TEMPERATURE ANOMOLY OVER A PERIOD OF DECADES? PERHAPS THAT HAS EVERYTHING TO DO WITH POLITICS, FEAR AND/OR PSYCHOSIS AND NOT MUCH TO DO WITH SCIENCE.
|
|
Ice core
By:
mike steele ,
Thu, 13 Sep 2007 17:36:28 GMT |
|
None of the so called expert want to discuss the Malankovitch cycles, thats where the truth lies. Cooling and warming cycles match up almost exactly with the cycles. But we'll keep up the illusiion of golbal cooling, or warming whatever is fashionable today.
|
|
It's a Mess
By:
Heather ,
Thu, 13 Sep 2007 17:11:50 GMT |
|
Regardless what side of the issue you're on- it's a fact that we're polluting the planet. Period. 1,500 years ago, there wasn't the amount of garbage piling up, the cars and trucks on the road, factories belching smoke and god knows what else into the air, cell phones and e-trash being thrown away... the list goes on. Plain and simple- our great grandkids might not hate us for overheating the planet, but they sure will over the disgusting mess we've left littered all over.
|
|
OPEN BURNING IN FLORIDA
By:
BILL COLEMAN ,
Thu, 13 Sep 2007 15:44:03 GMT |
|
BECAUSE OF DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTIONS,FLORIDA POLITICIANS WILL NOT TAKE ANY ACTION TO STOP OPEN BURNING OF VAST AREAS OF FLORIDA.THE FEDERAL GOVT. SHOULD ACT AND STOP THIS IN ALL STATES.
|
|
ME's discrediting
By:
kent ,
Thu, 13 Sep 2007 14:42:13 GMT |
|
ME claims that the ice cores are quetionable. What about the other evidence?
He claimed one man but I read 300 scientist see evidence.
there are alot of claims and counter claims flying arround-maybe it all comes down to an act of faith.
Personally, I think the immorality spreading throughout the world is the true threat to human cvilization.
|
|
refute refute bla bla
By:
thrstr ,
Thu, 13 Sep 2007 14:13:26 GMT |
|
if the noble goals are to "preserve natural resources", and "reduce our dependencies", etc, then just proceed with those objectives, don't try to scare the public with a bunch of liberal crap. Having Gore as a spokes-model is the last thing this movement needs (if you want to be taken seriously), news flash: half of the country know he's a load.
Surely the "government action" proponents can find some negatives with the mandated actions that have been proposed. If you want to pay to reduce your carbon emissions (that's what it comes down to, right?) then knock yourself out, but don't legislate what I should drive and how I should live (be a little more "pro-choice"?)
It is nice to see the "greenies" softening in the face of some real scientific analysis . . .
|
|
math
By:
David ,
Thu, 13 Sep 2007 13:37:34 GMT |
|
Look, to those that question my math:
Peer review means the scientific community. It does NOT mean published scientists. However, for the vast majority of candidates, to get a PhD, you MUST publish. Nice try though.
To those of you attacking my choice of the number of scientists, you're missing the point. Let's suppose only 1 out of every 100 scientists is trained in a field relating to climatology, which is fairly conservative considering the number of fields that relate to the study of climate. That still means 500 is less than 10%.
It's plainly obvious by the comments listed here that there's a political bent to one's beliefs concerning global warming. It has little to do with evidence.
|
| | | |