Study says humans not heating up the planet

One News Now ^ | December 11, 2007 | Jim Brown

[Between the Lines]

A new peer-reviewed study disputes the claim of former Vice President Al Gore and other green activists that global warming is caused by human activity and constitutes a "planetary emergency."

The study -- conducted by climate scientists at the University of Rochester, the University of Alabama, and the University of Virginia -- finds that atmospheric warming patterns, or "fingerprints," over the last 30 years are not caused by greenhouse gas emissions. The report is published in the December issue of the International Journal of Climatology. Results from the study greatly contradict the findings of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Dr. S. Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental science at the University of Virginia -- and president of the Science and Environmental Policy Project -- says he is "fairly" sure that the current warming trend is due to changes in the activities of the sun. "The sun is constantly active, emitting particle streams that carry magnetic fields; and they in turn have an influence on the climate of the earth," he says.

Singer says he and other global warming skeptics have grown accustomed to claims that they are beholden to the oil and gas industry. "Of course that's not only untrue, but it's completely immaterial," says Singer. "In other words, we are using the data that is furnished by the IPCC. They are published, we use only published work. What we are basically doing is to make a comparison of model results and observations."

The report concludes that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant and therefore "attempts to control CO2 emissions are ineffective and pointless -- but very costly."

[r-q-tek86]

ping

[devere]

OK, now the science is settled.

[TexGuy]

The report concludes that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant ...

That is the Achilles-Heal of the Save-the-Earth movement.

[rockinqsranch]

Never to be seen and read in the MSM.

[ConservativeMind]

Sorry, Cogitator.

[kromike]

I feel sorry for Dr. Singer & his denier-family, since the Gore-bot Police will charge them for the newest crime of "Earth Hate Crime".

Re-education Camp sucks...

[SomeReasonableDude]

"Singer says he and other global warming skeptics have grown accustomed to claims that they are beholden to the oil and gas industry. "Of course that's not only untrue, but it's completely immaterial," says Singer. "In other words, we are using the data that is furnished by the IPCC. They are published, we use only published work. What we are basically doing is to make a comparison of model results and observations."

Once all the B.S. is taken out, science is science. We'll see how this study holds up under peer review and see what kind of effect its models have on further research.

[Vaquero]

Al Gore did NOT invent the internet.....

......he DID however invent global warming.

[OSHA]

says he is "fairly" sure that the current warming trend is due to changes in the activities of the sun.

There's a shocker! I mean, who would ever dream...

[Theo]

Yup. Plants don’t consider CO2 a “pollutant.”

[Jeff Head]

The real “inconvienent” truth.

[RoadTest]

The founder of The Weather Channel agrees. Is his name John Coleman - I think so?

Anthropogenic global warming is recycled junk science for politics and profit. The founder emphasizes the profit part. He said if a researcher goes into his lab to research a climate question and comes out some time later with an all clear-no problems, he isn’t going to get any more research grant money, now is he?

But if he says, “The sky is falling”, dollars will flutter down like green snow.

[P-Marlowe]

The study -- conducted by climate scientists at the University of Rochester, the University of Alabama, and the University of Virginia -- finds that atmospheric warming patterns, or "fingerprints," over the last 30 years are not caused by greenhouse gas emissions.

Great.

Now what am I gonna do with all that fertile farm land I just purchased in Manitoba?

[elfman2]

Meanwhile, four climate scientists have dealt another blow to the anthropogenic global warming theory in the December issue of the International Journal of Climatology. They did an exhaustive comparison of observed atmospheric temperatures at various altitudes and compared the data against the predictions of global warming models. The abstract of the article states tersely:

We examine tropospheric temperature trends of 67 runs from 22 Climate of the 20th Century model simulations and try to reconcile them with the best available updated observations (in the tropics during the satellite era). Model results and observed temperature trends are in disagreement in most of the tropical troposphere, being separated by more than twice the uncertainty of the model mean. In layers near 5 km, the modelled trend is 100 to 300% higher than observed, and, above 8 km, modelled and observed trends have opposite signs. These conclusions contrast strongly with those of recent publications based on essentially the same data.
Lead author David Douglass elaborates:

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.
So far, science hasn’t had much to do with the global warming debate. I still think, though, that when voters understand that the “cure” for alleged anthropogenic global warming is for them to get poorer, interest in the scientific validity of the theory will be piqued.

[DBrow]

I can easily discount their findings. The power for their computers and office lights were provided by electric utilities, with a vested interest in denying the truth about the major planetary emergency we clearly are in the middle of.

[ProtectOurFreedom]

DENIERS! Frog march ‘em to the gulag.

[Tired of Taxes]

Dr. S. Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental science at the University of Virginia -- and president of the Science and Environmental Policy Project...

...soon will be out of a job. ;-)

His colleagues probably are branding him as a right-wing nutjob already. (But, seriously, an environmental science professor told my class 15 years ago not to believe all of the theories being made by doomsday alarmists at the time.)

[wastedyears]

This throws a wrench in their machine.

[wastedyears]

It’s earthcrime

Get it right

:p

[sourcery]

Basic References:

• Amplification of Surface Temperature Trends and Variability in the Tropical Atmosphere (blog post by author about paper)
• Amplification of Surface Temperature Trends and Variability in the Tropical Atmosphere (AAAS PDF of full paper--requires subscription)
• Challenge to Scientific Consensus on Global Warming: Analysis Finds Hundreds of Scientists Have Published Evidence Countering Man-Made Global Warming Fears
• The Year the Global Warming Hoax Died
• Hostages to a hoax
• Water Experts Find Earth’s Warming, Rainfall Linked to Sun (PDF)
• Global Warming and Solar Radiation
• Milankovitch Cycles and Glaciation
• The Myth of Dangerous Human-Caused Climate Change (PDF)
• Up against the warming zealots
• When Physics Trumps Hysteria in Global Warming
• Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics (PDF)
• Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide
• Carbon dioxide did not end the last Ice Age
• Global Warming: Forecasts by Scientists versus Scientific Forecasts
• Geophysical, archeological and historical evidence support a solar-output model for climate change (PDF)
• Gamma rays and climate (PDF)
• Temperature vs. Cosmic Ray Flux
• Linkages between solar activity, climate predictability and water resource development (PDF)
• Proof on Ice: Southern Greenland Was Once Green; Earth Warmer
• Global Warming and Nature's Thermostat
• The Past and Future of Climate (PDF)
• Global warming is not a crisis
• The Great Global Warming Swindle
• IceCap

Lawrence Solomon's "The Deniers" (a series of articles on the view of scientists who have been labelled "Global Warming Deniers"):

• Science, not politics
• Statistics needed
• The original denier: into the cold
• End the chill
• They call this a consensus?
• The limits of predictability
• Unsettled science
• Models trump measurements
• The ice-core man
• The hurricane expert who stood up to UN junk science
• Polar scientists on thin ice
• The sun moves climate change
• Bright sun, warm Earth. Coincidence?
• Look to Mars for the truth on global warming
• Read the sunspots
• Forget warming - beware the new ice age
• Little Ice Age is still with us
• Fighting climate 'fluff'

Other References:

• An Unrepentant Prognosticator
• Alarmist global warming claims melt under scientific scrutiny
• Global warming 'is good and is not our fault'
• The Global Warming Myth
• Global Warming: A Chilling Perspective
• Strong Evidence Points to Earth's Proximity to Sun as Ice Age Trigger
• THE NEXT ICE AGE - NOW!
• Father of Climatology Throws Up at the Thought of Al Gore's 'An Inconvenient Truth'
• IPCC Scientists Challenge Al Gore’s View of Global Warming Consensus
• Swedish Scientist Accuses UN's IPCC of Falsifying Data and Destroying Evidence
• CO2 Science
• On the Phenomenon of Atmospheric Backradiation
• Does Man really affect Weather and Climate? Are the Interactions really understood?
• The Thermodynamic Atmosphere Effect - explained stepwise
• Global Warming and Climate Forcing by Recent Albedo Changes on Mars
• Climate Momentum Shifting: Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming - Now Skeptics
• The Real 'Inconvenient Truth'
• New findings indicate today's greenhouse gas levels not unusual
• Climate Change: Incorrect information on pre-industrial CO2
• Global Warming as a Religion
• I Was On the Global Warming Gravy Train (By David Evans)
• Global Warming: it's not caused by greenhouse gases says academic
• Rising Surface Temperatures Drive Back Winter Ice In Barents Sea, Researchers Findx
• Still Waiting for Greenhouse
• GREENIE WATCH
• Why Global Warming Would be Good for You
• Global Warming Primer (PDF)
• Global Warming: An Official Pseudoscience
• Sun's Output Increasing in Possible Trend Fueling Global Warming
• Fiddler On The Roof
• Debating Global Warming
• Climate Resistance

Antarctic Temperature Trend 1982-2004:


This map (left) shows key areas of Antarctica, including the vast East Antarctic ice sheet. The image on the right shows which areas of the continent's ice are thickening (coloured yellow and red) and thinning (coloured blue). © (Left)British Antarctic Survey, (Right)Science

From the European Space Agency: ERS altimeter survey shows growth of Greenland Ice Sheet interior:

Greenland ice-sheet elevation change in cm/year (see colour scale) derived from 11 years of ERS-1/ERS-2 satellite altimeter data, 1992-2003, excluding some ice-sheet marginal areas (white). +5.4 cm/year, or ~5 cm/year when corrected for bedrock uplift.

[wastedyears]

***Great.

Now what am I gonna do with all that fertile farm land I just purchased in Manitoba?***

Fortify it.

[qam1]

BULL@!(*#@

Fred Singer's college room mate's brother worked as a clerk at a Exxon Mobil Mini-mart so he is obviously on the take

[ga medic]

Of course CO2 isn’t a pollutant, it is a necessity for survival. However, just because it isn’t a pollutant doesn’t mean that high levels of it aren’t harmful.

Water isn’t a poison either. But, if you drink too much of it, you will die.

CO2 in the atmosphere in very high levels is not a good thing. Whether it causes all the things some scientists say is up for debate, as is the question of what is causing the high levels, and whether anything can be done about it. The fact that it can be harmful in high levels is not.

[Manfred the Wonder Dawg]

http://www.junkscience.com/ and http://home.austarnet.com.au/yours/Greenhouse_bullcrap.htm

[ctdonath2]

CO2 is PLANT FOOD.

And the Earth is a self-regulating system: more CO2 means more alge and other plants, converting CO2 into O2 - which we need.

Funny how “environmentalists” are so quick to think they can control the environment and so quick to screw around with a system that worked just fine without them for a very long time.

[Pyro7480]

BTTT

[MrB]

Only global socialism with the elites like Algore in charge can save the planet -

otherwise, we’re DOOMED, DOOMED I TELL YA!

[MrB]

Ever seen this site?

http://www.dhmo.org

A non-profit organization dedicated to the research of the poison DiHydrogen Monoxide.

[Paladin2]

Sounds like a consensus on settled science to me.

[Paladin2]

Geology professors predict a future ice age is coming someday.

[clyde asbury]

bttt

[elfman2]

Carbon dioxide (CO2) is not a pollutant.

New Peer-Reviewed Study Finds ‘Warming is naturally caused and shows no human influence’

By EPW Blog Monday, December 10, 2007

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

[devere]

“The fact that it can be harmful in high levels is not.”

Do you have any scientific evidence to present on how high a level of CO2 may be harmful in some way? Or just a free floating sense of anxiety?

No one doubts that if the Earth’s atmosphere had nothing but CO2 we would all asphyxiate. Of course plants will take in the CO2 and emit oxygen, so there’s apparently no danger of that happening. There is also the crackpot theory that too much CO2 in the atmosphere causes extreme global warming. Is there any other danger you’d care to bring to our attention? I’m sure we are all eager to be truly educated by well-founded facts.

[DBrow]

“Only global socialism with the elites like Algore in charge can save the planet -”

Consensus! Consensus! No disagreement, no dissent across Earth!

[polymuser]

.
The Grant Nazi says “No more grants for you!”

[ga medic]

Yeah, I have. It is something one of my high schoolers science teachers did, to impress upon them how important it was to be knowledgeable about science. It worked for my kids, and they love science.

Not sure whether many adults would fall for it or not, but apparently most of the high schoolers did.

[dbacks]

The dems are going after Bush (who else) for not promoting the idea of man caused GW. How about the libs and their butt buddies in the MSM ignoring/suppressing these stories?

[sauropod]

Fred Singer has been doing the Lord’s work for years now.

I encourage FReepers to look into his findings.

[MrB]

I’m definitely going to incorporate it into my homeschooling as a lesson.

The problem is going to be that I’ll be tempted to spring it on them too soon.

[Wil H]

I still think, though, that when voters understand that the “cure” for alleged anthropogenic global warming is for them to get poorer,....

...by filling Al Gore's pockets.

[theFIRMbss]

>Once all the B.S. is taken out, science is science

Yes, but remember
the Nazis and their "science?"
Eventually

the 'ice universe,'
'race wills' and the other stuff
was seen as BS,

but how much damage
did the crazy thinking cause
the entire planet?

[Cacique]

btt

[devere]

As of November 2007, the CO2 concentration in Earth’s atmosphere was about 0.0384% by volume, or 384 ppmv.

The OSHA, NIOSH, and ACGIH occupational exposure standards are 0.5% CO2 averaged over a 40 hour week, 3% average for a short-term (15 minute) exposure, and 4% as the maximum instantaneous limit considered immediately dangerous to life and health.

We need to keep an eye on atmospheric CO2, but at the moment it seems we’re not in immediate danger of any ill effects.

[ga medic]

http://www.ciesin.org/docs/003-074/003-074.html

The greenhouse effect, despite all the controversy that surrounds the term, is actually one of the most well-established theories in atmospheric science. For example, with its dense CO2 atmosphere, Venus has temperatures near 700 K at its surface. Mars, with its very thin CO2 atmosphere, has temperatures of only 220 K. The primary explanation of the current Venus “runaway greenhouse” and the frigid Martian surface has long been quite clear and straightforward: the greenhouse effect (3) . The greenhouse effect works because some gases and particles in an atmosphere preferentially allow sunlight to filter through to the surface of the planet relative to the amount of radiant infrared energy that the atmosphere allows to escape back up to space. The greater the concentration of “greenhouse” material in the atmosphere (Fig. 1) (4), the less infrared energy that can escape. Therefore, increasing the amount of greenhouse gases increases the planet’s surface temperature by increasing the amount of heat that is trapped in the lowest part of the atmosphere. What is controversial about the greenhouse effect is exactly how much Earth’s surface temperature will rise given a certain increase in a trace greenhouse gas such as CO2.”

There are legitimate and well founded arguments against the theory of global warming, and whether humans are responsible. There is not a legitimate argument over whether CO2 in excessive levels in the atmosphere can be very harmful. Co2 absorbs energy in the form of heat, and that is a fact that has been scientifically proven, and can easily be scientifically recreated.

[existtoexcel]

"attempts to control CO2 emissions are ineffective and pointless -- but very costly." ---very profitable.

One man's bill is another man's check.

[itsamelman]

According to this book (page 427) we are still "very much in an ice age" and permanent ice at both poles may be "unique in earth's history."

 

[ga medic]

Look, I am not a big global warming alarmist. But there is a difference between questioning the alarmism of global warming, and making comments that Co2 isn’t dangerous because plants need it. Comments like that come from a complete lack of understanding on the issue.

[ga medic]

Go for sooner rather than later. It had a huge impact on my first two. Of course they told the other 3, which eliminated the effect.

[RetiredArmy]

Well you heard Algore’s peace prize hoax speech the other day. He compared those of us who do not believe in the global warming hoax to be even with those who appeased the Nazi’s. So now we are Nazi appeasers.