Greenhouse effect is a myth, say scientists

Daily Mail ^ | 3/4/07 | JULIE WHELDON

[agere_contra]

Ice core samples from Antarctica have been used as proof of how warming over the centuries has been accompanied by raised CO2 levels. But

No buts. The Vostok ice core results clearly show a multicentury lag between the temperature rising, and then the CO2 level rising. It's simple outgassing from the oceans.

[Fierce Allegiance]

Fair enough, but burzum does not make any claim the sun has nothing to do with global temperatures, that i see, inspite of your innterpretation.

[cookcounty]

[Greenhouse effect a myth]

"What a wildly inaccurate headline.

Scientifically speaking, yes, but in the popular culture, "Greenouse effect" = "the Religion of Al Gore", and is in that sense an accurate headline.

[agere_contra]

The Vostok Ice Core Results are graphed below. Note the timelag after periods of warm temperatures before the CO2 levels rise.

[ancient_geezer]

Ever hear of bait & switch? The UN/IPCC politicians are masters of the technique.

 

An Economist's Perspective on Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol,
by Ross McKitrick. November 2003
http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/McKitrick.pdf

The 1992 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) defined "climate change" as follows:

"Climate change" means a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.
( http://unfccc.int/index.html )

The recent Third Assessment Report (TAR) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) defined it differently ( http://www.ipcc.ch/ ):

Climate change in IPCC usage refers to any change over time, whether due to natural variability or as a result of human activity.

This is a very important difference: The IPCC is looking for signs of any change, whereas the policy instruments prescribed by the UNFCCC are not triggered unless it is a particular kind of change: that attributable to human activity. When IPCC officials declare that "climate change" is for real, this is about as informative as announcing that the passage of time is for real. Of course the climate changes: if it didn't Winnipeg would still be under a glacier. But the fact that the last ice age ended doesn't imply that the policy mechanisms of the UNFCCC should kick in. That's the problem with the ambiguity over the term "climate change"-and it seems to trip up a lot of people-accepting the reality of "climate change" does not mean accepting the need for policy interventions. And denying that global warming is a problem requiring costly policy measures is not the same as denying "climate change."

[Fiddlstix]

BTTT

[editor-surveyor]

Do you realize yet that you have proven my point? It's the difference in solar radiation that makes the difference in temperatures. Nothing anybody has yet offered in support of the GW myth has addressed the reflective properties of the CO2, which reflect far more away than they reflect inward, due to the difference in the radiation going each way. You need to address Planck's expressions.

[lilylangtree]

Does this mean the aerosol spray cans will be returned to the market? Anyone remember the ozone hole scare in the 80s by the environmentalists, media, scientists and the banning of the aerosol spray cans? Every kid in the world was taught how big the ozone layer was getting and we've got to ban those bad ole cans.

[Nathan Zachary]

Another unmentioned point about arctic temperatures is that the summer highs aren't any higher, only the winter is 1/4 of a degree warmer on average. As you say,1/4 of a degree when it's -50 doesn't have any effect on anything. It was -20f here this morning. Now it has 'warmed up' to -8f. The sun is out and it's really bright. BUT, guess what? the snow and ice isn't melting. I wonder why...

Wait, could it be because it's WINTER?? Could it be because the earth is tilted further AWAY from the sun at the north pole this time of year? Kinda proves that the distance from the sun has a HUGE effect on temperatures here on earth, and therefore so would any solar activity on the sun.

People don't realize that the earth is exactly the perfect distance from the sun. If it was a mile closer, it would be hotter maybe even enough to keep the poles ice free , a mile further away, it would be much colder, making the permanent ice caps much bigger.

[I see my hands]

[.cnI redruM]

"It is ridiculous to see politicians arguing over whether they will allow the global temperature to rise by 2c or 3c." Gorquemada won't appreciate that being said on television.

[M. Dodge Thomas]

“Gary Calder, a former editor of New Scientist, claims clouds and solar activity are the real reason behind climate change.”

http://tinyurl.com/yh7x9u

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/10/taking-cosmic-rays-for-a-spin/

[Nathan Zachary]

The moon rotates AROUND the earth. It is therefore sometimes closer and sometimes further away from the sun than the earth is, which more than explains the wider shifts in surface temps.
Plus we do have cloud cover.

Clouds in arctic climates have the opposite effect of clouds in tropical climates. Cloudy days in arctic winters trap warm air, making the days and nights much warmer. On clear days heat escapes to space rapidly, giving you bitterly cold days and even colder nights.

The oposite is true in tropical climates. Cloudy days give you a break from direct sun, it heats that inch of the earth's less.

[ancient_geezer]

You are aware are you not that realclimate.org is a front established by Michael Mann and cohorts in an effort to support his now verymuch defunct Hockey Stick, and to feed the UN/IPCC line.

It is, in short, a pure Athropogenic Global Warming propaganda website. Nothing more and nothing less.

[Nathan Zachary]

The moon rotates AROUND the earth. It is therefore sometimes closer and sometimes further away from the sun than the earth is, which more than explains the wider shifts in surface temps.
Plus we do have cloud cover.

Clouds in arctic climates have the opposite effect of clouds in tropical climates. Cloudy days in arctic winters trap warm air, making the days and nights much warmer. On clear days heat escapes to space rapidly, giving you bitterly cold days and even colder nights.

The oposite is true in tropical climates. Cloudy days give you a break from direct sun, it heats that inch of the earth's less.

In fact, it's the amopunt of moisture in the atmosphere that has more effect on temperatures than anything else. Are we going to bad evil rain and evaporation too?

China has been seeding clouds and adjusting local rainfalls for over 30 years. Some "scientists" say that China could be effecting rainfall elsewhere by taking more moisture out of the air than what nature would normally do.

That can cause other parts of the world to recieve more clear days than normal, causing a increase in average temperatures.

But, if the oceans warm up, then they will release more moisture into the atmosphere, which in turn will produce more clouds and more rain, which will cause average temperatures to drop eventually, until the ocean cools as a result.

Nature pretty much regulates itself. To think puny man could effect the weather is rediculous.

[ROLF of the HILL COUNTRY]

"All that you have to do is to compare Venus and Mars to realize that the greenhouse effect is real"

You need to do some more study on the subject.
Venus and Earth have nothing in common but their size.
It's unfortunate that someone a few decades ago used the term "greenhouse" to describe the conditions on Venus, and although it's an inaccurate description, the term stuck. Planetary atmospheres are not closed systems like a greenhouse is thought to be. They easily radiate energy outward as well as absorb. Density of the atmosphere has more to do with its temperature stability than any other factor. Venus is so much hotter than Earth because it has a tremendously dense atmosphere, not so much because of what it is comprised of. BTW, WATER is the greatest single heat retaining gas in our atmosphere; CO2 is in the small single digits of percentage.

[agere_contra]

No, there is none

You don't seriously mean that. The climate changes periodically from warm to cold and back again. Right now it is warming.

In 1000 AD Greenland was warm enough for the Vikings to colonise it (which is why they called it "Greenland" I guess). Whereas in the 1600s the climate grew cold enough for the Thames to freeze over. And now the climate is warming again. All perfectly natural, to do with periodic changes in the Earths orbit and Solar variability

Out with the graphs :0)

This one shows the "Mediaeval Warm period" and the "little Ice Age", and it also shows that temperatures are increasing again.

This rather more sciencematifical one showing the sinusoidal variation rather more clearly

And this complex set of study results show a variation from mostly warmer (red) temperatures in 1000 AD through a colder (blue) period (1500 AD) to todays hotter/redder periods again. There is no doubt about this sinusoidal global warming - but the climate change has nothing whatever to do with CO2 or man's activity. Which may be what you mean by "there's no global warming?"

[ancient_geezer]

CERN's most recent work in the Cosmic Ray connection with clouds:

CERN, CLOUD Project

General background on the CERN server:

CERN Document Server Search Results

A bit more on CERN's long term studies in regards cosmic ray connections with Earth's climateL

CERN Document Server - Links for 2001-007

 

And a bit more on the excellent correlation between cosmic rays and cloud cover:

 

 

http://www.sciencebits.com/CosmicRaysClimate

 

Cosmic Rays and Climate

By: Nir J. Shaviv

Article originally appeared in PhysicaPlus.

***

Clouds have been observed from space since the beginning of the 1980's. By the mid 1990's, enough cloud data accumulated to provide empirical evidence for a solar/cloud-cover link. Without the satellite data, it hard or probably impossible to get statistically meaningful results because of the large systematic errors plaguing ground based observations. Using the satellite data, Henrik Svensmark of the Danish National Space Center in Copenhagen has shown that cloud cover varies in sync with the variable cosmic ray flux reaching the Earth. Over the relevant time scale, the largest variations arise from the 11-yr solar cycle, and indeed, this cloud cover seemed to follow the cycle and a half of cosmic ray flux modulation. Later, Henrik Svensmark and his colleague Nigel Marsh, have shown that the correlation is primarily with low altitude cloud cover. This can be seen in fig. 3.


Figure 3: The correlation between cosmic ray flux (orange) as measured in Neutron count monitors in low magnetic latitudes, and the low altitude cloud cover (blue) using ISCCP satellite data set, following Marsh & Svensmark, 2003.
The solar-activity – cosmic-ray-flux – cloud-cover correlation is quite apparent. It was in fact sought for by Henrik Svensmrk, based on theoretical considerations. However, by itself it cannot be used to prove the cosmic ray climate connection. The reason is that we cannot exclude the possibility that solar activity modulates the cosmic ray flux and independently climate, without any casual link between the latter two. There is however separate proof that a casual link exists between cosmic rays and climate, and independently that cosmic rays left a fingerprint in the observed cloud cover variations.

*** SNIP ***

More information can be found at:

1. A general article on the cosmic ray climate link over geological time scales.
2. Henrik Svensmark's web site, including various publications on the cosmic-ray/cloud link.
3. The awaited results of the Danish SKY cloud experiment will be reported on their website within several months.

Notes and References:

* On solar activity /climate correlation:

1. For the first suggestion that solar variability may be affecting climate, see: William Herschel, "Observations tending to investigate the nature of our sun, in order to find causes or symptoms of its variable emission of light and heat", Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. London, 91, 265 (1801). Note that Herschel suspected that it is variations in the total output which may be affecting the climate (and with it the price of wheat).
2. Perhaps the most beautiful correlation between a solar activity and climate proxies can be found in the work of U. Neff et al., "Strong coherence between solar variability and the monsoon in Oman between 9 and 6 kyr ago", Nature 411, 290 (2001).
3. Another beautiful correlation between solar activity and climate can be seen in the work of G. Bond et al., "Persistent Solar Influence on North Atlantic Climate During the Holocene", Science, 294, 2130-2136, (2001).

* On cosmic ray and cloud cover correlation:

1. The paper by Henrik Svensmark, reports the correlation between cosmic ray flux variations and cloud cover changes: H. Svensmark, "Influence of Cosmic Rays on Earth's Climate", Physical Review Letters 81, 5027 (1998).
2. The specific correlation with low altitude cloud cover is discussed in N. Marsh and H. Svensmark, "Low Cloud Properties Influenced by Cosmic Rays", Physical Review Letters 85, 5004 (2000).
3. Further analysis including the relative role of CRF variations vs. el-niño can be found in: N. Marsh and H. Svensmark, "Galactic cosmic ray and El Niño-Southern Oscillation trends in International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project D2 low-cloud properties", J. of Geophys. Res., 108(D6), 6 (2003).
   
4. The analysis showing the geographic signature of the cosmic ray flux variations in the low altitude cloud cover variations can be found it: I. Usoskin et al., "Latitudinal dependence of low cloud amount on cosmic ray induced ionization", Geophysical Research Letters 31, L16109 (2004).

* On cosmic ray climate correlations on Geological time scales:

1. The suggestion that cosmic ray flux variations spiral arm passages could give rise to ice-age epochs is found at: N. Shaviv, "Cosmic Ray Diffusion from the Galactic Spiral Arms, Iron Meteorites, and a Possible Climatic Connection", Physical Review Letters 89, 051102, (2002).
2. A highly detailed analysis, including the cosmic ray reconstruction using iron meteorites is found in: N. Shaviv, "The spiral structure of the Milky Way, cosmic rays, and ice age epochs on Earth", New Astronomy 8, 39 (2003).
3. The analysis of Shaviv & Veizer demonstrates the primary importance of comic ray flux variations over geological time scales, and with it, place a limit on climate sensitivity: N. Shaviv & J. Veizer, "A Celestial driver of Phanerozoic Climate?", GSA Today 13, No. 7, 4, 2003.

[Omedalus]

"Greenhouse gases obviously change the climate as has been proven during several major climatic shifts in the Earth's history. All that you have to do is to compare Venus and Mars to realize that the greenhouse effect is real."

Actually, percentage-wise, Mars's atmosphere contains much more carbon dioxide than Venus. And yet Mars is much colder than Venus. So, care to try that again?

[Nathan Zachary]

It's also worth noting that the peak "warming" was in 1930 BEFORE the increase in CO2 levels. Something global warming activists convieniently forget to mention. Plus the ice sheets and greenland ice masses show a net GAIN in size and mass, not a decrease, as does the South pole ice sheet. Al Gore LIES in his BS scare film.