New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears

[HAL 9000 96]

Link 42. "What IS normal"

Well... for starters, when we change "normal" then the change becomes a problem. As long as we can accept the newly interpreted normalcy, then we're all good. Problem is, the planet equilibrates even if that means putting us in harm's way.

Link 43. Avery again mouthing off his opinion by asking questions based on incomplete data.

Link 44. Interview with someone that is targeting not the science, but the public reality constructed by alarmism. As a responsible scientist should. He also offers parallel and interesting pro-environmental strategies.

Link 45. Rehash of link 44.

[HAL 9000 96]

Link 46. I loved these "musings."

CO2 ends up more in the oceans than many anticipate. This in itself is caustic... remember: CO2 + H2O -> H2CO3. Carbonic acid. Acidification of the ocean yields in lower pH, kills off algae AND coral, and reduces the ability of gas exchange from the ocean. Thanks for the reminder... So this in itself causes a bias in the logarithmic accumulation of CO2.

Link 47. NewsBusters... "Exposing and Combating Liberal Media Bias"

But yes... science is not political...

Link 48. Not there.

Link 49. Not there.

Link 50. Not there.

Link 51. Not there.

Link 52. Marc Morano again... playing the politics card and now showing all of us how its OK for one side to play dirty politics in academia and science while the other side is derided for being just as petty. But since this is not science, I'll refrain from emitting judgements on Morano's crusade again.

Link 53. No science here other than Morano's crusade here. I don't like journalists either.

Link 54. Not there.

Link 55. Not there.

Link 56... Morano rehashing the same erroneous science discussed many links before.

[GaryC 7]

Link 46. I loved these "musings."

CO2 ends up more in the oceans than many anticipate. This in itself is caustic... remember: CO2 + H2O -> H2CO3. Carbonic acid. Acidification of the ocean yields in lower pH, kills off algae AND coral, and reduces the ability of gas exchange from the ocean. Thanks for the reminder... So this in itself causes a bias in the logarithmic accumulation of CO2.

Link 47. NewsBusters... "Exposing and Combating Liberal Media Bias"

But yes... science is not political...

Link 48. Not there.

Link 49. Not there.

Link 50. Not there.

Link 51. Not there.

Link 52. Marc Morano again... playing the politics card and now showing all of us how its OK for one side to play dirty politics in academia and science while the other side is derided for being just as petty. But since this is not science, I'll refrain from emitting judgements on Morano's crusade again.

Link 53. No science here other than Morano's crusade here. I don't like journalists either.

Link 54. Not there.

Link 55. Not there.

Link 56... Morano rehashing the same erroneous science discussed many links before.

I must have messed up with all the links that are not there. You might try to go the the original article to look at them.

[HAL 9000 96]

Later tonight... my eyes are nearly shot from all that Morano lol...

[GaryC 7]

Link 33. I crack up now... if there IS a natural cycle actually cooling us, then we must be in it already. So why are Greenland's glaciers shrinking if tis getting cooler?

The antarctic is gaining ice BTW. I don't know if we are cooling or not but I would assume that if the trend is the other way the glaciers in Greenland would lag that change. It will be interesting to see what they are doing 20 years from now.

I am at work now and we look pretty busy. Please keep commenting and when I get the chance I will come back.

[HAL 9000 96]

Link 33. I crack up now... if there IS a natural cycle actually cooling us, then we must be in it already. So why are Greenland's glaciers shrinking if tis getting cooler?

The antarctic is gaining ice BTW. I don't know if we are cooling or not but I would assume that if the trend is the other way the glaciers in Greenland would lag that change. It will be interesting to see what they are doing 20 years from now.

I am at work now and we look pretty busy. Please keep commenting and when I get the chance I will come back.

Greenland is north of the Arctic Circle. Antarctica is losing ice. And so is the Artic Ice Shelf....

Anyway... work is work...

[GaryC 7]

Link 33. I crack up now... if there IS a natural cycle actually cooling us, then we must be in it already. So why are Greenland's glaciers shrinking if tis getting cooler?

The antarctic is gaining ice BTW. I don't know if we are cooling or not but I would assume that if the trend is the other way the glaciers in Greenland would lag that change. It will be interesting to see what they are doing 20 years from now.

I am at work now and we look pretty busy. Please keep commenting and when I get the chance I will come back.

Greenland is north of the Arctic Circle. Antarctica is losing ice. And so is the Artic Ice Shelf....

Anyway... work is work...

There seems to be some disagreement on that. And I meant Antartica ice.

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/7/192721/175

[GaryC 7]

Let me try to condense my thoughts and position on the idea of man changing our global climate. First, I think we can all agree that the earth’s climate is not a static thing. It changes continually. So how do we look at the current changes? Our climate goes through cycles. The latest one was called the “little ice age” that ran from the 16th to the 19th centuries. Before that we had a warm period called the “Medieval climate optimum”. That was a warm period that lasted from 800 to 1300 AD. In my opinion the warming we are seeing right now is the continuation of the rise in tempuratures that ended the little ice age. Temperatures started climbing before the industrial revolution so therefore cannot be attributed to human activity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age

How about that CO2 and it’s effects on our climate? I know that the consensus is that rising levels of CO2 trap heat and cause a rise in tempuratures. This is also known as the “greenhouse effect”. But that is much to simplistic to be applied to our current conditions. Evidence is now coming out that CO2 is in reality an effect of warmer tempuratures and not the cause. In effect CO2 is a lagging indicator.

Atmospheric CO2 concentration and mean global temperature

correlate and cohere such that the CO2 follows the temperature

(both up and down) by some months. This was first observed by

Kuo et al. (1990) who did a frequency analysis for the period

1950 to 1990, and has been confirmed by other workers using

different data sets (Priem, 1997; Dettinger and Ghil, 1998;

Fischer et al., 1999, Indermühle et al., 1999). In other work, reanalysis

of the famous Vostok ice core shows CO2 increases

lagging about 600 years behind the temperature increases of the

three significant deglaciations (Fischer et al, 1999). Clearly, high

CO2 levels are not the primary cause of temperature rises signaling

the end of an ice age. Other research on geological timescales

also shows that sometimes temperatures were high when CO2

concentrations were low, and vice versa (Indermühle et al., 1999,

Panagi et al., 1999; Flower, 1999).

http://www.climatechangeissues.com/files/s...e/defreitas.pdf

I have also seen evidence that the CO2 that mankind creates is a very small proportion of what nature provides. Even with our fossil fuel burning and industry it’s addition to the atmosphere is slight. Far more CO2 is produced by natural events like volcanoes and biological process. It is far more likely that the CO2 rise is because of the higher temperatures and not the cause.

There is a much stronger greenhouse gas at work. Water vapor. Almost all water vapor is natural and not man-made.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

So if our warming planet isn’t caused by our industrial CO2 how do I explain it? There isn’t one answer. But in my opinion it’s the sun and our orbit around it is the main cause. The sun isn’t a steady source of energy. It fluctuates on short and long term cycles. Our orbit also isn’t constant. It runs through cycles that last for thousands of years. A third factor is our planets wobble on its axis. Through procession it changes from century to century. All of these things combined are causing our climate changes.

There is something else that causes me to doubt that we are to blame for global warming. We hear all the time that we are warmer than we have been in 100, 1000 or even 10,000 years. Ok, that means that 100, 1000 or 10,000 years ago we were warmer than today! We certainly didn’t cause those changes. And 50 million years ago there were no polar ice caps at all. How do we explain that?

All of these points give me reason to doubt the idea of man causing global climate change. In my opinion the planet is going to change whether we are here or not.

Now, lets talk about the other side of things. The political debate that surrounds global warming. As I said before, there isn’t any doubt that our climate is changing but there is a large doubt at least in my mind that we are doing it. But when I see people like Al Gore trumpeting the world’s doom I have to take pause. When I see the UN calling for the US making reparations to developing countries because we have emitted CO2 I have to wonder. It seems to me that they are using global warming and the fear that it creates as a way to further their political ends and not some noble goal of saving the planet. There has been a 100 billion dollar industry created in the name of global warming. Much of it is what I call “feel good” activity. The worst of these is the Carbon Offset scam. People are making billions of dollars off of a useless practice just so some can say they have a small carbon footprint. In effect it does not reduce carbon output at all. It just shifts it around and people like Al Gore take a cut.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=54528

But the biggest problem I see is the well meaning but miss-informed politicians that call for reductions in carbon at the detriment of our economy. The call for autos, industry and private citizens to have mandates to reduce carbon is a huge boondoggle in my opinion. If this were just a disagreement about the causes of our climate change than I would be content to let the science work it’s way through. But because of the hysteria and fear mongering of some we are wasting our time and money on something that is far from proven. Our attention and money could be better spent.

Thank you for listening.

[HAL 9000 96]

Link 33. I crack up now... if there IS a natural cycle actually cooling us, then we must be in it already. So why are Greenland's glaciers shrinking if tis getting cooler?

The antarctic is gaining ice BTW. I don't know if we are cooling or not but I would assume that if the trend is the other way the glaciers in Greenland would lag that change. It will be interesting to see what they are doing 20 years from now.

I am at work now and we look pretty busy. Please keep commenting and when I get the chance I will come back.

Greenland is north of the Arctic Circle. Antarctica is losing ice. And so is the Artic Ice Shelf....

Anyway... work is work...

There seems to be some disagreement on that. And I meant Antartica ice.

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/7/192721/175

Got ya... this is from the source:

This is not actually a big surprise.

In fact, it is completely in line with model expectations that CO2-dominated forcing will have a disproportionately large effect in the north. The reasons lie in the much larger amount of land in the northern hemisphere and the fact that the ocean's thermal inertia and ability to mix delay any temperature signal from the ongoing absorption of heat. The local geography also plays a dominating role. The circumpolar current acts as a buffer preventing warm water from the tropics from transporting heat to the South Pole, a buffer that does not exist in the north. You can read some more details about that here.

Does it "balance out" in the end? Not really. Sea ice in the Arctic is reaching dramatic record lows. There are other components of the cryosphere that we can look at as well, permafrost, the Greenland ice sheet, global glacier mass, and these all carry the Global Warming signal.

One must look at the balance of evidence, not just those bits one likes. And this balance is clearly in agreement with all other indicators that warming is real and rapid.

Watch it now, Gary... this is actually evidence that supports GW!

Here's the rest of the site...

[GaryC 7]

Link 33. I crack up now... if there IS a natural cycle actually cooling us, then we must be in it already. So why are Greenland's glaciers shrinking if tis getting cooler?

The antarctic is gaining ice BTW. I don't know if we are cooling or not but I would assume that if the trend is the other way the glaciers in Greenland would lag that change. It will be interesting to see what they are doing 20 years from now.

I am at work now and we look pretty busy. Please keep commenting and when I get the chance I will come back.

Greenland is north of the Arctic Circle. Antarctica is losing ice. And so is the Artic Ice Shelf....

Anyway... work is work...

There seems to be some disagreement on that. And I meant Antartica ice.

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/7/192721/175

Got ya... this is from the source:

This is not actually a big surprise.

In fact, it is completely in line with model expectations that CO2-dominated forcing will have a disproportionately large effect in the north. The reasons lie in the much larger amount of land in the northern hemisphere and the fact that the ocean's thermal inertia and ability to mix delay any temperature signal from the ongoing absorption of heat. The local geography also plays a dominating role. The circumpolar current acts as a buffer preventing warm water from the tropics from transporting heat to the South Pole, a buffer that does not exist in the north. You can read some more details about that here.

Does it "balance out" in the end? Not really. Sea ice in the Arctic is reaching dramatic record lows. There are other components of the cryosphere that we can look at as well, permafrost, the Greenland ice sheet, global glacier mass, and these all carry the Global Warming signal.

One must look at the balance of evidence, not just those bits one likes. And this balance is clearly in agreement with all other indicators that warming is real and rapid.

Watch it now, Gary... this is actually evidence that supports GW!

Here's the rest of the site...

To be clear about something, I have never said our planet isn't getting warmer. Clearly it is. But what I do take issue with is the idea that it's caused by us. Like I said in my last post I feel that we are experiencing a natural climate fluxuation. That change may go on for the next 100 years or it may have already stopped. The latest data indicates that the rise in tempuratures have stopped.

[HannahP 119]

Why do people consider pollution to be good? Why is limiting pollution, in general, not a good idea?

[GaryC 7]

Why do people consider pollution to be good? Why is limiting pollution, in general, not a good idea?

No one has said pollution is good. I am all for stopping pollution. My point is that CO2 isn't a pollutant.

[HannahP 119]

Why do people consider pollution to be good? Why is limiting pollution, in general, not a good idea?

No one has said pollution is good. I am all for stopping pollution. My point is that CO2 isn't a pollutant.

So you'll admit that your beloved corporations (businesses, industries) readily dump pollution into the environment?

[GaryC 7]

Why do people consider pollution to be good? Why is limiting pollution, in general, not a good idea?

No one has said pollution is good. I am all for stopping pollution. My point is that CO2 isn't a pollutant.

So you'll admit that your beloved corporations (businesses, industries) readily dump pollution into the environment?

<sigh> What is your point?

[HAL 9000 96]

Always a pleasure to respond to your point of view on this topic.

I'll bold my responses within your quote below:

Let me try to condense my thoughts and position on the idea of man changing our global climate. First, I think we can all agree that the earth’s climate is not a static thing. It changes continually. So how do we look at the current changes? Our climate goes through cycles. The latest one was called the “little ice age” that ran from the 16th to the 19th centuries. Before that we had a warm period called the “Medieval climate optimum”. That was a warm period that lasted from 800 to 1300 AD. In my opinion the warming we are seeing right now is the continuation of the rise in tempuratures that ended the little ice age. Temperatures started climbing before the industrial revolution so therefore cannot be attributed to human activity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age

How about that CO2 and it’s effects on our climate? I know that the consensus is that rising levels of CO2 trap heat and cause a rise in tempuratures. This is also known as the “greenhouse effect”. But that is much to simplistic to be applied to our current conditions. Evidence is now coming out that CO2 is in reality an effect of warmer tempuratures and not the cause. In effect CO2 is a lagging indicator.

Atmospheric CO2 concentration and mean global temperature

correlate and cohere such that the CO2 follows the temperature

(both up and down) by some months. This is not necessarily correlative. This was first observed by

Kuo et al. (1990) who did a frequency analysis for the period

1950 to 1990, and has been confirmed by other workers using

different data sets (Priem, 1997; Dettinger and Ghil, 1998;

Fischer et al., 1999, Indermühle et al., 1999). In other work, reanalysis

of the famous Vostok ice core shows CO2 increases

lagging about 600 years behind the temperature increases of the

three significant deglaciations (Fischer et al, 1999). The argument here can be explained in different terms- for example, deglaciation and increasing temperatures allowed animals to spread to places not clearly habitable during Ice Ages. This means, then, that birth rates increase over time towards the carrying capacity for each environment, and this is not something immediate. Hence, a time delay from the endpoint of deglaciation and CO2 level increases. Remember that yes, CO2 increases with increased animal biomass. Clearly, high

CO2 levels are not the primary cause of temperature rises signaling

the end of an ice age. Other research on geological timescales

also shows that sometimes temperatures were high when CO2

concentrations were low, and vice versa (Indermühle et al., 1999,

Panagi et al., 1999; Flower, 1999). Sure, and this does not correlate to present evidence showing man-made CO2 release and temperature fluctuations. All they show is the possibility of other factors that can contribute to temperature fluctuations on the planet.

http://www.climatechangeissues.com/files/s...e/defreitas.pdf

I have also seen evidence that the CO2 that mankind creates is a very small proportion of what nature provides. Even with our fossil fuel burning and industry it’s addition to the atmosphere is slight. Far more CO2 is produced by natural events like volcanoes and biological process. It is far more likely that the CO2 rise is because of the higher temperatures and not the cause. See above comments.

There is a much stronger greenhouse gas at work. Water vapor. Almost all water vapor is natural and not man-made.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

So if our warming planet isn’t caused by our industrial CO2 how do I explain it? There isn’t one answer. Exactly so. But in my opinion it’s the sun and our orbit around it is the main cause. The sun isn’t a steady source of energy. It fluctuates on short and long term cycles. Our orbit also isn’t constant. It runs through cycles that last for thousands of years. A third factor is our planets wobble on its axis. Through procession it changes from century to century. All of these things combined are causing our climate changes. For the sun to be able to NOT provide a constant source of solar radiation there would have to be an intrinsic fluctuation in power output within the sun itself- meaning that we'd notice quite rapidly given the Sun's ability to consistently drive our planet's photosynthetic and overall heating needs. Planetary orbit is not circular. Its elliptical. The variation of our orbit varies through gravitational forces known (Sun, Moon, Earth, other planets) and even passes by other celestial travelers like comets. But, the orbit issue has been looked before and given rock and ice strata as well as tree rings and other identifiers of global levels of CO2 and temperature, we do not find any evidence that supports the notion that orbit variations, small as they are, correlate with temperature variations independent of CO2 levels. Wobble is yet again an interesting phenomenon that gives us seasons. From 25 to 22.5 degrees we usually shift on our axis. Once we hit 25 degrees I believe the planet becomes at risk for an axis flip, happening ( I had to look this one up ) every supposed 26K to 40K years if the literature is believable. This obviously brings new dimensions into the analysis as at that point you'd have to contend with the timeframes at which the Earth would be subject to quasi equatorial representations, temperature variations in areas not normally exposed to equatorial temperatures along a north-south axis, and finally producing evidence that may mislead scientists collecting unuasally high ice CO2 levels in places previously not supposed to have appreciable notices of said gas.

There is something else that causes me to doubt that we are to blame for global warming. We hear all the time that we are warmer than we have been in 100, 1000 or even 10,000 years. Ok, that means that 100, 1000 or 10,000 years ago we were warmer than today! We certainly didn’t cause those changes. And 50 million years ago there were no polar ice caps at all. How do we explain that? How so? Verbatim is says that if we are warmer now then back then would have been cooler by definition. Perhaps 50 million years ago there were no ice caps at the poles because land masses were extremely different? Polar regions had much less landmass in their vicinities. Ocean currents would not be supportive of the kinetic settling needed for water molecules to condense to freezing, hence smaller ice caps that increased as land masses drifted towards the poles.

All of these points give me reason to doubt the idea of man causing global climate change. In my opinion the planet is going to change whether we are here or not. This is completely true, but perhaps you should re-evaluate your doubt in favor of healthy inquisitiveness in looking at all possible evidence so that the bigger picture can flow out. I'm not nitpicking at you but the skill does have its advantages when dealing with scientific observations.

Now, lets talk about the other side of things. The political debate that surrounds global warming. As I said before, there isn’t any doubt that our climate is changing but there is a large doubt at least in my mind that we are doing it. But when I see people like Al Gore trumpeting the world’s doom I have to take pause. When I see the UN calling for the US making reparations to developing countries because we have emitted CO2 I have to wonder. It seems to me that they are using global warming and the fear that it creates as a way to further their political ends and not some noble goal of saving the planet. There has been a 100 billion dollar industry created in the name of global warming. Much of it is what I call “feel good” activity. The worst of these is the Carbon Offset scam. People are making billions of dollars off of a useless practice just so some can say they have a small carbon footprint. In effect it does not reduce carbon output at all. It just shifts it around and people like Al Gore take a cut.

I think Gore is a politician with a conscience for changing our mindsets. This has been discussed all too frequently here, so I'll just leave my opinion as that of needing to see more political will as he calls it in favor of preventing the GRADUAL effects that we are already starting to witness at different points on the globe.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=54528

But the biggest problem I see is the well meaning but miss-informed politicians that call for reductions in carbon at the detriment of our economy. The call for autos, industry and private citizens to have mandates to reduce carbon is a huge boondoggle in my opinion. If this were just a disagreement about the causes of our climate change than I would be content to let the science work it’s way through. But because of the hysteria and fear mongering of some we are wasting our time and money on something that is far from proven. Our attention and money could be better spent.

Thank you for listening.

Yes, money could be better spent on preventing polluters from causing the issue in the first place by way of encouraging smart money in alternatives that drive both economic success and "greener results." Its at the mod phase right now. Later it will become more commonplace, all the while the GW debate will die away as we assume a smarter approach to industry and efficiency and notice lesser CO2 emissions, lesser pollution, and a more regulated weather pattern. Then we could say that GW died in the process.