Idiot scientist thinks we're on the verge of a "global cooling" trend

http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20080103/94768732.html

<snip>
Earth is now at the peak of one of its passing warm spells. It started in the 17th century when there was no industrial influence on the climate to speak of and no such thing as the hothouse effect. The current warming is evidently a natural process and utterly independent of hothouse gases.

The real reasons for climate changes are uneven solar radiation, terrestrial precession (that is, axis gyration), instability of oceanic currents, regular salinity fluctuations of the Arctic Ocean surface waters, etc. There is another, principal reason—solar activity and luminosity. The greater they are the warmer is our climate.

Astrophysics knows two solar activity cycles, of 11 and 200 years. Both are caused by changes in the radius and area of the irradiating solar surface. The latest data, obtained by Habibullah Abdusamatov, head of the Pulkovo Observatory space research laboratory, say that Earth has passed the peak of its warmer period, and a fairly cold spell will set in quite soon, by 2012. Real cold will come when solar activity reaches its minimum, by 2041, and will last for 50-60 years or even longer.
<snip>

Where do these idiots come from? Here's yet another so-called "scientist" pushing the far-right pseudo-scientific line. I can just hear all the rethugs: 'See, global warming is a good thing'

Nevermind that there isn't a single respectable scientist in the entire world who agrees with this notion, nor is there any evidence whatsoever to back up these claims. In fact, the OVERWHELMING evidence shows that the vast majority of global warming is due to human interference, and it's only going to get WORSE over the next few decades.

This man is an enemy of the planet. If people (ie corporations and governments) base their actions and decisions on pseudo-science like this, then it will only lead to the deaths of millions (or billions) of people, and that doesn't even include the devastating ecological impact.

That's news to me. Also to the thousands of climatologists who have tracked it only back to the 1950's.

Also the "Little Ice Age" ended in the 1700's, therefore it was part of a natural temperature recovery.

Here's some deep analysis:

Hothouse gases may not be to blame for global warming. At any rate, there is no scientific evidence to their guilt. The classic hothouse effect scenario is too simple to be true. As things really are, much more sophisticated processes are on in the atmosphere, especially in its dense layer. For instance, heat is not so much radiated in space as carried by air currents—an entirely different mechanism, which cannot cause global warming.

From everything I have ever read on Global Warming, heat from the sun is radiated back into space. Greenhouse gases trap this radiated heat. I'm sure what he says about air currents is true; but it is not the whole picture, and it is ignoring the pertinent facts with respect to the increase in atmospheric CO2 and other greenhouse gases.

:eyes:

... not that I think he is, but I do believe man has a lot less effect on things than the media seems to imply.

Every single catastrophic environmental event that has been predicted to have dire consequences (Mt. St. Helens, Kuwait oil field fires, etc.) has turned out to be of little or no consequence. I have a hard time believing that the same people who preached doom and gloom scenarios after those events are going to do any better at predicting the results of man-made greenhouse gas emissions.

I AM in favor of curbing greenhouse gas emissions, because I think we do too much harm. I just don't think we do as much as the media tells.

My .02, and worth just what you paid for it. :)

The media is only reporting what most scientists are saying.

Just to see what would happen. If that didn't destroy the climate and cause all kinds of problems, I'm not sure what would other than cumulative man-made problems.

There is a theory though that after periods of intense warming, there are periods of cooling and I don't think that we have enough data (I'd need to see thousands of years of actual recorded weather patterns) to draw a conclusion.

Sorry, but the cycles can still happen, albeit at a higher mean temperature. CO2 ABSORBS INFRARED LIGHT! The more CO2, the more absorption, as a function of Beer's Law.

Look it up.
The Professor

... "nuclear winter-like" conditions after Mt. St. Helens or the the Kuwait oil fields?

Kinda reinforces my point, doesn't it?

It doesn't. It means you don't understand photochemistry.
The Professor

What I do understand is that all the same experts who are currently screaming doom scenarios are the same experts who previously screamed of doom scenarios that did not come to bear.

Fortunately, a working knowledge of photochemistry is not needed to make that connection. :)

So, that doesn't exactly support your contention. In this case, the scientists showing the greatest concern are those who are proposing that the mechanism itself is irrefutable. If more CO2 goes into the atmosphere, the concentration must rise. (The atmosphere isn't gaining volume.) If more CO2 absorbs more infrared and ultraviolet light, those photons will excite the molecules. Molecular excitation translates to higher vibratory motion. We all call that heat.

The mechanism itself supports that it is inevitable.

What other people supported as doomsday is irrelevant to this topic.
The Professor

I think you'll find if you look at the temperature record volcanic eruptions do cause short period of global cooling. I know of no scientific consensus from the Mt. Saint Helens eruption that predicted nuclear winter type conditions. Thus you appear to have created a strawman to attack. The real fact is volcanic eruptions do cause cooling.

Like that meteor that hit the Earth 65 million years ago. That had absolutely no consequence. Hey how about the end of the last warming period in North America 12-10000 years ago. That one sure had no consequences. Just ask your Wooly Mammoth err American Horse err saber tooth Cat err...

And apparently this guy has.

There are several very reputable scientist who are quite worried about the onset of another Ice Age, brought to you by global warming. Here is how the scenario breaks down:

As temperatures warm up, and more and more of the Greenland ice shelf slides into the sea, the fresh water contained in that ice will lessen the salinity in the Gulf Stream. Thus, with much more fresh water, the Gulf Stream current(a conveyor belt really) doesn't flow, thus halting the milder weather that is brought into the N. Atlantic by the Gulf Stream. Thus, the area surrounding the N. Atlantic, including Europe, England, Canada, and the US returns to a much cooler climate, actually another mini Ice Age.

This is the scenario put forth by many reputable scientists, and is indeed a byproduct of global warming. Like I said, even a blind pig. . .

The mechanism of global warming does not obviate the natural climatic cycles. The earth can still warm and cool cyclically, but will be operating at a different mean temperature, when the cycles are averaged.

So, this guy could be right, but he'd be right for completely different reasons than he thinks.
The Professor

But I do recall when I was alittle kid, most of the respected scientists conveyed their belief that we were going into another ice age. Now they say we are going into a drastic global warming. Now, I do believe in global warming, though I'm not 100% sold that its the human race's fault. Either way, I am for doing everything we can to clean our acts up; that part to me is just common sense for any one of a dozen reasons, even if you don't believe in the doom scenarios.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=94

There were some articles to that effect in the popular press, but no such literature in the scientific press.

The point is that the mechanism is irrefutable. More CO2 means more photon absorption. More photon absorption means more molecular energy. The kinetic energy of molecules is what we call heat.

In addition, there is nothing in that mechanism that precludes the earth still undergoing normal cycles of climate. So, we can still be moving toward an ice age (i don't know if that's true or not), but at a slower rate and with a higher mean temperature than those of the best.

So, we can still move up to warmer periods, and down to cooler periods, but each of those will, in time, be warmer than typical. Say for instance, an ice age does occur in 25,000 years. Let's say most ice ages meant the average yearly temperature in the temperate zones was -10 C. Well, if this next ice age sees a mean yearly temperature of -2C. It's 8C warmer, but still an ice age. See what i mean?

As to the 100% certainty of it being humankind's fault. That's a pretty high standard. But, if the mechanism is fully understood on both a photochemical and quantum scale, and it's humankind that's burning all this carbon and putting CO2 in the atmosphere, then what more do you need?

And yet despite that, you're trying to do the right thing. Good on you!
The Professor

Actually, this is an Ice Age, with a supposedly brief (10,000 year) warm up. We could easily return to the climate that creates glaciers in less than one year. All that is required is one big volcano.

It is simply a fact that the variations in solar intensity do effect the climate.

Science is nurtured by debate and diverse opinions. I really have praise for this scientist voicing his opinion, even if I do not agree with all of it. It is important to science that professionals be allowed to publish opposing opinions without being the targets of personal attacks. I'll use Galileo as my example; one scientist can be right when everyone else is wrong!

Of course it can't be that Russia has large oil and gas reserves and are benefiting from the high demand for it. :eyes: IMHO, Putin's government, like Shrub Inc., is trying to downplay the anthropogenic causes for climate change to benefit their oil and gas industries. The amount of skepticism seems to have increased as Putin has tightened his control and restricted free speech.

Let this scientist put his work out there for peer review, and let other scientists audit his work. If it is good, fine. If it is bad, then he will be rejected.

There's a reason this piece was published as an op/ed; 95% of the factual/physical claims are completely bogus.

Any "scientist" who doesn't at least concur that the mechanism of global warming is valid is unlikely to risk being peer reviewed.
The Professor

And wouldn't you know that actually, the latest concensus on "global warming", is that it's probably more accurate to discuss it as an aspect of Climate Change.

The posters up-thread who outlined the effects of volcanic eruption, and a sudden, catastrophic shutdown of the Gulf Stream "conveyor belt" are absolutely correct. No amount of piling-on, pack-mentality peer review is going to dispute that.

Climate Change is not just a zero-sum debate on the future direction of averge temperatures. If you presume to suppose that Turtle Island, our home North American continent, is now, somehow, immune to possible rapid cool-down, because of "global warming" -- dude, that's just wrong.

Exxon linked to climate change pay out

Think tank offers scientists $10,000 to criticize UN study confirming global warming and placing blame on humans.

By Steve Hargreaves, CNNMoney.com staff writer
February 5 2007: 2:02 PM EST

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- A think tank partly funded by Exxon Mobil sent letters to scientists offering them up to $10,000 to critique findings in a major global warming study released Friday which found that global warming was real and likely caused by burning fossil fuels.

The American Enterprise Institute sent the letters to scientists offering them $10,000, plus travel and other expenses, to highlight the shortcomings in a report from the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a group widely considered to be the authority on climate change science.

"The purpose of this project is to highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the IPCC process, especially as it bears on potential policy responses to climate change," said the memo, which was sent to a professor at Texas A&M University.

"We are hoping to sponsor a paper...that thoughtfully explores the limitations of climate model outputs as they pertain to the development of climate policy..."

The letter was obtained by CNNMoney.com through ExxposeExxon, a coalition of environmental groups including the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Sierra Club and the Union of Concerned Scientists.

--more--
CNN

...just asking.