PDA

View Full Version : Environment New Report Calls into Question ‘Man-Made’ Climate Change


KILLER_CLOWN
08-27-2008, 07:58 AM
New Report Calls into Question ‘Man-Made’ Climate Change
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
By Kevin Mooney, Staff Writer


(CNSNews.com) – New scientific evidence suggests there is a stronger link between solar activity and climate trends on Earth than there is with greenhouse gases, Fred Singer, an atmospheric and space physicist, told CNSNews.com.

The new data call into question whether scientific evidence shows that global warming is a man-made phenomenon and suggests that natural forces, as opposed to human activity, may drive global climate change.

Singer is one of many scientists who say recent scientific observations have determined that “solar variability” – or fluctuations in the sun’s radiation – directly affects climate change on Earth.

“In the broad sense, the Earth’s climate is determined by solar radiation,” Singer said. “If the radiation changes, so will the general climate.”

Singer said scientists have long theorized that changes in the sun’s activity also impact the amount of cosmic rays reaching the earth – affecting the Earth’s cloudiness and thereby the climate.

Cosmic rays are high energy particles of extraterrestrial origin that collide at almost the speed of light with atoms in the upper atmosphere of the earth.

The hypothesis is underpinned by the idea that variations in the sun’s irradiance – electromagnetic energy emitted by the sun that reaches earth’s surface – translate into climate changes on Earth in two key ways: 1) cosmic rays create either more or fewer low, cooling clouds in our planet’s atmosphere; and 2) ozone changes driven by solar activity in the stratosphere create varying degrees of heating in the lower atmosphere.

(Ozone refers to oxygen atoms that protect the planet from harmful ultraviolet radiation. Ozone occurs naturally in the stratosphere, which is the upper atmosphere.)

Recent experiments that have been performed using weather balloons and satellites actually confirm the hypothesis, he said.

“There is now little doubt that solar-wind variability [streams of ionized gases that radiate out from the sun] is the primary cause of climate change on a decadal time scale,” Singer said.

The stronger the solar wind, the more the earth is shielded from cosmic rays, he explained.

Singer said the key to understanding the impact of the sun’s changes on Earth’s climate is time – many scientists only take account of the sun’s long-term effects.

“We are not concerned about hundreds of thousands of years or (millennia). We are concerned about decades [in the study], because we are interested in what fits the human life span,” he said. “It looks as if solar activity, not solar radiation itself, determines what happens with the climate.

The impact of solar variability is explained in a report Singer co-authored and edited in cooperation with other scientists for the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), which also claims that the mathematical models upon which the United Nations bases its “global warming” assessment are “pre-programmed” to produce results that substantiate the notion of “anthropogenic” (or man-made) global warming.

The report, “Nature, Not Human Activity Rules the Climate,” has helped open the way for scientists to perform meaningful research in areas that have been largely unexplored and under-emphasized in previous studies, Singer said in the interview.

For example, he said, there are research efforts now underway that set about to examine the connection between cosmic rays and cloud formation presumed in the sun-climate theory.

This is the kind of scientific endeavor that has gone missing in government studies that assume human activity predominates over natural influences, Singer continued. Although it was long assumed that the sun was a constant star, one that did not experience any variability (changes) in its irradiance, this has turned out not to be the case.

To the extent that it does look at solar variability at all, which is limited, the U.N.’s International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has been “disingenuous” in its approach to solar variability by virtue of focusing on relatively minute solar cycle changes that overlook cosmic rays, the Singer report suggests.

There are some significant solar changes involving solar wind, for instance, that have ramifications for Earth’s climate, which are de-emphasized in the IPPC studies, he said.

“By disregarding or ignoring the very much larger changes of solar ultraviolet or of the solar wind and its magnetic-field effect on cosmic rays and thus on cloud coverage, the IPCC has managed to trivialize the climate effects of solar variability,” Singer’s non-government report states.

Moreover, there is large separation between the “fingerprints” of global warming that researchers can actually observe in the atmosphere and the “fingerprints” predicted by scientific models, Singer said. Any warming that follows from greenhouse gases would appear in the form of warming that increases with altitude, his report explains.

However, the observations derived from satellites and balloons actually show “no increasing warming, but a slight cooling with altitude” in the zone of the atmosphere where greenhouse gas theories anticipate warming, Singer said.

The U.N.’s (IPPC) authors avoided “connecting the dots” and making the appropriate observations, despite having all the necessary data because the end result would run counter to their mission, Singer suggested.

This thinking is shared by Bonner Cohen, a senior fellow with the National Center for Public Policy Research (NCPPR) in Washington, D.C.

“Anything that falls beyond the purview of anthropogenic (human) caused global warming is not going to be seriously investigated by the IPCC,” Cohen told CNSNews.com. “That’s why the IPCC should never be viewed as a scientific manual. It was created for the sole purpose of supporting the notion of human-induced climate change.”

Meanwhile, not every scientist is moved by the arguments that appear in Singer’s new report.

There are compelling scientific studies that would indicate the warming trend that occurred in the later part of the 20th century cannot be attributed to cosmic rays or other solar activity, according to Jay Gulledge, a senior scientist with the Pew Center on Global Climate Change.

Gulledge cites Sami Solanki, an astronomy professor at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich, who also serves as director at the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Germany, and Michael Lockwood, a physicist at the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory in the United Kingdom, among others to prove his point.

Solanki and his colleagues acknowledge that while sun spot activity in the 20th century may have contributed to some warming in the 20th century, it is probably not responsible for the warming that has occurred in the past few decades.

In an article in Nature magazine, Solanki and his colleagues wrote: "Although the rarity of the current episode of high average sunspot numbers may indicate that the Sun has contributed to the unusual climate change during the twentieth century, we point out that solar variability is unlikely to have been the dominant cause of the strong warming during the past three decades."

Although solar activity may partially account for some of the warming in the early part of the 20th Century, all of the best research concerning the warming that has occurred in the past two to three decades cannot be explained by way of cosmic rays, Gulledge added.

Nevertheless, the Singer-led Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change Report sees compelling evidence in the other direction – based on actual observations, rather than scientific models.

“What’s controversial in my view is not the fact that solar activity affects the climate but the exact mechanism, the details,” Singer told CNSNews.com. “There’s overwhelming evidence, it’s also in my report, that solar activity varying on a time scale of decades produces corresponding affects on the climate on decadal scale.”

http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=34576

tiptap
08-27-2008, 10:13 AM
I want to thank CyberNewsnetwork for being fair and balanced. After all, any and all theories are equal in science. If you can formulate a theory it should be equally valid. Anything is possible under science.

As to the specifics. The overwhelming major influence in earth's climate IS THE SUN. duh. The science community has ever refined this understanding beginning with Thermodynamics of energy flow from the sun to earth and the irradiation of that energy out into space. That has included particle interactions. The energy balance has always fallen short of accounting for the temperatures on earth. That is based simply upon the above with no mitigation, the temperatures on earth should be much cooler. Since you can't get something for nothing (1st law of Thermodynamics) the search was on for the mitigating properties. They HAVE ALWAYS been found to be the Greenhouse Effect of atmospheric gases. If you want to have me believe that the Sun is the all in all then show how the present temperatures are accounted for by Solar radiation and particle alone. 100's of years of study which have included these possibilities have never worked alone.

The second part of the theories, the new Cosmic Cloud production, theory has been introduced to deal with this. The only problem is that it had first been used to account for increased temperatures by clouds holding heat and now it is used to account for reduced temperature by cloud reflecting heat. No mechanism is offered for how particles of Cosmic Ray size can seed or not see clouds.

The studies done, that measure Solar Radiation and Solar Flux, mentioned in the article, show neither on a decades long cycle comparison. That wasn't from the IPCC, it was from Astronomical studies. There is no merit in the theory. In science a null result doesn't merit more time and effort when other theories are more robust in offering understanding and prediction.

tiptap
08-27-2008, 10:23 AM
I should add that the result stated that additional heat was not found in the upper atmosphere was the initial findings when the new and more extensive study started. It turn out to be a artifact of the new measuring instruments. Corrected , ever since, increasing temperatures, in line with what should be found if GreenHouse Gases are a valid explanation. I can see the deniers minds spinning to state that the numbers were moved upward to meet theory. That is not true. But beyond that, the temperatures, adjusted or not, have been going up in line with GreenHouse predictions. The overall trend substantiates GH part in higher temperatures.

Bootlegged
08-27-2008, 11:11 AM
Climate Change = money maker. Look at what GE alone has invested in this crock.

Bootlegged
08-27-2008, 11:13 AM
You do know that the parent company of NBC is General Electric, right? You do know that for GE, green is first and foremost the color of money, right? As Tim Carney explains in vivid detail in his wonderful book, "The Big Ripoff," GE's "ecomagination" campaign is simultaneously a way to brand itself as a "progressive" company and a means of shaking the money tree - the most sustainable planting of them all - growing in Congress' backyard.

When the global company launched the ecomagination campaign, guess where it held the launch party? Its D.C. lobbying office, of course.

While sipping wine made at a solar-powered winery, GE chief Jeffrey Immelt proclaimed, "Industry cannot solve the problems of the world alone. We need to work in concert with government."

Translation: The King Kong of the corporate world needs tax breaks, subsidies and favorable regulations to make green technology profitable. Indeed, GE has nearly cornered the market on the solar panels necessary to implement Kyoto-style reforms.

Global-warming hysteria is good for its bottom line.

Liberals and environmentalists love to whine about special breaks for corporations, and they work themselves into paroxysms of paranoia about how big corporations propagandize against action on climate change. The reality is exactly the opposite: GE, DuPont, British Petroleum and countless other big corporations routinely propagandize in the other direction, largely to win governmental support they don't need.

But so long as environmentalists approve of the message, they've got no problem whatsoever with the messengers.

HonestChieffan
08-27-2008, 11:20 AM
Global warming is a huge scam, goals hve zero to do with environment and everything to do with manipulating economies and lifestyles.

tiptap
08-27-2008, 07:23 PM
As opposed to the oil industry dictum. Somehow the oil, coal and natural gas companies aren't interested in making money. They don't want tax breaks.

Of course we want a economy where people can make money by being green. I figure you are just trying to protect your stock prices in the Oil Industry.

banyon
08-27-2008, 07:38 PM
Global warming is a huge scam, goals hve zero to do with environment and everything to do with manipulating economies and lifestyles.

Where are the people making these vasts sums of money off this so-called scam?

banyon
08-27-2008, 07:44 PM
Media Research Center, Inc.
EIN: 54-1429009

99 institutional roles for $6,338,994

113 S. West Street, Ste. 200
Alexandria, VA 22314

www.mrc.org



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


From Slanting the Story
excerpted at TomPaine.com, April 2001

"...it is [Brent] Bozell's Media Research Center that stands out as the right's preeminent media cop. Bozell is a Republican operative with credentials earned in George Bush's 1988 presidential campaign. The nephew of William F. Buckley, he headed the Conservative Victory Committee that year. He is also connected to the Political Club for Growth, a network of conservative and libertarian activists and groups sympathetic to cutting taxes and shrinking government.

What Bozell and others perceive as liberal bias often means presenting information about government help for the poor, the homeless, the weak, and so on -- information that conflicts with the objectives of the right. Tim Graham explained that ABC was once "the worst" in its approach to stories. He said that the Center had seen on ABC what he called "a repeated stream of stories on victims of spending cuts. ... We don't see victims of tax hikes..."

...When journalists and their work are noted favorably in the "Kudos" section of MediaNomics (MRC's newsletter), it helps further the kind of reporting the right prefers. In December 1998, the newsletter praised "ABC World News Tonight" for being "one of the pioneers in network investigation of government waste," and pointed out that "its regular segment 'Your Money' delves into ways that Americans are being ripped off." In the next issue, it lauded NBC's "Fleecing of America," a similar show that identifies ways that the government wastes taxpayers' money. MediaNomics called "Fleecing of America" along with "Your Money" "one of the best news segments on network television." Both programs reinforce the view that government is evil, bungling, and wasteful, which is precisely the message the right wants to convey.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


"Opposes any traces of liberalism on TV or in films. Chairman L. Brent Bozell III publishes the newsletter TV, ETC., with an advisory board that includes Elliot Abrams, Mona Charen, Pete DuPont, and Rush Limbaugh.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Bozell wrote a scathing piece against Republican Presidential Candidate John McCain in February 2000 to help George W. Bush.

http://www.mediatransparency.org/recipientprofile.php?recipientID=203

Dick Bull
08-27-2008, 07:45 PM
Where are the people making these vasts sums of money off this so-called scam?


if you send my uncle $3000 in nigeria you will be able to download the ebook, "who's making money off global warming"

banyon
08-27-2008, 07:47 PM
if you send my uncle $3000 in nigeria you will be able to download the ebook, "who's making money off global warming"

Great! I'd be happy to read that if you would just be willing to wire that money into my paypal account. I promise I'll pay ya back/ :D

Radar Chief
08-28-2008, 06:51 AM
Where are the people making these vasts sums of money off this so-called scam?

Where is the grant money for researching Global Cooling? If there is any I’ve missed it.
Gore seems to be doing pretty well for himself jet setting around the globe to wag his finger at everyone telling them how bad they are for existing.
I’ve been thinking about how to get into this carbon credit scam. Think I’ll buy a plot of land and plant a tree for everyone that sends me $X and in return I’ll trump up some get out of jail free brownie button so my customers can feel better about driving, heating their homes and using dairy products.

$X= amount to be determined later. You know, competitive cost / what the market will bear, yada yada. ;)

tiptap
08-28-2008, 08:24 AM
Where is the grant money for researching Global Cooling? If there is any I’ve missed it.
Gore seems to be doing pretty well for himself jet setting around the globe to wag his finger at everyone telling them how bad they are for existing.
I’ve been thinking about how to get into this carbon credit scam. Think I’ll buy a plot of land and plant a tree for everyone that sends me $X and in return I’ll trump up some get out of jail free brownie button so my customers can feel better about driving, heating their homes and using dairy products.

$X= amount to be determined later. You know, competitive cost / what the market will bear, yada yada. ;)

The research was in the 1990's. Go back, you are two decades behind in the research. Again and again and again and again and again, the studies that indicate that the overall increase in temperature is tied to something unrelated to human action is nil. And yet you call for more and more money to go to the unproductive investigations. There was money afforded these ideas, they didn't pan out. You don't throw money down a rat hole. And there is still research that can find that correlation if it existed. It just doesn't exist.

Radar Chief
08-28-2008, 08:36 AM
The research was in the 1990's. Go back, you are two decades behind in the research. Again and again and again and again and again, the studies that indicate that the overall increase in temperature is tied to something unrelated to human action is nil. And yet you call for more and more money to go to the unproductive investigations. There was money afforded these ideas, they didn't pan out. You don't throw money down a rat hole. And there is still research that can find that correlation if it existed. It just doesn't exist.

Learn to take a joke. :rolleyes:

tiptap
08-28-2008, 08:45 AM
Learn to tell one

Radar Chief
08-28-2008, 08:58 AM
Learn to tell one

Had you ever displayed a sense of humor that might mean something.

tiptap
08-28-2008, 09:02 AM
I do know my limits.

Radar Chief
08-28-2008, 09:04 AM
I do know my limits.

As we all should. :thumb: