31,000 Scientists Debunk Al Gore and Global Warming

[MinusTheBear]

EDIT...in case you're interested (probably not), here is just ONE link to a number of peer reviewed studies that the link I posted will direct you to. http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=84e9e44a-802a-23ad-493a-b35d0842fed8

I couldnt find any actual research papers, can you tell me which links to click on because all I was getting are little blurbs and blogspots. More specifically can you post the links you want us to read because those links on that website re-direct us all over the place.

Thanks

 

[Tomorrow]

I couldnt find any actual research papers, can you tell me which links to click on because all I was getting are little blurbs and blogspots. More specifically can you post the links you want us to read.

Thanks

It helps if you actually read the link (and also I suggest looking at the hyperlinks in the original link I posted). There are too many to link over. Here are a few from the link I posted (kept to a minimum to save Audioholics space).....
EDIT:...oops sorry...forgot the link insertion. You'll have to go back to the main link where you saw the blogspots, etc. Keep reading. They're there. Double EDIT:...MinusTheBear, the links are sometimes to the journal reports of the studies. If you want the actual study and all the data, you will have to search the reference made to the study from the authors in that link.

Sampling of very recent inconvenient scientific developments for proponents of catastrophic man-made global warming:

1) New peer-reviewed study finds global warming over last century linked to natural causes: Published in Geophysical Research Letters: Excerpt: “Tsonis et al. investigate the collective behavior of known climate cycles such as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the North Atlantic Oscillation, the El Nino/Southern Oscillation, and the North Pacific Oscillation. By studying the last 100 years of these cycles' patterns, they find that the systems synchronized several times. Further, in cases where the synchronous state was followed by an increase in the coupling strength among the cycles, the synchronous state was destroyed. Then a new climate state emerged, associated with global temperature changes and El Nino/Southern Oscillation variability. The authors show that this mechanism explains all global temperature tendency changes and El Nino variability in the 20th century. Authors: Anastasios A. Tsonis, Kyle Swanson, and Sergey Kravtsov: Atmospheric Sciences Group, Department of Mathematical Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, U.S.A. See August 2, 2007 Science Daily – “Synchronized Chaos: Mechanisms For Major Climate Shifts” (LINK)

2) Belgian weather institute’s (RMI) August 2007 study dismisses decisive role of CO2 in warming: Excerpt: "Brussels: CO2 is not the big bogeyman of climate change and global warming. This is the conclusion of a comprehensive scientific study done by the Royal Meteorological Institute, which will be published this summer. The study does not state that CO2 plays no role in warming the earth. "But it can never play the decisive role that is currently attributed to it", climate scientist Luc Debontridder said. "Not CO2, but water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas. It is responsible for at least 75 % of the greenhouse effect. This is a simple scientific fact, but Al Gore's movie has hyped CO2 so much that nobody seems to take note of it." said Debontridder. "Every change in weather conditions is blamed on CO2. But the warm winters of the last few years (in Belgium) are simply due to the 'North-Atlantic Oscillation'. And this has absolutely nothing to do with CO2," he added. (LINK)

3) Updated: September 27, 2007: New peer-reviewed study counters global warming theory, finds carbon dioxide did not end the last Ice Age. Excerpt: Deep-sea temperatures rose 1,300 years before atmospheric CO2, ruling out the greenhouse gas as driver of meltdown, says study in Science. Carbon dioxide did not cause the end of the last ice age, a new study in Science suggests, contrary to past inferences from ice core records. “There has been this continual reference to the correspondence between CO2 and climate change as reflected in ice core records as justification for the role of CO2 in climate change,” said USC geologist Lowell Stott, lead author of the study, slated for advance online publication Sept. 27 in Science Express. “You can no longer argue that CO2 alone caused the end of the ice ages.” Deep-sea temperatures warmed about 1,300 years before the tropical surface ocean and well before the rise in atmospheric CO2, the study found. The finding suggests the rise in greenhouse gas was likely a result of warming and may have accelerated the meltdown – but was not its main cause. < > “The climate dynamic is much more complex than simply saying that CO2 rises and the temperature warms,” Stott said. The complexities “have to be understood in order to appreciate how the climate system has changed in the past and how it will change in the future.” (LINK)

4) New peer-reviewed study finds clouds may greatly reduce global warming: Excerpt: This study published on August 9, 2007 in the Geophysical Research Letters finds that climate models fail test against real clouds. "To give an idea of how strong this enhanced cooling mechanism is, if it was operating on global warming, it would reduce estimates of future warming by over 75 percent," Dr. Roy Spencer said. "At least 80 percent of the Earth's natural greenhouse effect is due to water vapor and clouds, and those are largely under the control of precipitation systems. Until we understand how precipitation systems change with warming, I don't believe we can know how much of our current warming is manmade. Without that knowledge, we can't predict future climate change with any degree of certainty," Spencer added. The paper was co-authored by University of Alabama Huntsville's Dr. John R. Christy and Dr. W. Danny Braswell, and Dr. Justin Hnilo of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA. (LINK)

5) New peer-reviewed study finds that the solar system regulates the earth’s climate - The paper, authored by Richard Mackey, was published August 17, 2007 in the Journal of Coastal Research - Excerpt: “According to the findings reviewed in this paper, the variable output of the sun, the sun’s gravitational relationship between the earth (and the moon) and earth’s variable orbital relationship with the sun, regulate the earth’s climate. The processes by which the sun affects the earth show periodicities on many time scales; each process is stochastic and immensely complex. (LINK) & (LINK)

ETC.

 

[MinusTheBear]

Can you give me the links to the study`s you want us to read because there is so much stuff to go through from those five links you posted. I have no idea what research studies you want us to read because some of these lead to multiple studies from one link. It is too time consuming to find all them, then read them , can you narrow them down to the most pertinent ones.

 

[Tomorrow]

Okay, for those that want, here are some of the links. As I mentioned, for the most part, these are synopses of the papers or Journal reports. The summaries that you saw in my last post were taken from the papers' abstracts by the author of that link.

http://www.griffith.edu.au/conference/ics2007/pdf/ICS176.pdf

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070801175711.htm

http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=102&Itemid=38

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-09/uosc-cdd092507.php

http://www.uah.edu/News/newsread.php?newsID=875

 

[astrodon]

Many thanks for the detailed explanation, Astrodon. It was very informative!

If you get the will and the time I'd like your take on one matter.

* What is the prevailing logic that explains the intense global warming shown to have existed during the Cretaceous period. Certainly much more is involved with atmospheric warming than global radiative properties.

Lastly and as a return to the OP, here is a recent article with some interesting references. http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=927b9303-802a-23ad-494b-dccb00b51a12

Those who do not maintain a healthy dose of skepticism regarding both sides of this argument are in for some surprises.

First, science is not done by congressional edict, nor is it a matter of opinion. After reading this blurb, I looked at some of the names of scientists that were listed and spotted an entry for an astrophysicist. I did a search for this so-called "one of Israel's top (and "prolific" in one post) young scientists," astrophysicist Nir Shariv. First, if this guy is so prolific and he does solar physics, why doesn't he have any refereed publications in Solar Physics, the top journal (world-wide) in solar physics and solar astronomy? I also did a literature search of all major astronomy journals at http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abstract_service.html for scientific publications of this guy for the past 5 years and he has no publications.

I then did a Google search of this guy and found many entries associated with various businesses and conservative websites. Most of these point to the same article published in
http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html?id=069cb5b2-7d81-4a8e-825d-56e0f112aeb5&k=0.

Day 1 of my lectures in General Physics I discusses the scientific method. In this discussion, I tell the students that scientific theories are not a matter of opinion. Real science is not first published in newspapers, it's published in refereed scientific journals.

I also saw on one of these web sites that this astrophysicist claimed that the Sun's magnetic field has been weakening over the last 20 or 30 years which has allowed more cosmic rays to reach the Earth's atmosphere (and I assume this implies a heating of the atmosphere). This statement is so incredibly ignorant that if this Shariv guy even exists, his Ph.D. in astrophysics should be stripped from him. Again, go to the SOHO site and have a look around. There is no evidence that the Sun's average magnetic field strength has been continually weakening above and beyond what occurs during a given sunspot cycle. There are some cycles that are weaker than other cycles, but these weaker cycles have happened in the past as well and the Earth's temperature was not affected by much during these times. Also, the Earth's magnetic field protects us from cosmic rays, not the Sun's. At the Earth location, the Earth's magnetic field is far stronger than the Sun's magnetic field. Also, as I described in my solar discussion, weaker magnetic fields on the Sun result in a diminished X-ray and UV flux which should cause a cooling of the Earth's atmosphere, not a heating. Finally, cosmic rays will not heat the Earth's atmosphere, surface, nor oceans. In order for them to have any measurable impact on the planet-wide temperature, the flux of cosmic rays would be high enough to cause mass extinctions. It's simple conservation of energy, total kinetic energy of cosmic rays = change of atmosphere's thermal energy. The astronomically large number of cosmic rays required to raise the Earth's average temperature by even 1 Kelvin would be enough to kill us all of cancer. Also, particle physicists often measure the cosmic ray flux, and their daughter particles, muons. I have seen no alerts published by the American Physical Society telling us to take cover.

Once again, don't believe everything you read on the web without doing a thorough study as to whether what is written is correct science. I'll say it once again, opinions are not science.

This will be my last entry in this thread. It takes too long to write this stuff up and I have a NASA proposal that I have to get out the door by next week.

Cheers everybody!

P.S. Whenever an article uses adjectives like "top," "prolific," "most accomplished," etc. to describe somebody, be wary of what you are reading. Authors like using adjectives like this when they are trying to convince the reader of whatever dogma the author is trying to promote.

 

[Tomorrow]

First, science is not done by congressional edict, nor is it a matter of opinion. After reading this blurb, I looked at some of the names of scientists that were listed and spotted an entry for an astrophysicist. I did a search for this so-called "one of Israel's top (and "prolific" in one post) young scientists," astrophysicist Nir Shariv. First, if this guy is so prolific and he does solar physics, why doesn't he have any refereed publications in Solar Physics, the top journal (world-wide) in solar physics and solar astronomy? I also did a literature search of all major astronomy journals at http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abstract_service.html for scientific publications of this guy for the past 5 years and he has no publications.

I then did a Google search of this guy and found many entries associated with various businesses and conservative websites. Most of these point to the same article published in
http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html?id=069cb5b2-7d81-4a8e-825d-56e0f112aeb5&k=0.

Day 1 of my lectures in General Physics I discusses the scientific method. In this discussion, I tell the students that scientific theories are not a matter of opinion. Real science is not first published in newspapers, it's published in refereed scientific journals.

I also saw on one of these web sites that this astrophysicist claimed that the Sun's magnetic field has been weakening over the last 20 or 30 years which has allowed more cosmic rays to reach the Earth's atmosphere (and I assume this implies a heating of the atmosphere). This statement is so incredibly ignorant that if this Shariv guy even exists, his Ph.D. in astrophysics should be stripped from him. Again, go to the SOHO site and have a look around. There is no evidence that the Sun's average magnetic field strength has been continually weakening above and beyond what occurs during a given sunspot cycle. There are some cycles that are weaker than other cycles, but these weaker cycles have happened in the past as well and the Earth's temperature was not affected by much during these times. Also, the Earth's magnetic field protects us from cosmic rays, not the Sun's. At the Earth location, the Earth's magnetic field is far stronger than the Sun's magnetic field. Also, as I described in my solar discussion, weaker magnetic fields on the Sun result in a diminished X-ray and UV flux which should cause a cooling of the Earth's atmosphere, not a heating. Finally, cosmic rays will not heat the Earth's atmosphere, surface, nor oceans. In order for them to have any measurable impact on the planet-wide temperature, the flux of cosmic rays would be high enough to cause mass extinctions. It's simple conservation of energy, total kinetic energy of cosmic rays = change of atmosphere's thermal energy. The astronomically large number of cosmic rays required to raise the Earth's average temperature by even 1 Kelvin would be enough to kill us all of cancer. Also, particle physicists often measure the cosmic ray flux, and their daughter particles, muons. I have seen no alerts published by the American Physical Society telling us to take cover.

Once again, don't believe everything you read on the web without doing a thorough study as to whether what is written is correct science. I'll say it once again, opinions are not science.

This will be my last entry in this thread. It takes too long to write this stuff up and I have a NASA proposal that I have to get out the door by next week.

Cheers everybody!

P.S. Whenever an article uses adjectives like "top," "prolific," "most accomplished," etc. to describe somebody, be wary of what you are reading. Authors like using adjectives like this when they are trying to convince the reader of whatever dogma the author is trying to promote.

Thanks, Astrodon. I appreciate the caution you advise. And I understand your being pressed for time. However, if you get an opportunity and nothing else is pressing, I'd enjoy your take at least on the papers referenced in my last post (of links). Cheers.

 

[spacedteddybear]

Contribute to the thread? Come on...IT'S HIS THREAD! He can do whatever he wants to satisfy his reason for putting the thread out there. Substance...he started a discussion which needs dialog, and which some people think necessary to turn into a willy waving match and sling personal insults doing so.

Astrodon and tbewick made fine technical posts. But Astrodon's post was a reply to a specific question in the thread. What's for Rickster to reply to? Even junjuku will tell you that this is a political discussion and issue as well as a scientific one. There are plenty of contributors to that.

Starting a thread does not mean that it alone provided any contributing dialog of substance. He actually did not make any comment on it whatsoever until the 2nd page where he quoted

“the fundamental aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed, and hence clamorous to be led to safety, by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary” … the desire to save the world usually fronts a desire to rule it.

Appeal to motive fallacy as I've pointed out. Which is repeated on the next page and on many subsequent posts

I wonder, since it's alleged (not in this thread) that Bush and Cheney are profiting from big oil, and going to 'war for oil'.
Isn't it equally as plausible that Al Gore is profiting from the global warming scare?

Yet the OP of this thread, was that there are tens of thousands of scientists who are signing this petition, and they had research papers to back their case up. Rather than discussing that there are scientists, in fact a lot of scientists who do not share the views of Gore backed scientists, he goes after Gore as if there was a grand conspiracy of scientists who made up GW in order to take over the world's economy. Therefore GW in not an occurring fact.

But what really got me was this:

The only thing I can say when speaking of scientific data.
Politics and money, are the tail, that wag the scientific dog.
Sad but true.

So scientists and empirical data are not to be trusted because politics and money are able to override peer reviewed journals right? Which goes back to jinkuku's 79th post.

 

[mtrycrafts]

31,000 Scientists Debunk Al Gore and Global Warming


An incredible 31,072 Americans with university degrees in science, including 9,021 Ph.D.s, have signed a petition that flatly denies Al Gore’s claims that human-caused global warming is a settled scientific fact.
?”

Well, that 31k just got reduced to 9k
And, what are their real qualifications to make such judgements on the science of global warming and who caused it? Perhaps they are out of their area of expertise? Just because one has a PhD doesn't mean you have such necessary expertise to be a credible source.

 

[mtrycrafts]

Hey, that was a good read astrodon, thanks for putting in the time and effort. I read the first 4 pages of this thread before I skipped to the end, and I have to assume that no-one has asked why the opposers to G/W don't do a similar thing to what Al Gore did to de-bunk his views?

Because anyone can say "I don't beleive it"

What? Facts getting in their way?

 

[mtrycrafts]

Usually, the majority is right, and the detractors are wrong, though that is not always the case.

And, the detractors could be right if they had sufficient evidence to over turn the present consensus but it seems few can do that trick.

 

[spacedteddybear]

Okay, for those that want, here are some of the links. As I mentioned, for the most part, these are synopses of the papers or Journal reports. The summaries that you saw in my last post were taken from the papers' abstracts by the author of that link.

http://www.griffith.edu.au/conference/ics2007/pdf/ICS176.pdf

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070801175711.htm

http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=102&Itemid=38

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-09/uosc-cdd092507.php

http://www.uah.edu/News/newsread.php?newsID=875

-
Well, here's my analysis/summery/explaination of the eurekalert.org link. Might not be as professional as astrodon's though....
Firstly some facts about water and ice:
-Water and ice have a pretty high heat capacity ( 4186 joules/kg*K, and 2100 j/kg *K) . While water has a higher heat capacity than ice, ice also needs additional energy in order for it to melt. In other words, if you have a kilo of ice at 272K and you raise it to it's melting point, you need 2100 j of energy to do so, but you also need energy to melt it. For water/ice, that is 334jX10^3 j/kg. So it takes a lot of energy not only to bring up the temperature of ice, but to also melt it.

-Ice is a good reflector of visible light, which is why ski goggles are tinted. So as more ice melts, more energy is being absorbed by the water which is now melted. Basically it takes a lot of frakkin energy in order to raise the temperature of the world's oceans by any significant amount.

The article does not question the role the CO2 plays in climate change, but rather where it played it's role and with what magnitude. The release of CO2 through warming oceans only accelerated climate changes. Even though this was a regional effect, it caused drastic changes across the entire globe. A lot of energy must have been absorbed over a long period of time to not only raise the temperature of the ice and melt it, but to also raise the temperature enough to effect the climate around the world. What you have to consider, is that we are not coming off of an ice age that have lasted for several thousand years. Melting ice sheets and glaciers are not only a regional occurance, but has been observed around the world. Astrodon's already mentioned that increased radiation from the sun is a near impossibility, so this is an internal phenomenon.

Also, this has not been mentioned, but increased ocean temperatures can cause the release of methyl hydrate deposits in our oceans. Methane is also a greenhouse gas if you don't watch Southpark. It caused the temperature of the world to go up 10-15 celsius during the paleocene era.

Oh, here might be an answer to your increased temperature during the Cretaceous era:
http://www.bbm.me.uk/portsdown/PH_130_Envmnt.htm

 

[Tomorrow]

And, the detractors could be right if they had sufficient evidence to over turn the present consensus but it seems few can do that trick.

There sure are a lot of experts in global warming around here. Must be the hot air!

 

[Tomorrow]

-
Oh, here might be an answer to your increased temperature during the Cretaceous era:
http://www.bbm.me.uk/portsdown/PH_130_Envmnt.htm

Thanks, STB. It doesn't exactly pass as a research piece, but it's interesting nonetheless and gives food for thought. I think there may be quite a few more causative factors involved than he/she lists in that unfinished piece. Algae growth may have been an important source of the warming, as well.

I hope Astrodon has a chance to look at those reports.

 

[Tomorrow]

Mucking around with mother nature is: reducing the chemicals we dump into the atmosphere by the hundreds of thousands of tons?

Yes. It's also like mandating ethanol in your gas tank (which turns out not so good for the environment afterall) and driving up food prices and hunger in Third World countries in the bargain.

 

[mtrycrafts]

Yes. It's also like mandating ethanol in your gas tank (which turns out not so good for the environment afterall) and driving up food prices and hunger in Third World countries in the bargain.

And, you cannot plant enough corn to make a significant dent to replace oil.
But, as long as a few wealthy individuals gain even more, who cares

 

[mtrycrafts]

Not to sidetrack this, but according to the article he's past president of the National Academy of Sciences and of Rockefeller University. And you are...?

.

And this would make him an expert in climatology, by chance?
Or, just somebody who was qualified and selected to head that organization?
I believe his PhD is in physics, far cry from being a climatologist, don't you think?

 

[Tomorrow]

And, you cannot plant enough corn to make a significant dent to replace oil.
But, as long as a few wealthy individuals gain even more, who cares

Absolutely. But the point was that the government has a pretty good record of screwing things up.

 

[mtrycrafts]

Quoted from the NY Times article:

"When, in 1998, Dr. Seitz issued a statement and circulated a petition attacking the scientific conclusions underlying international efforts to control emissions of industrial-waste gases, the National Academy of Sciences took the extraordinary step of refuting the position of one its former presidents. The petition called for the United States to reject the Kyoto Protocol, the 1997 treaty, negotiated by more than 150 countries, imposing limits on emissions of gases like carbon dioxide.

Dr. Seitz’s petition was accompanied by an article concluding that emissions of carbon dioxide, the principal greenhouse gas, posed no climatic threat. Instead, the article said, the emissions amounted to “a wonderful and unexpected gift from the Industrial Revolution” by stimulating atmospheric carbon dioxide and increasing plant growth.

Dr. Press, who was also President Jimmy Carter’s science adviser, said that while he and Dr. Seitz were good friends, Dr. Seitz “was not a specialist in this field.”

“Most top scientists in the field disagreed with him, I among them,” Dr. Press said. Asked if Dr. Seitz’s beliefs had shifted in recent years, Dr. Press said they had not.

From 1978 to 1988, Dr. Seitz was a member of the medical research committee of the R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company. His work for the company was the subject of a 2006 article in Vanity Fair magazine that criticized what it called an “overlap” between scientists who deny climate change and “tobacco executives who denied the dangers of smoking.”

The article, by Mark Hertsgaard, said that Dr. Seitz had helped R. J. Reynolds “give away $45 million to fund medical research in the 1970s and 1980s,” studies that “avoided the central health issue” of smoking and “served the tobacco industry’s purposes.”

So, he took his skills from denying or not bothering to study the medical aspects of cigarettes and became a denier of global warming. What else would you expect from him since the tobacco industry has taken such a huge hit over the years. After all, one needs to eat and feed the family, right
A wonderful chap he is

On the other hand, he may have had a good point about that treaty since it exclued the two next gen greatest polluters to come, India and China.

 

[mtrycrafts]

I wonder, since it's alleged (not in this thread) that Bush and Cheney are profiting from big oil, and going to 'war for oil'.
Isn't it equally as plausible that Al Gore is profiting from the global warming scare?

You mean there is huge amounts to be made from pushing global warming scare? Where do I sign up? I need a small fraction of those largess, not much, say a mil or two

 

[mtrycrafts]

The bottom line is if GW is true (which I am a firm believer of) then the poorest people/countries will have the hardest time adapting to the changes and its truly a shame that the world in general isn't being more proactive to prevent it for the dignity and preservation of our own race.

Caring for those and the human race hurts the bottom line and becoming wealthy in one's own lifetime. Hell with the next generation.