Question:
pliz help me to find the academic articles which can prove global warming is natural...?
1970-01-01 00:00:00 UTC
pliz help me to find the academic articles which can prove global warming is natural...?
Nine answers:
?
2016-09-05 15:15:05 UTC
Well "Greenhouse" is typical when you consider that it is made by means of the biking approach.."Global Warming" is fairly distinct many men and women are burdened approximately it, they are saying that international warming is typical however it's not, Global Warming is induced by means of the chemical substances that human releases within the air and it can't be constant and stays within the surroundings that motives a gap at the ozone layer..... and by way of that gap the UV from the solar comes is going instantly to the earth making it hot. Actually the ice from the north blocks it, and while it melts it stops blockading it inflicting the UV rays to pay attention best on one location making hotter and hotter..till it expands global making the temperature to difference rapid that the common.....different issues which are induced by means of the globar warming are the typical issues reminiscent of hurricanes, typhoons, and tornados, and so on..
eric c
2007-05-25 07:36:14 UTC
You are going to have to go to the library to find these articles:



1. Temperature reconstruction using proxy data: The Hockey-Stick Graph

The following studies demonstrate conclusively that the highly publicized Hockeystick

graph was based on several erroneous calculations and assumptions.

a. “Corrections to Mann et al (1998) proxy data base and northern hemisphere average temperature

series” S McIntyre & R McKitrick Energy & Environment Vol. 14 (2003) p. 751-777

b. “Reconstructing past climate from noisy data” H von Storch et al Science Vol. 306 (2004) p. 679-

682

c. “Hockey sticks, principal components and spurious significance” S McIntyre & R McKitrick

Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 32 (2005) L03710

d. “Highly variable northern hemisphere temperatures reconstructed from low- and high-resolution

proxy data” A Moberg et al Nature Vol. 433 (2005) p. 613-617

e. Wegman Edward, Scott D W and Said Yasmin H 2006: Ad Hoc Committee Report to Chairman of

the House Committee on Energy & Commerce and to the Chairman of the House sub-committee on

Oversight & Investigations on the Hockey-stick global climate reconstructions. US House of

Representatives, Washington USA. Available for download from

ITTP://energycommerce.house.gov/108/home/07142006 Wegman Report.pdf

f. “Reconstruction of temperature in the central Alps during the past 2000 yr from a delta18O

stalagmite record” A Mangini, C Spotl & P Verdes Earth & Planetary Science Letters, 235 (2005)p.

741-751

2. Impact of solar variability on the earth’s climate

a. “Solar variability and the earth’s climate: introduction and overview” George Reid Space Science

Reviews 94 (2000) p.1-11

Provides a general overview of the sun’s impact on the earth’s climate through the Little

Ice Age as well as through geological times and the complexity in establishing the

solar/climate link.

b. “Low cloud properties influenced by cosmic rays” N D Marsh & H Svensmark Physical Review

Letters 85 (2000) p. 5004-5007

Documents how galactic cosmic rays can influence the earth’s low cloud cover and how

this in turn would impact the mean temperature.

c. “Global temperature forced by solar irradiation and greenhouse gases?” Wibjorn Karlen Ambio,

Vol. 30 (2001)p. 349-350

Argues that the present interglacial has been cooler by about 2°C than the previous ones

during the last 400,000 thousand years when the atmospheric concentration of CO2 was

100 ppmv less than at present.

d. “The sun’s role in climate variations” D Rind Science Vol. 296 (2002) p. 673-677

Provides a general overview of the sun’s impact on the earth’s climate through the Little

Ice Age, as well as through geological times, and the complexity in establishing the

solar/climate link.

e. “Solar influence on the spatial structure of the NAO during the winter 1900-1999” Kunihiko Kodera

Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 30 (2003) 1175 doi:10.1029/2002GL016584

North Atlantic oscillation is shown to be strongly modulated by high & low solar activity as

identified through sunspot cycles.

f. “Can slow variations in solar luminosity provide missing link between the sun and the climate?”

Peter Fokul EOS, Vol. 84, No. 22 (2003)p.205&208

Presents additional evidence of recent changes in solar irradiance and make a case for

solar impact on the earth’s climate.

3

g. “Celestial driver of phanerozoic climate?” N Shaviv & J Veizer Geological Society of America 13

(2003) p.4-10

Documents, using a “sea-shell thermometer”, how the earth’s temperature over last 500

million years is decoupled with atmospheric CO2 levels, while showing strong correlation

with variations in the cosmic ray flux.

h. “Variable solar irradiance as a plausible agent for multidecadal variations in the Arctic-wide surface

air temperature record for the past 130 years” Willie W-H Soon Geophysical Research Letters Vol.

32 (2005) L16712

Demonstrates a strong link between total solar irradiance and Arctic-wide surface

temperature over a long period from 1875-2000.

i. “Solar forcing of the polar atmosphere” P A Mayewski et al Annals of Glaciology Vol. 41 (2005) p.

147-154

Analyzes high-resolution calibrated proxies for atmospheric circulation from several

Antarctic ice cores, which reveal decadal-scale association with solar variability over the

last 600 years.

j. “The influence of the 11-yr solar cycle on the interannual-centennial climate variability” Hengyi

Weng J of Atmosphere and solar-terrestrial physics Vol. 67 (2005) p. 793-805

Re-confirms the solar variability impact on earth’s climate by analyzing monthly sunspot

numbers in conjunction with global and regional sea surface temperatures.

k. “Living with a variable sun” Judith Lean Physics Today (2005) Vol 58, No. 6 p. 32-37 American Inst.

Of Physics USA

Presents additional evidence of recent changes in solar irradiance and makes a case for

solar impact on the earth’s climate.

l. “Phenomenological solar contribution to the 1900-2000 global surface warming” N Scafetta & B J

West Geophysical Research Letters Vol. 33 (2006) L05708

Constructs a phenomenological model to include solar forcing and demonstrates its

linkage to the earth’s temperature change over last 400 years.

m. “Phenomenological solar signature in 400 years of reconstructed northern hemisphere temperature

record” N Scafetta & B J West Geophysical Research Letters Vol. 33 (2006) L17718

Constructs a phenomenological model to include solar forcing and demonstrates its

linkage to the earth’s temperature change over last 400 years.

n. “Empirical evidence for a nonlinear effect of galactic cosmic rays on clouds” R G Harrison & D B

Stephenson Proceedings of the Royal Society A (UK): 10.1098/rspa.2005.1628 (2006)

Documents how galactic cosmic rays can influence the earth’s low cloud cover and how

this in turn would impact the mean temperature.

3. Sea-level rise, ocean surface warming/cooling etc.

Sea-level Rise

a. “New perspectives for the future of the Maldives” N-A Morner M Tooley & G Possnert Global and

Planetary Change 40 (2004) p. 177-182

In the region of Maldives a general fall in sea-level rise occurred some 30 years ago.

b. “Estimates of the regional distribution of sea-level rise over the 1950-2000 period” J A Church et al

J of Climate 17 (2004) p. 2609-2625

Analyzes patterns of regional sea level rise over the period 1950-2000 and concludes that

it is not possible to detect a significant sea level rise over this period anywhere.

c. “Low sea-level rise projections from mountain glaciers and icecaps under global warming” Sarah

Raper & Roger Braithwaite Nature V. 439 (2006) p. 311-313

Projects sea level rise from mountain glacier and icecaps (outside of Greenland &

Antarctic Ice Sheets) as only about 5.1 cm by 2100, half of previous projections.

4

d. “Nonlinear trends and multiyear cycles in sea-level records” S Jevrejeva et al J of Geophysical

Research V.111(2006) C09012

Obtains global sea level rise trend of 2.4 mm per year for the period 1993-2000

e. “On the decadal rates of sea level changes during the twentieth century” S J Holgate Geophysical

Research Letters 34 (2007) doi:10.1029/2006GL028492

Analyses nine long and continuous records of sea level changes from 1904 through 2003.

Sea level change of ~2.03 +/-.35 mm/yr from 1904-1953. 1954-2003, sea-level change is

found to be lower ~1.45 +/-.34 mm/yr.

Ocean Surface Warming/Cooling

a. “The sustained North American warming of 1997 and 1998” A Kumar et al J of Climate 14

(2001)p.345-353

Shows how the sustained North American land warming was primarily due to the intense

El Nino event of 1997/98, which produced and maintained high sea surface temperature

values over the Pacific basin, as well as other ocean basins through the middle of 1998.

b. “Recent cooling of the upper ocean” J Lyman J Willis & G Johnson Geophysical Research Letters

33 (2006) L18604

Documented cooling of the upper oceans and in particular of the southern north Atlantic.

c. “Anomaly of heat content in the northern Atlantic in the last 7 years: Is the ocean warming or

cooling?” V Ivchenko N Wells & D Aleynik Geophysical Research Letters 33 (2006) L22606

Data from the Argo profiling buoys are analyzed for the North Atlantic, and found that the

southern north Atlantic has cooled in the last seven years.

d. “How much is the ocean really warming?” V Gouretski & K P Koltermann Geophysical Research

Letters 34 (2007) L01610

Studies global hydrographic data, as provided by bathythermographs, and found a

warming bias when the bathythermographs data are compared against bottle and current

temperature density data.

4. Arctic & Antarctic temperatures: from Holocene to present

a. “First survey of Antarctic sub-ice shelf sediment reveals mid-Holocene ice shelf retreat” C J Pudsey

& J Evans Geology 29 (2001) p.787-790

Documents that the Larsen A & B ice shelves in the northeastern Antarctic Peninsula were

probably altogether absent about two thousand years ago.

b. “Antarctic climate cooling and terrestrial ecosystem response” P Doran et al Nature online 13

January 2002 (DOI:10.1038/nature 710)

Documents a cooling trend in the Antarctica using recent temperature data.

c. “Variability and trends of air temperature and pressure in the maritime Arctic, 1875-2000” I V

Polyakov et al J ournal of Climate 16 (2003) p. 2067-2077

Presents a long series of temperature and pressure data (1875-2000) over the Arctic basin,

and documents strong multi-decadal variability on a time scale of 50-80 years.

d. “Holocene climate variability” P A Mayewski et al Quaternary Research 62 (2004) p. 243-255

Identifies Rapid Climate Change throughout the Holocene, involving cool polar regions

and wet (or dry) tropical regions.

e. Global warming & the Greenland ice sheets” P Chylek, J E Box & G Lesins Climatic Change (2004)

63 p. 201-221

Shows that a rapid warming over all of coastal Greenland occurred in the 1920s. Average

annual temperature rose between 2° and 4°C in less than ten years.

f. “A multi-proxy lacustrine record of Holocene climate change on northeast Baffin Island, Arctic

Canada” Quaternary Research (2006) 65 p. 431-442

Shows a pronounced Holocene temperature maximum, about 5°C warmer than present.

5

g. “Greenland warming of 1920-1930 and 1990-2005” P. Chylek, M K Dubey & G Lesins Geophysical

Research Letters 33 (2006) L11707

Shows that a rapid warming over all of coastal Greenland occurred in the 1920s. Average

annual temperature rose between 2° and 4°C in less than ten years.

h. “Extending Greenland temperature records into the late eighteenth century” B M Winter et al J of

Geophysical Research 111 (2006) D11105

Extends Greenland temperature records back to the year 1784. The 1930s and the 1940s

were the warmest decades, with 1941 as the warmest year.

i. “Ice shelf history from petrographic and foraminiferal evidence, Northeast Antarctic Peninsula” C J

Pudsey et al Quaternary Science Reviews 25 (2006) p. 2357-2379

Documents that the Larsen A & B ice shelves in the northeastern Antarctic Peninsula were

probably altogether absent about two thousand years ago. Further concludes that the CO2

concentration was about 100 ppm lower than at present.

5. Impact of large-scale circulation patterns

a. “A study of NAO variability and its possible non-linear influences on European surface

temperatures” D Pozo-Vazquez et al Climate Dynamics, Vol. 17 (2001) p. 701-715

Shows that a positive value of the north Atlantic oscillation index can produce winter

season warming in Europe.

b. “Impacts of low frequency variability modes on Canadian winter temperature” B Bonsal, A Shabbar

& K Higuchi Int’l journal of Climatology, Vol. 21 (2001) p. 95-108

Shows how an El Nino event, together with positive values of the Pacific decadal

oscillation index, can provide strong positive winter temperature anomalies over most of

Canada.

c. “Are stronger North-Atlantic southwesterlies the forcing to the late-winter warming in Europe?” J

Ottermann et al Int’l J of Climatology, Vol. 22 (2002) p. 743-750

Suggests that stronger south-westerlies in the North Atlantic may be producing early

spring-like conditions in parts of Europe.

d. “Variability of extreme temperature events in south-central Europe during the twentieth century and

its relationship with large-scale circulation” P Domonkos et al Int’l J of Climatology, Vol. 23 (2003) p.

987-1010

Shows that a positive value of the north Atlantic oscillation index can produce winter

season warming in Europe.

e. “January Northern Hemisphere circumpolar vortex variability and its relationship with hemispheric

temperature and regional teleconnection” R Rohli, K Wrona & M McHugh Int’l J of Climatology, Vol.

25 (2005) p. 1421-1436

Discusses the circumpolar vortex and its linkage to both the Atlantic oscillation variability,

and the Pacific North American pattern.

6. Extraneous influence on mean temperature trends: urbanization, landuse

change etc.

a. “The influence of land-use change and landscape dynamics on the climate system: relevance to

climate-change policy beyond the radiative effect of greenhouse gases” R A Pielke sr et al Phil.

Trans. R soc. London UK (2002)360 p.1705-1719

Considered a landmark paper in the present global warming debate. This paper brings out

an important aspect of land-use change and its dominating impact.

b. “Impact of urbanization and land-use change on climate” E. Kalnay & M Cai, Nature, Vol. 423, 29

May 2003, p. 528-531

Using the National Centre for Atmospheric Research, USA, re-analyses upper-air data and

an extrapolation to the surface, obtaining the urbanization impact on mean temperature

trend to be about 0.280C over 100 years and about 0.180C over the recent 30 years.

6

c. “The urban heat island in winter at Barrow, Alaska” K Hinkel et al International J of Climatology, Vol.

23, 2003, p. 1889-1905

Obtains the urban-rural temperature difference of over 20C during the winter months at

Barrow, Alaska.

d. “Impacts of anthropogenic heat on regional climate patterns” A Block, K Keuler & E Schaller

Geophysical Research Letters, Vol 31, L12211, 2004

Shows how anthropogenic heat released from highly industrialized and populated areas

can produce a permanent warming from 0.15° to 0.5°C.

e. “A test of correction for extraneous signals in gridded surface temperature data” R McKitrick & P

Michaels, Climate Research, Vol. 26, 2004, p. 159-173

Documents a definite warm bias in the temperature trend, as a result of non-climatic

impact of local (and regional) economic activity.

f. “Evidence for a significant urbanization effect on climate in China” L Zhou et al Proc. National

Academy of Science(USA) V. 101 (2004) p.9540-9544

Obtains urbanization impact over China to be more than the estimated 0.27°C in the USA

during the 20th century.

g. “Evidence for influence of anthropogenic surface processes on lower tropospheric and surface

temperature trends” A T J De Laat & A N Maurellis, International J of Climatology, 26, 2006, p. 897-

913

Studies the influence of anthropogenic surface processes on mean temperature trends,

estimated using green house gas emission world-wide database as proxy for industrial

activity. The mean temperature trends at highly industrial regions and locations were

found to be higher than elsewhere.

h. “Urban heat island effect analysis for San Juan, Puerto Rico” A Velazquez-Lozada, J E Gonzalez &

A Winter, Atmospheric Environment, 40, 2006, p. 1731-1741

Documents a strong urban heat island effect at San Juan, Puerto Rico. It is estimated that

the urban-rural temperature difference could increase to about 8°C by the year 2050.

7. Uncertainties in climate model simulations of regional & global features

a. “Potential role of solar variability as an agent for climate change” C Bertrand & J Van Ypersele

Climatic Change V 43 (1999) p.387-411

It is shown that, although total solar irradiance reconstruction is insufficient to reproduce

observed warming of the 20th century, the model response suggests that the Gleissberg

cycle (~88 yr) solar forcing should not be neglected in explaining the century-scale time

variations.

b. “Simulated impacts of historical land-cover changes on global climate in northern winter” T N Chase

et al Climate Dynamics V 16 (2000) p. 93-10

The simulations suggest that anthropogenic land cover changes can produce teleconnection

patterns affecting global temperature and precipitation distributions.

c. “Monsoon prediction-why yet another failure?” S Gadgil M Rajeevan & R Nanjundiah Current

Science(India) V 88 (2005) P.1389-1400

Examines prediction of the Indian monsoon for 2004 and conclude that the skill in

forecasting the Indian summer monsoon variability has not improved in the last fifty years

d. “Detection and attribution of twentieth-century northern & southern African rainfall change” M

Hoerling et al J of Climate V 19 (2006) p. 3989-4008

Finds that the Sahel region drought of 1950-2000, was not influenced by the green house

gas forcing, indicating that the Sahel drought conditions were likely of natural origin.

e. “ENSO evolution and teleconnections in IPCC’s twentieth-century climate simulations: realistic

representation?” R Joseph & S Nigam J of Climate V 19 (2006) p.4360-4377

Concludes that climate models are still unable to simulate many features of El Nino

southern oscillation variability, its circulation and hydro-climatic tele-connections. Further

the climate system models are not quite ready for making projections of regional-tocontinental

scale hydro-climatic variability and change.

7

f. “Precipitation characteristics in eighteen coupled climate models” Aiguo Dai J of Climate V 19

(2006) p.4605

Concludes that considerable improvements in precipitation simulations are still desirable

for the latest generation of the world’s coupled climate models.

g. “Is the thermohaline circulation changing?” M Latif et al J of Climate V 19 (2006) p.4631-4637

Examines the thermohaline circulation in the North Atlantic, which is responsible for large

amounts of heat and freshwater transport by the Gulf Stream. Suggests the changes in the

thermohaline circulation during the 20th century are likely to be the result of natural multidecadal

climate variability.

8. Miscellaneous Studies

a. “Reconciling observations of global temperature change” Richard Lindzen & Constantine Giannitsis

Geophysical Research Letters V 29 (2002) No 12 10.1029/2001GL014074

Analyzes the discrepancy between global mean temperature trends, obtained by satellite

microwave data, and surface temperature measurements.

b. “Compilation and discussion of trends in severe storms in the United States: Popular perception vs

climate reality” Robert Balling Jr & Randall Cerveny Natural Hazards V 29 (2003) p. 103-112

Documents the mismatch between popular perceptions, as created by media reports, and

climate reality, which does not show extreme weather as increasing in the USA.

c. “On destructive Canadian Prairie windstorms and severe winters: A climatological assessment in

the context of global warming” Keith Hage Natural Hazards V 29 (2003) p. 207-228

Documents a temporal frequency peak in severe windstorms and associated tornadoes

during the 1920s and 1930s, then a steady decline since 1940 through 1980s. A steep rise

in tornado frequency since 1970 is attributed to increasing awareness and reporting of

tornado activity in recent years, and NOT due to change in tornado climatology.

d. “Shifting economic impacts from weather extremes in the Unites States: a result of societal

changes, not global warming” Stanley Changnon Natural Hazards V 29 (2003) p. 273-290

Documents that increasing economic impacts of extreme weather events in the USA is a

result of societal change and NOT global warming.

e. “The global warming debate: A review of the present state of science” M L Khandekar T S Murty &

P Chittibabu Pure & Applied Geophysics V 162 (2005) p. 1557-1586

Concludes that the recent warming of the earth’s surface is primarily due to urbanization,

land-use change, etc. and not due to increasing green house gas in the atmosphere.

f. “Extreme weather trends vs dangerous climate change: A need for a critical reassessment” M L

Khandekar Energy & Environment V 16 (2005) p.327-331

Shows that extreme weather events like heat waves, winter blizzards, rainstorms, droughts

etc are not increasing anywhere in Canada, USA or elsewhere, where sufficient data are

available for adequate analysis.

g. “The interaction of climate change and the carbon dioxide cycle” A Rorsch R S Courtney & D

Thoenes Energy & Environment V 16 (2005) p. 217-238

Argues the relatively large rise of CO2 in the 20th century, was caused by the increase in

the mean temperature which preceded it.

h. “Can we detect trends in extreme tropical cyclones?” Christopher Landsea et al Science V 313

(2006)p.452-454

Suggests the Dvorak technique, developed to estimate hurricane strength, was not

available in the late 1960s and early 1970s or before, when some of the hurricanes and

tropical cyclones may have been stronger than estimated.

i. “Trends in western North Pacific tropical cyclone intensity” M- C Wu K-H Yeung & W-L Chang EOS

Transactions AGU V 87 (2006) No 48 28 November 2006

Suggests that the western North Pacific tropical cyclone climatology does not reveal

increasing strength for typhoon records from 1965 to 2004.

8

j. “On global forces of nature driving the earth’s climate: Are humans involved?” L F Khilyuk & G V

Chilinger Environmental Geology V 50 (2006) p. 899-910

Presents a comprehensive review of the global forces driving the earth’s climate over

geological times. The present warming of the last 150 years is a short warming episode in

the earth’s geologic history. Human activity (anthropogenic green house gas emission)

may be responsible for only 0.01°C of the approximately 0.56°C warming of the 20th

century.
Jack
2007-05-25 03:18:37 UTC
While it is undoubtably true that there are some cycles and natural variations in global climate, anyone who wishes to insist that the current warming is purely or even just mostly natural has two challenges. Firstly, they need to identify just what this alledged natural mechanism is because absent a forcing of some sort, there will be no change in global energy balance. So natural or otherwise we should be able to find this mysterious cause. Secondly, a "natural cause" proponent needs to come up with some explanation for how a 30% increase in the second most important Greenhouse Gas does not itself affect the global temperature.



In other words, there is a well developed, internally consistent theory that predicts the effects we are observing, so where is the sceptic model, or theory whereby CO2 does not affect the temperature and where is the evidence of some other natural forcing?



There is a fine historical example of a very dramatic and very regular climate cycle that can be read in the ice core records taken both in Greenland and in the Antarctic. A naive reading of this cycle indicates we should be experiencing a cooling trend now, and indeed we were very gradually cooling over the length of the preindustrial Holocene, something around .5C averaged over 8000 years. It is informative to compare those fluctuations to today's changes. Leaving aside the descents into glaciation, which were much more gradual, the very sudden (geologically speaking) jumps up in temperature every ~100Kyrs actually represent a rate of change roughly ten times slower than the rate we are currently witnessing.



So could the current change be natural? Well, there is no identified natural cause (and they have been looked for), there is no theory of climate where CO2 does not drive the temperature and the natural cycle precedents do not show the same extreme reaction we are now witnessing.



COLUMBUS, Ohio -- Global warming is a natural geological process that could begin to reverse itself within 10 to 20 years, predicts an Ohio State University researcher

The researcher suggests that atmospheric carbon dioxide -- often thought of as a key "greenhouse gas" -- is not the cause of global warming. The opposite is most likely to be true, according to Robert Essenhigh, E.G. Bailey Professor of Energy Conservation in Ohio State's Department of Mechanical Engineering. It is the rising global temperatures that are naturally increasing the levels of carbon dioxide, not the other way around, he says.

Many people blame global warming on carbon dioxide sent into the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels in man-made devices such as automobiles and power plants. Essenhigh believes these people fail to account for the much greater amount of carbon dioxide that enters -- and leaves -- the atmosphere as part of the natural cycle of water exchange from, and back into, the sea and vegetation.

"Many scientists who have tried to mathematically determine the relationship between carbon dioxide and global temperature would appear to have vastly underestimated the significance of water in the atmosphere as a radiation-absorbing gas," Essenhigh argues. "If you ignore the water, you're going to get the wrong answer."



How could so many scientists miss out on this critical bit of information, as Essenhigh believes? He said a National Academy of Sciences report on carbon dioxide levels that was published in 1977 omitted information about water as a gas and identified it only as vapor, which means condensed water or cloud, which is at a much lower concentration in the atmosphere; and most subsequent investigations into this area evidently have built upon the pattern of that report.



For his hypothesis, Essenhigh examined data from various other sources, including measurements of ocean evaporation rates, man-made sources of carbon dioxide, and global temperature data for the last one million years.
Marc G
2007-05-25 10:06:23 UTC
1. J Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics 32, 1-27 (2007)



Discusses the validity of even using temperature as a metric for energy transfer processes.



2. Journal of Amospherrc and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, Vol. 59. No 11, pp. 1225-1232, 1997



Discusses the role of cosmic rays in cloud formation, and thus their effect on global temperature.



3. GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 33, L05708, doi:10.1029/2005GL025539, 2006



Discusses how current models are underestimating solar influence on temperature.



4. SCIENCE VOL 313 4 AUGUST 2006



Discusses aerosols and their effects on cloud cover, which is one of the largest uncertainties in climate research.



5. JOURNAL OF CLIMATE VOLUME 18, 15 NOVEMBER 2005



Discusses how there was a significant climate shift in 1976 due to a shift in the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.



6. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A (2006) 364, 1627–1635



Discusses ice mass balance in Antarctica. Antarctica is gaining ice mass, which is to say that it isn't melting.



7. GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 33, L11707, doi:10.1029/2006GL026510, 2006



Discusses how the current Greenland warming is not extraordinary or quicker than earlier warming periods.



8. Pure appl. geophys. 162 (2005) 1557–1586



This is a long review of the state of the science that flat out states that the skeptics make the better case.



9. Environ Geol (2006) 50: 899–910



Discusses the magnitude of solar forcing versus CO2 forcing and determines that solar forcing is several orders of magnitude greater than that of CO2.



10. Meteorol Atmos Phys 95, 115–121 (2007)



Discusses some multidecadal cycles that suggest we are due for cooling soon, even if CO2 is a warming factor. It suggests that CO2 forcing is not enough to stop the coming cooling cycle.



11. Space Science Reviews (2006) 127: 327–465



This is a monster of a paper (139 pgs) that discusses a multitude of cosmic factors that effect global climate.



12. Int. J. Climatol. 24: 329–339 (2004)



This paper debunks the idea that global warming is causing the retreat of the glaciers on Kilimanjaro.





I have provided you with 12 peer reviewed papers, despite the fact that they dont exist (according to some). They all discuss mechanisms of climate change other than climate change due to CO2 forcings. Some of these papers flat out state the man is not the cause.
mia2
2007-05-25 03:36:49 UTC
THE WARMING EARTH

Haze--made up of dust, soot, and other airborne aerosol particles--seems to have been on a steady, worldwide decline during the past decade and a half, according to new research. That's cause for a round of pats on the back, since it could signal a drop in pollution. But some nail-biting might also be in order. Haze reflects incoming sunlight back to space, so less haze permits more sunlight to reach Earth's surface, enhancing global warming.



To quantify the trend, Michael I. Mishchenko, a physicist at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City, and his colleagues analyzed data from weather satellites on the amount of sunlight reflected by haze over the world's oceans. The data indicate that since 1991, the opacity of the haze has declined by as much as 20 percent. That's not nearly enough to explain global warming as a whole--but it could have contributed to the greater-than-expected rise in temperatures of the past decade.



The results also mesh nicely with observations that the amount of sunlight reaching the Earth's surface has jumped noticeably, beginning in 1990. Whether "global brightening," as the phenomenon is called, is a direct consequence of pollution-control measures, or merely reflects changes in naturally occurring airborne particles, remains uncertain. But NASA's Glory mission, scheduled to launch a new satellite in December 2008, could help clarify the matter. The new satellite will carry a sensor that can distinguish between natural aerosols and pollution. (Science)



By Stéphan Reebs



Great Lake Bake

Section: SAMPLINGS

THE WARMING EARTH

With so much evidence that global warming is real, it's no surprise to learn that summer temperatures on Lake Superior have been rising for twenty-seven years. More puzzling, however, is that the water temperature is increasing faster than the air temperature around the lake.



Two limnologists, Jay A. Austin and Steven M. Colman, both of the University of Minnesota Duluth, analyzed data gathered since 1980 from surface buoys and weather stations in and around the Great Lakes. They report that the average summertime air temperature around Lake Superior rose 2.7 degrees between 1980 and 2005. Yet the average water temperature increased almost double that amount, about five degrees. Preliminary analyses show similar trends for lakes Michigan and Huron; Lake Erie is warming, too, though more slowly.



Why the steep rise in summer water temperatures? Austin and Colman discovered that Lake Superior's winter ice cover has been shrinking by an average of 0.4 percent a year. Water is warmed by contact with the overlying air and by the Sun's radiation. Light-colored ice reflects more sunlight than dark-colored water. Less ice in the winter leads to an earlier thaw in the spring, and therefore a longer sunning season.



At the current rate of change, Lake Superior will be ice-free most years in about three decades. Big lakes can have big regional weather effects and sustain important fisheries, so the rapid warming of three Great Lakes should make North Americans sit up and take note. (Geophysical Research Letters)



Icing on the Lake



By Stéphan Reebs
2007-05-25 13:31:33 UTC
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
2007-05-25 08:45:15 UTC
There are none. Global warming and climate change today are caused by human activity. And you will find no legitimate academic sources that say otherwise.



You'll note the trolls posting the junk ahead of me didn't include any references to any CURRENT academic journals, websites, or organizations. And--FYI--the only site I saw that is legitimate--the IPCC--DOES NOT claim "global warming is natural"--nor say anything remotely like that. But check it yourself--you don't have to take my word for it.
Bob
2007-05-25 07:37:23 UTC
You'll find plenty of stuff in the press, much of it cited above. And essentially nothing in the peer reviewed scientific literature. The peer reviewed data is overwhelming that global warming is mostly man made.. Skeptics have weird theories, but no good data.



"I wasn’t convinced by a person or any interest group—it was the data that got me. I was utterly convinced of this connection between the burning of fossil fuels and climate change. And I was convinced that if we didn’t do something about this, we would be in deep trouble.”



Vice Admiral Richard H. Truly, USN (Ret.)

Former NASA Administrator, Shuttle Astronaut and the first Commander of the Naval Space Command



Here are two summaries of the mountain of data that convinced Admiral Truly, short and long.



http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution.png



http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf



"Regardless of these spats, the fact that the community overwhelmingly supports the consensus is evidenced by picking up any copy of Journal of Climate or similar, any scientific program at the AGU or EGU meetings, or simply going to talk to scientists (not the famous ones, the ones at your local university or federal lab). I challenge you, if you think there is some un-reported division, show me the hundreds of abstracts at the Fall meeting (the biggest confernce in the US on this topic) that support your view - you won't be able to. You can argue whether the consensus is correct, or what it really implies, but you can't credibly argue it doesn't exist."



Dr. James Baker - NOAA



"There's a better scientific consensus on this [climate change] than on any issue I know - except maybe Newton's second law of dynamics. Global warming is almost a no-brainer at this point,You really can't find intelligent, quantitative arguments to make it go away."



Dr. Jerry Mahlman, NOAA



By the way, I can't believe anyone is still recommending the "swindle" movie, which has been thoroughly refuted.



It is simply a political statement which distorts science.



"The science might be bunkum, the research discredited. But all that counts for Channel 4 is generating controversy."



http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2032572,00.html



Gore's movie may be a little over dramatic, but it has the basic science right. This movie does not.



Channel 4 itself undercuts the movie in a funny way. If you go to their website on the movie you find links to real global warming information. They also say "Confused now? Ask the Expert." The link for questions goes to a respected mainstream scientist who supports (mostly) human responsibility for global warming.
Darwin
2007-05-25 03:50:17 UTC
I know most people will not read this post, they will just give me a thumbs down so here’s a summary of questions for the global warming crowd to think about, these have not been answered or even acknowledged by the global warming community.

- Why does CO2 always rise after temperature?

- Why is Mars warming?

- If temperature is raise by CO2 than why did global temperature drop between 1940 and 1970 while CO2 continued to rise?

- Why is the troposphere cooling if the greenhouse effect is the source of the earth’s warming?

- What about the numerous studies showing the sun is the cause of temperature change?

- Who funds global warming scientists?

- Why is a scientific consensus claimed?

- Why can you still see marks on rocks that mark the water level in the 1800’s?

- Why is the center of the artic and Antarctic ice shelves cooling?

- Why are the same glaciers retreating on one edge and expanding on the other?

Finally read this:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=56dd129d-e40a-4bad-abd9-68c808e8809e



The idea of man made global warming is false; it is based on false, misinterpreted, or biased evidence. When “An Inconvenient Truth” came out it was supposed to be the final word in proving global warming exists, but it did not. It was hosted solely by a politician who has no scientific training and presented only 2 graphs. According to these sources almost everything Al Gore claimed was either false or greatly exaggerated.

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/environment/gore.html

http://www.cei.org/pdf/5539.pdf

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=d0235a70-33f1-45b3-803b-829b1b3542ef&k=99551&p=1

For a movie that debunks global warming (hosted by actual scientists and presenting more than 2 graphs) look here:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4499562022478442170&q=great+global+warming+swindle

This scientist says it will be a joke in 5 years:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/timaruherald/4064691a6571.html



One of the biggest claims by the global warming crowd is that there is a scientific consensus, this is a blatant and shameful lie. This claim is made to coerce you into belief because there is no opposition, right? Wrong, these 17,000+ scientists would disagree with the idea of a scientific consensus. http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

Come to think of it when is the last time you heard that there is a scientific consensus that actually cited numbers? There never has been, people will claim that 90% of scientists agree, this number is made up. Here are the real numbers:

http://w3g.gkss.de/G/Mitarbeiter/bray.html/BrayGKSSsite/BrayGKSS/WedPDFs/Science2.pdf

http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/Scienceletter.htm

It seems there is a scientific consensus against global warming.

Some people will ask if I expect all the scientists who agree with global warming will come out one day and say we were joking, fooled you. No I don’t believe that, this will happen:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=c5e16731-3c64-481c-9a36-d702baea2a42

Here’s 21 pages of disagreement:

http://www.climatechangedebate.org/documents/CCD_read.pdf



Here’s some general information on my position.

http://www.abd.org.uk/green_myths.htm

http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aginatur/prog1.htm#suspend

http://www.trac.org.au/cgi-bin/test?page=/myths/top10.htm

http://home.austarnet.com.au/yours/Dont_Believe_Global_Warming.html

http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?ide=4

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy

http://www.fcpp.org/pdf/TimBallJan2607handouts.pdf

http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/admin/books/files/ScienceIsntSettled.pdf

http://www.trac.org.au/myths/GreenhouseHysteria.pdf

http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Carter/laying_ten_global_warming_myths.html

http://www.john-daly.com/

http://www.free-eco.org/articleDisplay.php?id=294

http://www.fcpp.org/main/media_file_wm.php?StreamID=536

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/

http://www.bkdesign.ca/blog/reports/global-warming-myth.php



The central claim by the global warming crowd is that human generated CO2 is causing the current warming of the earth, this is false. An ice core sample like the one Al Gore showed actually shows the opposite, temperature rises the concentration of CO2.

http://vortex.plymouth.edu/atmosphere/IceCores1.gif

The global warming crowd hardly ever shows this graph, they will only show graphs of the last 50 years or so, that is because if you take any particular 50 years it appears that CO2 is leading temperature, go ahead try it with the spike 250,000 years ago.

This is because a rise in temperature causes the sea to give up stored CO2:

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-05/teia-csh051107.php

Here’s another ice core study that clearly shows a cyclical pattern in earth’s temperature, we are currently at a warming phase.

http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/ninelieslaunch.pdf#search=%22vostok%20figure%20125%22

The main greenhouse gas is water vapor, which accounts for 95% of the greenhouse effect, CO2 only accounts for 3.6%. It makes up only .03% of our atmosphere. Of that only a about 6Gt of that comes from humans another 150Gt comes from animals.

This is the official NASA CO2 center, they have been studying atmospheric CO2 long before global warming was an issue, they conclude that CO2 is not the cause of warming.

http://oco.jpl.nasa.gov/science.html

If the earth was warming due to the greenhouse effect the troposphere would also be warming thus radiating the heat to the surface of the earth, but its not, the troposphere is actually cooling, only the earths surface is heating pointing to a more direct source of warming.

http://wwwghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/temperature/

And the claim that our current levels of CO2 are unprecedented are also false:

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming051407.htm

If CO2 determines temperature why did the temperature drop between the years of 1940 and 1970 while the concentration of CO2 increased?



The sun is causing our warming along with interplay between the sea currents. For proof look at the fact that mars is also warming.

http://web.dmi.dk/solar-terrestrial/space_weather/

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Reference_Docs/The_Geologic_Record_and_Climate_Change.pdf

http://www.livescience.com/environment/070312_solarsys_warming.html

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

http://biocab.org/Global_Warming.html

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/solarsystem/mgs-092005.html

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/solarsystem/mgs-092005.html

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2000-03/UoCS-Nrol-1903100.php

http://www.aip.org/enews/physnews/2003/split/642-2.html

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060926_solar_activity.html

http://www.globalwarming.org/article.php?uid=900

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/08/040803093903.htm

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18397549/

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2003/17jan_solcon.htm



Time to dispel myths of global warming:

1) Last year was the hottest year on record.

False, a number of sources above address this and so does this one

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-329es.html

The world has actually cooled since 1998.

2) This warming is unprecedented.

False the medieval warm period was actually warmer. Grapes were grown in England, trees existed in place where there are now glaciers.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-329es.html

3) Glaciers are melting.

False, only portions are melting the cores are actually cooling. Some edges are decreasing while other expand.

http://www.globalwarming.org/article.php?uid=192

http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2005/03/growing_glacier.html

http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA235.html

4) Sea levels will increase 20 feet flooding costal cities.

False this is a lie by Al gore, even the IPCC does not agree with this. The seas are increasing in some areas and decreasing in others.

http://www.climateark.org/articles/1999/markhotd.htm

http://www.abc.net.au/foreign/content/2004/s1107203.htm

http://globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Holocene_Sea_Level_png

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Post-Glacial_Sea_Level.png

5) This current idea is a first climate crisis.

False, in the 1970’s there was a scare of global cooling. A scientific consensus was claimed, evidence poured in, and now, global warming. Hundreds of studies came in supporting the idea but we now know this idea was wrong.

http://www.michaelkubacki.com/cooling.htm

6) Computer models predict further warming.

The computer models are unreliable, they all depend on dozens of assumptions, if any one is wrong the whole model is wrong. Also every model assumes human CO2 causes temperature increase so the outcome is always more warming. Computer models by scientists on the other side predict cooling.

7) The only scientists who disagree are paid by big oil.

This is false, most are paid by non partisan groups. This also begs a counter question, who pays global warming scientists? The answer big environmental companies who make millions off selling global warming materials, alternate fuels, green living products, etc.



Now the IPCC. Some will claim that the IPCC addressed solar impact and natural sources of CO2, they didn’t, see for yourself:

http://www.ipcc.ch/activity/srccs/index.htm

The IPCC is a political organization that knows what it will conclude before it starts its science. It has published a fake graph (the hockey stick graph) and later had to retract the report after THEY admitted it was wrong, yet they still use the graph. Scientists who disagreed with global warming were either excluded or censored.

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/science_policy_general/000318chris_landsea_leaves.html

http://rpc.senate.gov/_files/Sept1004GlobalWarmingPG.pdf

http://www.john-daly.com/forcing/moderr.htm

http://www.john-daly.com/guests/un_ipcc.htm

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=63ab844f-8c55-4059-9ad8-89de085af353&k=0

http://www.sepp.org/Archive/NewSEPP/ipccreview.htm



If you actually read this post you should at least realize that global warming is not an absolute truth, it is the subject of active scientific debate.


This content was originally posted on Y! Answers, a Q&A website that shut down in 2021.
Loading...