Whole lotta science-speak going on here that sounds plausible in this Russian perspective on the issue. Just like it does coming from those who use it to prove global warming. One of them is full of crap. Guess to be safe I should buy lots of long underwear for tooling around in my air conditioned Prius.
A cold spell soon to replace global warming
Stock up on fur coats and felt boots! This is my paradoxical advice to the warm world.
Earth is now at the peak of one of its passing warm spells. It started in the 17th century when there was no industrial influence on the climate to speak of and no such thing as the hothouse effect. The current warming is evidently a natural process and utterly independent of hothouse gases.
The real reasons for climate changes are uneven solar radiation, terrestrial precession (that is, axis gyration), instability of oceanic currents, regular salinity fluctuations of the Arctic Ocean surface waters, etc. There is another, principal reason—solar activity and luminosity. The greater they are the warmer is our climate.
In the 70s we were worried about Global Cooling. In the 80s we were worried about our hair. In the 90s we were worried about Clinton. In the 00s we’re worried about Global Warming. So I figure we’ll be worrying about bad fashion in the teens, some president in thr 20s, and Global Cooling again in the 30s. It’s all happened before, and it will all happen again. Life is cyclical, maybe the environment is too.
In the scientific literature on climate, Sorokhtin isn’t worth a nod. He’s been putting out this PR for the last year in the runup to the publication of his book – $160 a copy!
There’s a matching copper bracelet that cures cancer, impotence, flatulence – and being too short.
I have always thought that the Nobel prize should go to people who set a example of good to other people. Creating cures for diseases, peace maker’s, explorers. Al Gore seems to me is making a assumption based on some evidence of global warming that it is caused by human’s. But many scientist have concluded that the world has gone through these warming cycles before man could affect them? I am all for conserving our resources and protecting our air. Al Gore should be commended for encouraging these changes but getting a Nobel prize for it is a bit overboard!
This is the reason people don’t have a clue. Media gloms on to research from both sides as if it were verifiable fact. Theres simply a lot we still dont know, but people want black white, not “Im not sure.”
Its the same with nutrition. Eggs are bad! No eggs are good! Lower your cholesterol, well except for good cholesterol. Carbs are evil, Canola oil is really evil rapeseed oil, corn syrup makes our children fat! Sigh.
As with nutrition, moderation is the key. Whether there is a global climate crisis or not, efficiency and clean processes are better. We needn’t live in caves and gather berries, but we don’t want to shit where we eat either (in a planetary sense).
Weather is chaotic (in the mathematical sense) and always has been. That’s why the weather is so hard to predict. Climactic changes are also chaotic. I’ve been around for awhile, and lived through the cold weather in the 60s through 80s, as well as the hotter weather in the 90s and the early 2000s. This winter seems to be colder than usual. Unfortunately, it’s hard to tell what the future climate will be like, based on the current weather. So keep both winter clothing and summer clothing in your closet…
Hint–We really are slowly using up the oil available, so buy high mileage vehicles instead of the giant gas sucking SUVs. Your wallet will thank you.
Yes, but not because of anything our environment is doing. Al Gore’s Nobel is unwarranted because he doesn’t “walk the walk.” on fighting climate change.
And by “walk the walk” I mean:
You “upgrade” your mansion to renewable power BEFORE you get crucified in the press. Actually, you don’t buy a mansion in the first place. You don’t by “carbon credits” (especially from yourself) you ACTUALLY REDUCE YOUR OWN CARBON FOOTPRINT. One way you could do this? Travel coach, instead of jetting around on your own plane. Actually, you travel on a biodiesel-powered bus instead. (assuming you have a big enough entourage to fill a bus)
“Do as I say, not as I do,” just doesn’t cut it when you’re trying to encourage people to take action.
No one deserves the Nobel more that Al Gore. He now stands in the same light as Arafat the infamous terrorist & bugger of boys, and Carter the worst president in US history. Yes, algore deserves what the tainted Nobel has come to represent.
NO! You mean mankind might not be evil – it’s just a natural cycle? Tell me it’s not so?
#7 – Good point. Mostly not winning the Nobel is a good thing.
On the other hand maybe Algore should win a Nobel prize, but in economics. When you look at it, he’s the ultimate capitalist. Look at the carbon credits he buys from his own company. He literally created a whole new market that he will now make millions (billions?) from. You have to be impressed with that.
Quote from the linked story:
“The authors and enthusiasts of the Kyoto Protocol based their assumptions on an erroneous idea. As a result, developed countries waste huge amounts of money to fight industrial pollution of the atmosphere. What if it is a Don Quixote’s duel with the windmill?”
Al Gore is our modern day Don Quixote. It’s a shame that the Nobel committee uses it’s $1M prize to advance misguided causes.
Gore can’t be wrong, they already gave him his Nobel.
I’m not sure if the 17th century thing is correct, as all the data I’ve seen point to the current warming cycle starting in the late 19th century (although, still before the industrial revolution).
The earth is warming. Despite if you believe it’s a result of human activity or not (I’m in the natural cycle camp), cleaning up the environment is still a GOOD thing. I agree though. I don’t believe a PEACE prize was warranted if you read Nobel’s original desire for the prize.
What a bunch of wannabe crybabies.
Crying because the Secret Service insisted that Gore’s residence have a certain amount of security measures. Yup, must be algore’s fault.
Crying because in the ’70s we worried about going through a cold cycle. NO !!! We worried about acid rain, unbridled dumping of toxins, Love Canal, and increasing frequencies of asthma.
Crying because in the ’80s we worried about losing our hair. Only the stupid and blind did that. The rest of us worried about a nuclear winter. We also worried about losing our jobs to foreigners.
Crying once again about the Clintons. Nope. Most of us were glad we had Bill in the White House. As that decade wore down many of us worried about jobs staying in America.
Yes, that nasty Nobel prize is to blame. They only give it to unworthy people like Arafat and Jimmy Carter. Carter was a decent man and a good President. Arafat was a leader of his people that happened to be opposed to oppression by America’s ally. Coincidently, Begin also got a share of that Nobel Peace Prize and his country was responsible for the overt oppression.
Are all you armpits paid for by the oil industry? So far not one of you even knew what the prize was !!!None of you have your facts straight so far and only one has advanced any argument of why Gore doesn’t deserve the Nobel Peace Prize.
Morans.
People like #12 fail at life. If he can’t walk the walk, he should at least say so when talking the talk. He didn’t, nor is he trying to find cleaner ways to meet the requirements you list.
Further, as previously noted, his winning the Nobel prize is just a (meaningless) jab by the international community at the current administration. To think anything otherwise is folly.
Likewise, to not recognize that the climate argument is cyclical is to admit a lack of understanding on the subject. That’s not to say it doesn’t exist (because most of the left leaning minds around here can’t handle that debate), it’s only to say the debate isn’t as solid on either side as some would like it to be.
#12
Sorry, but us “morons” didn’t know that we were writing a report for Mr. CS.
Shall we take a hundred lines?
By the way Carter was so bad they had to create the misery index to measure it all.
#7
Ok bright boy, why was Carter the WORST president,
even over Nixon, Harrison, Harding, Hoover, A. Johnson, Grant and Coolidge?
Let’s hear it.
Cursor_
I, myself, produce heat, personally and each time I use a car, computer or thermostat. This heat has to go somewhere and there are more and more people all the time. This isn’t rocket science folks, and you don’t have to be a genius to see that people are seriously effecting the world we live in.
The real shame is in how much denial and irresponsibility is also being produced.
Personally, I doubt we have what it takes to pull the fat from the fire, so to speak.
I think the whole global warming issue is a very example of how difficult important subjects are to understand by the general public–ie, all of us.
Global Warming, its causes, corrections, the timing of its effects. All highly conjectural and multi-faceted. Facts enough for anyone to “believe” whatever they want to, regardless of scientific consensus. Amen!
Still, I have to wonder if the quoted scientist was the source for this or if it was added by the reporter: “Carbon dioxide cannot be bad for the climate. On the contrary, it is food for plants, and so is beneficial to life on Earth. Bearing out this point was the Green Revolution—the phenomenal global increase in farm yields in the mid-20th century. Numerous experiments also prove a direct proportion between harvest and carbon dioxide concentration in the air.”
With logic this abhorrently bad, can any other statement in the article be taken as true?
What is the saying? A healthy state is a state at war. The republicans have the war on terror and democrats have global warming. Both parties need the citizens to depend on them. God forbid we actually take responsibility for our own actions. The whole global warming thing is so silly. The whole Rush Limbaugh mindset is just as silly, “Well, the earth will get warmer anyway so who cares about pollution.” Do you urinate in your own drinking water? I mean come on people stop letting the nanny state work you in a hissy fit. Stop thinking that you need big brother to clean up your air and water.
Okay rant over.
http://tinyurl.com/2sumlq
#12 – Sorry to enlighten you, but Carter is a decent man who also happened to be disastrous to the point of embarrassment as president.
#16, all that is correct but you forgot about wast size difference. Your (and all humans combined) heating output is “microbial sized” compared to the Sun. And, just few years ago we who deal with the Sun activity needed literally new scales to describe what the Sun have started to produce. And not in the terms of adding few percents to the scale but the orders of magnitude. From that experience I tend to see some truth in this article.
I am personally much more worried about the chemical pollution where even the very small amounts of the pollutants are deadly. Ex. Minamata. Consequences (and solutions) for these problems are usually very local in nature. Al Gore effect unfortunately turned our attention away from these and attached it (I think wrongly) just to the carbon and just to the (likely natural) warming.
This guy is proposing his OPINION, not scientific facts.
As we know, hothouse gases, in particular, nitrogen peroxide, warm up the atmosphere by keeping heat close to the ground.
Actually, nitrogen peroxide is more commonly referred to as nitrogen DIoxide. It is not commonly thought of as a Green House gas but a pollutant because 1) it readily mixes with water to form acid rain; 2) it is a ground level pollutant, originating mostly from internal combustion engines (cars) and coal generating stations that seldom reaches the higher atmosphere; 3) it is a bronchial / lung irritant; 4) it is detrimental to plant growth.
The authors and enthusiasts of the Kyoto Protocol based their assumptions on an erroneous idea. As a result, developed countries waste huge amounts of money to fight industrial pollution of the atmosphere.
The vast majority of scientists are in agreement that green house gases are causing the earth to warm. It is not only the global warming though, it is also the effect that atmospheric pollution has on humans, their health, and the health of the planet. So even if (and I am only making an argument, not an admission) pollution were not a green house gas, it should still be stopped as a health hazard.
Hothouse gases may not be to blame for global warming. At any rate, there is no scientific evidence to their guilt.
There is a lot more evidence that mankind has been dumping massive amounts of green house gases than there is to the contrary. To suggest there is NO scientific evidence is totally over the edge.
For instance, heat is not so much radiated in space as carried by air currents—an entirely different mechanism, which cannot cause global warming.
Well I guess that destroys a few laws of physics. If heat is not radiated into space, then the continual buildup on the earth would have us at approximately the same temperature as the center of the universe during the big bang.
Last night was quite cold outside, around 0 F. There was no wind, hence no air currents. There was also no cloud cover. Where did all that heat from the daytime high of 25 F go? Maybe there are air currents in outer space.
Carbon dioxide has quite a different pernicious influence—not on the climate but on synoptic activity. It absorbs infrared radiation. …
So now he admits CO2 absorbs heat (radiation). This prevents the heat from escaping the earth’s atmosphere and hence, we end up with global warming.
…Hence we get hurricanes, storms, tornados [sic] and other natural disasters, whose intensity largely depends on carbon dioxide concentration.
Say what ??? I’m sure this is news to all those who have studied meteorology. Since CO2 concentrations are usually less than 0.1% we should expect a lot of tornadoes around areas of higher concentrations such as urban areas. Unfortunately for this author, tornadoes show no preference between rural or urban areas, preferring instead moist warm air meeting cool dry air.
Earth is unlikely to ever face a temperature disaster.
Oh, so when the author mentioned Antarctic ice cores showing higher amounts of CO2 during excessive warm periods he was wrong? I guess the earth never had a catastrophic period when the whole earth froze or the earth’s temperature rose above that supporting life on land.
The opinions expressed in this article are the author’s and do not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti.
At least the magazine recognizes this is an opinion piece and not a authoritative article.
i just like to point out that al gore doesn’t say we are going through global warming. he says,(and he’s right), that we are going through climate change. it includes both the warming of some regions and the cooling of others.
Umm, regardless of this latest report, as McCain said in an Iowa debate,~If we are wrong about human caused global warming, the worst thing of doing something is cleaner air for our children.
I am all for reducing the use of burning stuff, especially oil.
I agree that astrophysicists are real scientists. They have real data. Their data on cosmic rays or increased solar radiation or whatever they call it this week is very real.
However, based on the reading I’ve done when others have shown me exactly this sort of thing before, the increase in solar radiation that is also warming Mars and probably Venus at the moment, is enough to account for between 5 and 15% of the global warming we’ve been seeing, according to 3 different peer reviewed publications I saw. One peer reviewed publication I read said between 5 and 30% of the global warming. Even at the high end of the most extreme paper, that leaves us responsible for the other 70%.
Astrophysicists do really good work. I don’t want to belittle any of it. However, climate science is an incredibly complex field taking data from many sciences and combining it with a modeling of Earth’s particularly complex climate, which, unlike Mars and Venus, also throws life into the equation. In short, while I really do respect astrophysicists, they are NOT climate scientists.
It is probably true that we are coming out of a warm period in the Milankovich cycles. However, we are so massively overpowering the Milankovich cycles at this point that this is unlikely to be much help to us.
Consider this:
Due to the higher albedo of Venus, despite its shorter distance to the sun, less sunlight actually gets through to the surface of Venus than gets through to the surface of Earth. Venus absorbs just 25% of the sunlight that hits it; Earth absorbs 70% of its sunlight.
Without the effects of greenhouse gases the average temperature of the surfaces of the two planets would be Earth: -18 celcius Venus: -41 celcius. With greenhouse gases, especially CO2 in the case of Venus, the average temperatures on the surface of these planets are Earth: +15 celcius and Venus: +430 celcius.
So, if CO2 is enough to cause Venus to go from -41 celcius to +430 celcius, I think it is incredibly obvious that doubling our CO2 will cause severe global warming. Does anyone really see it otherwise? If so, how?
These numbers were taken from the climate science text book ‘Is the Temperature Rising? The Uncertain Science of Global Warming’ by S. George Philander.
Oh, and one more point. It is a Nobel Peace prize. I agree that this was tainted when Arafat got one after claiming credit for blowing up school buses.
However, the prize is intended to go to people that increase peace on the planet. Since wars such as Darfur are already being caused, at least partly, possibly as the major cause, by global warming, spreading the word about this enormous and real environmental problem is a valid reason to get the prize.
http://tinyurl.com/26vy55
#12 – Mr. Catshit,
Well said.
#14 – PJ,
The correct term is indeed moran. Here’s a pic of the guy who coined the term, sort of.
I want to know how the presidential candidates are going to reduce our CO2 (but not Methane) emissions by 80%, as some have claimed, by 2050.
I’d expect the result of this policy would be that the only post-2050 users of coal might be the steel-making industry. We’d have to be have 100% of our power come from nuclear, solar, hydro, and wind (NSHW).
I also expect the result of this policy will be: In the Northern US, no heat in the winter months; and in the Southern US, no air conditioning in the summer months. That is unless we increase the electrical-power generation capacity significantly. Remembering that NSHW capacity will first have to replace all the pre-existing coal, oil, natural gas power generation plants first.
Pedro, your use of euphemism is so annoying that I will forever skip over your posts without reading them. IMS other(s) have stated something similar.
Put up a poll ranking the presidents since Johnson! From good to bad my list is: Nixon, G. H. W. Bush, Clinton, Ford, Carter/Regan (tie), G. W. Bush.
#29 – Dorksters,
Apparently, you are unaware that GHWB doubled the national debt in just 4 years. From bad to worst (since I think none were really good), I’d rank them:
Ford (just ’cause he wasn’t in long enough to screw up anything), Clinton, Carter, Nixon, GHW Bush, Reagan (destroyer of the middle class and inventor of gush-up-economics), W (commander in chief of the largest nuclear arsenal in the world and can’t even say the word nuclear).
Here’s another reason to reduce CO2 emissions.
http://tinyurl.com/2k9fba