New book talk about Global Warming

[Midnight Mike]

Two New Books Confirm Global Warming is Natural; Not Caused By Human Activity
Tue Jan 30 2007 10:02:32 ET

Two powerful new books say today’s global warming is due not to human activity but primarily to a long, moderate solar-linked cycle. Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1500 Years, by physicist Fred Singer and economist Dennis Avery was released just before Christmas. The Chilling Stars: A New Theory of Climate Change, by Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark and former BBC science writer Nigel Calder (Icon Books), is due out in March.

Singer and Avery note that most of the earth’s recent warming occurred before 1940, and thus before much human-emitted CO2. Moreover, physical evidence shows 600 moderate warmings in the earth’s last million years. The evidence ranges from ancient Nile flood records, Chinese court documents and Roman wine grapes to modern spectral analysis of polar ice cores, deep seabed sediments, and layered cave stalagmites.

Unstoppable Global Warming shows the earth’s temperatures following variations in solar intensity through centuries of sunspot records, and finds cycles of sun-linked isotopes in ice and tree rings. The book cites the work of Svensmark, who says cosmic rays vary the earth’s temperatures by creating more or fewer of the low, wet clouds that cool the earth. It notes that global climate models can’t accurately register cloud effects.

The Chilling Stars relates how Svensmark’s team mimicked the chemistry of earth’s atmosphere, by putting realistic mixtures of atmospheric gases into a large reaction chamber, with ultraviolet light as a stand-in for the sun. When they turned on the UV, microscopic droplets—cloud seeds—started floating through the chamber.

“We were amazed by the speed and efficiency with which the electrons [generated by cosmic rays] do their work of creating the building blocks for the cloud condensation nuclei,” says Svensmark.

The Chilling Stars documents how cosmic rays amplify small changes in the sun’s irradiance fourfold, creating 1-2 degree C cycles in earth’s temperatures: Cosmic rays continually slam into the earth’s atmosphere from outer space, creating ion clusters that become seeds for small droplets of water and sulfuric acid. The droplets then form the low, wet clouds that reflect solar energy back into space. When the sun is more active, it shields the earth from some of the rays, clouds wane, and the planet warms.

Unstoppable Global Warming documents the reality of a moderate, natural, 1500-year climate cycle on the earth. The Chilling Stars explains the why and how.

[Mellyrose]

Everyone explains what they want to explain and science backs up EVERYONE's theories. This is the other side of "An Inconvenient Truth." Just because it's newer, doesn't mean it's truer.

[nwafan20]

But Mel, Al Gore isn't a scientist, he is a politician. At least these guys are scientists.

[Mellyrose]

But Al Gore based his presentations on science. Please don't make me explain myself at this time of night. I wasn't even taking sides, just stating that no matter what the case, there's always something to "back it up."

[Matt Molnar]

But Mel, Al Gore isn't a scientist, he is a politician. At least these guys are scientists.

Umm, hello, he invented the INTERNET for chrisakes! Isn't that worth ANYTHING?

[mirrodie]

But Al Gore based his presentations on science.

Good observation Mel. It's not like he pulled it out of his ass.

I wonder what the response would have been had it been a Republican who took a stance and present that Inconvenient Truth video. :roll:

[USAF Pilot 07]

I wouldn't put much faith in Al Gore's claims, regardless of where he says he draws his "scientific data" from.
I would much rather have a scientist or a well respected expert in climatology who has been studying the field for years, present an explanation in an unbiased, "politically sanitized" document; preferably in a journal or some other scholarly document.

None of us are experts on the field of climatology, and with the exception of maybe one or two people, have never studied it. Personally, I think any mention of some of the facts presented in Al Gore's movie, to try and provide "evidence" in a discussion on global warming is totally irresponsible (sorry lack of a better word at this time of night :x ). It would be like using Fahrenheit 9/11 as the primary source for political facts. While there are certainly some truths behind all the "spin", the ultimate goal of the movie is to convince the viewer to adopt and/or give credibility to a certain viewpoint or belief. As such, the facts and information presented are not going to show the whole picture, and are going to be presented in a way to leave little room for thought about the "other side".

Getting back to the global warming issue... I posted a long post on it in a thread a while back... From my previous post:


Let's not forget that our Earth and her atmosphere are MILLIONS of years old!

Looking at our climate over the past hundred years is USELESS in determining whether or not increased global warming due to human "interaction" is occuring.

Major Climate changes occur over thousands of years. While we may witness minor climate "fluctuations" over shorter periods of time, there will always be either a warming or cooling trend. There are several published journals that present charts of the Earth's mean temperature over the last 500,000 years! While the confidence in some of that data may not be as high as desired (for obvious reasons), it's not unreasonable to believe there is some validity behind the findings. If you take a look at these charts, you'll see that the Earth has generally experienced a SHARP rise in temperature over periods of 5,000 - 10,000 years, and then has gone through a slower cooling period lasting about 90,000 years.

Presently, it appears that we are coming out of one of the "cooling" periods, and thus it is normal to expect temperatures to rise.

So is global warming occuring? In short, yes. The Earth's mean temperature today is a lot warmer than it was 1,000 years ago. But, it isn't yet at the warmest it's ever been, nor is it far off from the climatological "average" during warming periods.

As for the greenhouse gases and stuff, it is normal to see an increase in these gases with the natural increase in temperature. A natural warming period is going to lead to warmer surface conditions (such as warmer water temperatures) which lead to a natural increase of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Humans have not caused global warming. But the biggest question is really "How have humans affected this natural global warming?" There is simply not enough evidence to suggest that we have affected the atmosphere in a way that is having an impact on our climate. We really cannot be sure either way, though.

Personally, I believe that we have affected our atmosphere due to the advances in technology we've seen in the past 100-200 years, but that the amount of which we have done so, has not yet had a significant impact on our climate. If we continue to output the stuff we do for the next thousand years, then I think we may begin to see the correlation between humans and increased global warming. But the technological advances we have made in just the past 30 years are a good sign of things to come. Who knows, maybe in 100 years we won't be outputting nearly any of the pollutants we currently do!

Also, regardless of what side of the issue you take, there really is no dispute that reducing emissions and cleaning up our atmosphere is in all of our best interests as it improves our quality of life, reduces the risk of certain diseases and makes our daily lives a little cleaner and more fresh!

[nwafan20]

Oh man! Totally forgot about the Internet! That makes him an expert in everything! :D

Mel, he has twisted "science" and "facts" to fit his view to convince people of his doomsday theory. Glaciers may be melting in some areas, but they are actually growing elsewhere. This is a cycle our earth has gone through hundreds, if not thousands of times. In the last 1 million years, we have had 600 warming cycles. Did the cavemen drive SUV's too?

I'm not attacking you Mel, just stating that Al Gore isn't really a reliable source, like I wouldn't use a quote from an Ann Coulter book to support my point (Not that I don't think she offers truthful information, it just isn't politically neutral) I also wouldn't really accept the global warming theory from most collage professors due to the fact that they usually have a liberal bias.

Ok, Matt will go to sleep now ;)

[Midnight Mike]

Everyone explains what they want to explain and science backs up EVERYONE's theories. This is the other side of "An Inconvenient Truth." Just because it's newer, doesn't mean it's truer.

True & I agree. What has me upset is how everybody is jumping onboard the Global Warming bandwagon without looking at all of the science that is out there.

Somehow the Al Gore movie became the bible to Global Warming.

In the movie, they use Hurrican Katrina as an example of Global Warming, that was entertainment & not science, Hurricane Katrina was a Class 3 Hurricane & not a super hurricane.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=jjS1nMCdHf4

Let's look at the planet, millions of year ago, parts of the planet that use to be artic-like is now desert like, & other parts of the planet that used to have tropic-like temperatures are now artic-like temperatures. This shows that the planet is ever changing.

We need to look at all of the available science to figure out if Global Warming is a long term or short event, & if it is due to the activity of mankind, or simply natural?

[Mellyrose]

I'll say it again. I wasn't taking sides. AT ALL. As a matter of fact (and this STILL isn't taking sides) I'm highly annoyed by the bandwagon of people who see "An Inconvenient Truth" and all of a sudden think that they're experts on global warming and the environment.

For those of you who still haven't paid attention. None of my posts in this thread exhibit my views, and quite frankly, I don't have the energy to share them here at this time. (Maybe I should switch to compact fluorescent bulbs to conserve some....then I'll be able to debate ;))

[T-Bird76]

Al Gore based his argument on science that he choose to agree with ignoring the fact the there's been warming cycles in the Earth's past. Core samples from the Earths crust show years of increased C02 levels with increased planetary temperature thousands of years before the first factory was even a dream. There also has been 100s of years of cool down periods with one ending as recent as the mid 20th century. There are no 100% conclusive truths to global warming and there won’t be for hundreds of years. A study of the last 150 years of industrial impact on this planet is ridiculous. 150 years in terms of the planetary life cycle is a nano second. I've resigned myself to the fact that after billions of years of being hit with cosmic radiation, asteroids, and volcanic eruption that human impact on this planet is like an annoying itch, it bothers you but won't harm you. Now don’t get me wrong where I think we should pump tons of Co2 into the air and other pollutants, I don’t think we should, not for the planets health but ours. This planet will cleanse itself; it has before, however we as carbon based life forms we aren’t as tolerant to the pollutants we are producing. The problem is all these arguments do not center on the effect on us but more so the planet. I think a change in philosophy has to take place if the mainstream is to take this issue seriously.

[Midnight Mike]

I'll say it again. I wasn't taking sides. AT ALL. As a matter of fact (and this STILL isn't taking sides) I'm highly annoyed by the bandwagon of people who see "An Inconvenient Truth" and all of a sudden think that they're experts on global warming and the environment.

For those of you who still haven't paid attention. None of my posts in this thread exhibit my views, and quite frankly, I don't have the energy to share them here at this time. (Maybe I should switch to compact fluorescent bulbs to conserve some....then I'll be able to debate ;))

Sorry Mel, if you felt that I was taking a shot at you, which I was not, like you, I am looking at both sides, & I find it, well, annoying, that people have taken a strong stance on side while ignoring the other...

[Mellyrose]

Mike, wasn't directing that specifically at you....no worries.

[Midnight Mike]

Well said Tommy!

We should do all possible to control our pollution outake, improve the science on solar panels, wind technology, & Nuclear Technology.

Yes, Nuclear Technology which has come a long way & would do wonders to get us away from Fossil Fuels....

[nwafan20]

I understand you weren't taking sides Mel, (I take it that comment was directed towards me), I was just sort of releasing my thoughts about Global Warming, which might have come out that I was attacking you.

Truth is I am kind of annoyed because my teacher called me out today in class to explain what I thought about global warming (he knew what I thought, he just wanted to put me on the spot)

After I explained it to the class, he ridiculed me in front of them because I didn't believe that the reason the earth is warming is because of human activity in the last 150 years.