Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Another scientist who rejects the consensus
Posted by: McQ on Thursday, March 01, 2007

From National Geographic (link):
Simultaneous warming on Earth and Mars suggests that our planet's recent climate changes have a natural—and not a human-induced—cause, according to one scientist's controversial theory.

Earth is currently experiencing rapid warming, which the vast majority of climate scientists says is due to humans pumping huge amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

Mars, too, appears to be enjoying more mild and balmy temperatures.

In 2005 data from NASA's Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the carbon dioxide "ice caps" near Mars's south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row.

Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of the St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun.

"The long-term increase in solar irradiance is heating both Earth and Mars," he said.

Abdussamatov believes that changes in the sun's heat output can account for almost all the climate changes we see on both planets.

Mars and Earth, for instance, have experienced periodic ice ages throughout their histories.

"Man-made greenhouse warming has made a small contribution to the warming seen on Earth in recent years, but it cannot compete with the increase in solar irradiance," Abdussamatov said.
Heretic.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
Thank the Jesus for these wily, maverick scientists, unconstrained by the big picture.
 
Written By: pangloss
URL: http://
Simultaneous warming on Earth and Mars ...

Holy Cow !! Man has managed to ruin Mars too.

With just a handful of scientific probes, NASA has managed to screw up an entire planet.

That’s the ticket. ... and my wife is Morgan Fairchild.
 
Written By: Neo
URL: http://
Thank the Jesus for these wily, maverick scientists, unconstrained by the big picture.
Oh, I see ... it’s dust storms.

Heh ...

Yet from the very same article:
Since Mars has no oceans and a thin atmosphere, the thermal inertia is low, and Martian climate is easily perturbed by external influences, including solar variations.
But it couldn’t possibly be that. I must be the dust storms.

Funny stuff.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
With just a handful of scientific probes, NASA has managed to screw up an entire planet.
It’s the Martian SUV Rover.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
And in other news, we can combat global warming by having a relatively contained regional nuclear conflict. Maybe we can help our neighbor with their problem and nuke Mars while we’re at it.
 
Written By: pangloss
URL: http://
So what’s causing the dust storms? Massive amounts of moving wind? What drives wind? Temperature differential.
 
Written By: Mark A. Flacy
URL: http://
according to one scientist’s controversial theory
Funny how this is characterized as ’controversial’... umm, both planets are getting warmer. Statement. One I believe has been proven true. Talk about an ’inconvenient truth’.
 
Written By: meagain
URL: http://
Temperature differential.

What drives temperature differential? It’s simple, really. It’s fluctuations in the Sun’s radiative force. Oh, and annual orbital and diurnal rotational motion, precession, surface and atmospheric reflectivity, tidal forcing from two moons, orbital eccentricity, and... See? simple!
 
Written By: pangloss
URL: http://
And in other news, we can combat global warming by having a relatively contained regional nuclear conflict.
So I understand it’s non-linear, but my math shows they’re talking about 1.5Mt worth of power triggering nuclear winter.

Yet the 1980 eruption of Mt. St. Helens (24Mt+) couldn’t do it.

Ummm....
 
Written By: Ryan
URL: http://
What drives temperature differential? It’s simple, really. It’s fluctuations in the Sun’s radiative force. Oh, and annual orbital and diurnal rotational motion, precession, surface and atmospheric reflectivity, tidal forcing from two moons, orbital eccentricity, and... See? simple!
And ours is driven by CO2. See? Simple minded!
 
Written By: Mark A. Flacy
URL: http://
Yet the 1980 eruption of Mt. St. Helens (24Mt+) couldn’t do it.
You missed that "particulates from a volcanic eruption, which stay in the lower atmosphere and last only about a year..."
And ours is driven by CO2. See? Simple minded!
Simple minded, indeed. Yes, the results of two decades of peer reviewed research from scientists all over the globe is perfectly comparable to the ranting of one random astronomer quoted in a National Geographic article. But he said what you want to hear, so he’s gotta be right. It’s simple, really. He said so. I feel better already.
 
Written By: pangloss
URL: http://
Mark is hitting the point: all those things on Mars have combined to warm the planet at the same time human-produced carbon dioxide is warming up earth. Quite a confluence of unrelated events, isn’t it?

Where’s Occam when I need his razor?
 
Written By: steverino
URL: http://steverino.journalspace.com/
pangloss,

Why is the argument that its always one random scientist?

That is just not true. We heare all the time about that one "crazy" sceptic.

Are you sure that there is not more than one out there?
 
Written By: OdysseusInRTP
URL: http://
Where’s Occam when I need his razor?
Careful with that thing! You’re supposed to hold the handle, not the blade.

Let’s review: Observations in 2005 showed that one portion of one Martian polar ice sheet had thinned and receded. That implicates local warming (or a local decrease in condensate), not global warming. The Martian climate has much higher variability than Earth’s, and extrapolating from a single proxy produces even less reliable results there than it would when trying to do the same thing here. To wit, there is no evidence of global climate change on Mars.
Why is the argument that its always one random scientist?
Because science is a process of review and refinement of knowledge by similarly skilled peers. Any one person, crazy or not, can contribute, but their research methodologies and the means through which they reached their conclusions are subject to the scrutiny of their peers. If that scrutiny reveals serious flaws in either aspect, the conclusions do not get accepted into the canon of scientific research.

It wouldn’t really matter if a hundred scientists said Mars was undergoing global warming if they had all reached that conclusion using flawed methods. Bad methods are still bad methods, no matter how many times they’re repeated. The reason I cited that this is only one person making this statement is to display that this looks like his off-the-cuff opinion, not a scientific conclusion. There’s no published research cited, no network of peers who have reviewed his conclusions.
 
Written By: pangloss
URL: http://

Because science is a process of review and refinement of knowledge by similarly skilled peers. Any one person, crazy or not, can contribute, but their research methodologies and the means through which they reached their conclusions are subject to the scrutiny of their peers. If that scrutiny reveals serious flaws in either aspect, the conclusions do not get accepted into the canon of scientific research.
So you are saying that it is good that the sceptics are trying to point out the many flaws and maybe even offer other explantions that might make more sense?

It wouldn’t really matter if a hundred scientists said Mars was undergoing global warming if they had all reached that conclusion using flawed methods. Bad methods are still bad methods, no matter how many times they’re repeated. The reason I cited that this is only one person making this statement is to display that this looks like his off-the-cuff opinion, not a scientific conclusion. There’s no published research cited, no network of peers who have reviewed his conclusions.
Your logic in the 2nd quote looks awfully convenient when compared to the first quote. Consensus is relevant, except when it is wrong. I am confused. Is the one (hundreds) voice crying out relevant if the "consensus" is wrong?

Nor would it matter if 100 scientists said that the earth is experiencing AGW if CO2 is not the driving force and since I have yet to see any convincing data or experiment that CO2 is a more signficant force than solar irradiance, I’ll continue to be sceptical.

Where were you when Galileo needed you?

Here take my quiz:

1) Richard Branson and Al Gore are offering a 25 million dollar prize for anyone who can develop a method for extracting CO2 from the atmosphere. If this device is developed how much CO2 should we remove? Choose any number between 1 and 100%

Answer: About 3%. 97% of CO2 is natural and 3% is man-made.

2) What overall percent of the atmosphere is man-made CO2?

Answer: About 0.001 to 0.002%

3) Will high concentrations of CO2 levels lead to runaway greenhouse effect?

Answer: Even though CO2 levels have been 7 to 20 times higher than now earth has never experienced runaway greenhouse effect that we know of.

4) Do increases in CO2 levels take place before or after temperature increases?

Answer: There is not a consistent trend. But most of the time CO2 levels increase after global temperatures increase. Not before.

5) In the last 10 years has the earth’s surface temperature increased, decreased or held steady?

Answer: Decreased.

6) In the last 10 years has the temperature’s in the stratosphere increased, decreased or held steady?

Answer: Decreased.

7) The UN (IPCC) released a report on projected global temperatures in 2001 and 2007. Was the maximum projected temperature in the 2007 report higher, lower or about the same as the 2001 report?

Answer: The maximum projected temperature in the 2007 report was 30% lower than the 2001.

8) Al Gore states that Polar Bears are at risk because of global warming. Has the world-wide Polar Bear population increased or decreased in the last 20 years?

Answer: Increased.

9) Bonus: In the last 10 years has phytoplankton increased, decreased or held steady?

Answer: Small increase.
 
Written By: OdysseusInRTP
URL: http://
Well, at least the astronomist is offering up a verifiable prediction:
Most scientists now fear that the massive amount of carbon dioxide humans are pumping into the air will lead to a catastrophic rise in Earth’s temperatures, dramatically raising sea levels as glaciers melt and leading to extreme weather worldwide.

Abdussamatov remains contrarian, however, suggesting that the sun holds something quite different in store.

"The solar irradiance began to drop in the 1990s, and a minimum will be reached by approximately 2040," Abdussamatov said. "It will cause a steep cooling of the climate on Earth in 15 to 20 years."
If we view a global cooling over the next decade or two, will the current "consensus" be questioned?
 
Written By: CNH
URL: http://
OdysseusInRTP:

Could you do me a favor and provide citations for the answers to the questions you posed and the answers you provided. I am not calling you out but many of your answers defy the current "politically correct" logic, especially for numbers 5 and 6.

Personally, I have a problem with "Jolly Green Gore" and his Holy Church of Global Warming and those who predict with such certainty the state of the climate in 100 years when they cannot reliably tell you whether it will rain in Podunk Texas next Tuesday.
 
Written By: SShiell
URL: http://
Let’s review: Observations in 2005 showed that one portion of one Martian polar ice sheet had thinned and receded. That implicates local warming (or a local decrease in condensate), not global warming.
The same can be said about the observed warming of the Earth, it is not uniform.
It wouldn’t really matter if a hundred scientists said Mars was undergoing global warming if they had all reached that conclusion using flawed methods. Bad methods are still bad methods, no matter how many times they’re repeated.
you mean like all those worthless climate change models that cannot even reproduce actual historic temperatures, yet are cited as a basis for AGW?
 
Written By: kyle N
URL: http://impudent.blognation.us/blog
If we view a global cooling over the next decade or two, will the current "consensus" be questioned?
Don’t worry they got that one covered. They will say that the cooling proves global warming because it was caused, not by the sun, but by changes in the flow of the gulf stream.
 
Written By: kyle N
URL: http://impudent.blognation.us/blog
No problem. I was surpised also. Especially, by the phytoplankton levels. I thought for sure it was decreasing because that is what someone who "knew" told me.

Here is the earth’s temperature index adjusted for seasonal resolution. (FYI, we can adjust it other ways to show an increasing temperature. Take your pick.)

http://data.giss.nasa.gov

From the data you can see the last 10 years the trend is either downward or steady... depending on exactly where you start analyzing the data. You can pick a point in the data and show an increase and I can pick another one to show a decrease. We could go on like that for atleast 2000 years.

What’s difficult for me to understand... As CO2 levels skyrocket why is there any signs of a downward or steady trend. One would expect that if man-made production of CO2 is driving global warming that earth’s temperature should increase as it increases. But that doesn’t appear to be the case.

This page shows both a statosphere cooling and troposphere cooling during the last 10 years.

http://www.ghcc.msfc.nasa.gov

 
Written By: OdysseusInRTP
URL: http://
So you are saying that it is good that the sceptics are trying to point out the many flaws and maybe even offer other explantions that might make more sense?
Yes, I think it’s an integral part of scientific inquiry. Falsifiability is the essence of science. That said, I look forward to seeing a refutation such as Abdussamatov’s published in an actual scientific journal rather than as a speculative opinion in a lay magazine known primarily for its beautiful photography.
Your logic in the 2nd quote looks awfully convenient when compared to the first quote. Consensus is relevant, except when it is wrong.
Since when is a hundred scientists a consensus? There are tens of thousands of published scientists in the world.
Here take my quiz:
Your line of inquiry seems very confused. Some of the questions (and spurious answers) seem to say that the Earth is not getting warmer at all. Have fun with that. You and that august scientific institution, the AEI, appear to be the only voices contending for the validity of the specific method of cherry picking data to produce that conclusion. Even the guy quoted in the above article argues that the Earth is getting warmer, he simply disputes the cause. Which is it? Is the Earth not getting warmer, or is it getting warmer through some non-human agency?

Other questions rely on miscontructions or red herrings, like implying that because the recent IPCC policy summary has a reduced maximum temperature increase is an indicator that it’s predictions can’t be trusted whatsoever instead of drawing the conclusion that it’s representations have gotten more accurate.
 
Written By: pangloss
URL: http://
You and that august scientific institution, the AEI, appear to be the only voices contending for the validity of the specific method of cherry picking data to produce that conclusion
Oh I see all kinds of cherry picking, and my views are in the consensus, even though I am less impressed with myself for being so than many. Real Climate (which is out of the consensus) cherry picks on a regular basis, but I’ll just give you a few examples at this link.

Speaking of cherry picking you misrepresent AEI as well. While far from the likes of Hansen on some issues thy do believe that it is likely that CO2 has a warming effect and that the world has been getting warmer. They are less certain about conclusions than you are, but they do not deny them. Here is what they do believe.

Criticize it if you want, but you should at minimum be accurate in characterizing their positions. Notice they advocate carbon taxes and adaptive measures, which means they do see it as an issue. Unfortunately the self appointed spokesmen for the consensus (who generally, such as Gore and Hansen, are out of the consensus) don’t want to allow the consensus to be anything but alarmist and endorse their preferred policy’s.
 
Written By: Lance
URL: http://asecondhandconjecture.com
you misrepresent AEI as well.
I hope the AEI accepts my apologies for misrepresenting their position. And it seems like even their alum, the Dark Lord, himself, now acknowledges at least the scientific consensus that the world is getting warmer.

My bad.
 
Written By: pangloss
URL: http://

Some of the questions (and spurious answers) seem to say that the Earth is not getting warmer at all. Have fun with that"
The problem with that statement is that I never said that. Please identify where I made that claim. I only pointed out conclusions that could be drawn from the last 10 years. But I am also noticing that you didn’t provide any data that would contradict the answers on my quiz.

If you had bothered to ask, I would have told you that I think the data indicates plantetary warming. I’m just not convinced it is anthropogenic.

I even took the time to say:

What’s difficult for me to understand... As CO2 levels skyrocket why is there any signs of a downward or steady trend. One would expect that if man-made production of CO2 is driving global warming that earth’s temperature should increase as it increases. But that doesn’t appear to be the case.
The point about the IPCC conclusions is that in 5 short years they have changed by 30%. I can only imagine how people would react to a 30% correction in the market. But AGW proponents don’t even bat an eyelash at that number.


 
Written By: OdysseusInRTP
URL: http://
Forgive me if I misunderstood where you were headed with Q/A items like:

5) In the last 10 years has the earth’s surface temperature increased, decreased or held steady?

Answer: Decreased.

6) In the last 10 years has the temperature’s in the stratosphere increased, decreased or held steady?

Answer: Decreased.
I can’t divine what else you might have been hinting at if not trying to assert that the Earth is actually cooling.
I can only imagine how people would react to a 30% correction in the market.
That’s apples to kumquats... We’re talking about rates of change, not quantities. Apples to apples would state: I can only imagine how people would react to a 30% decrease in the projected market growth. In terms of market, a 30% shift of the projected delta is a trifle and it happens all the time. Heck, companies often project profits at the beginning of a quarter and end up showing losses, representing over 100% correction!
 
Written By: pangloss
URL: http://
I guess you missed this comment I made:

From the data you can see the last 10 years the trend is either downward or steady... depending on exactly where you start analyzing the data. You can pick a point in the data and show an increase and I can pick another one to show a decrease. We could go on like that for atleast 2000 years.

That’s apples to kumquats...
Hmm... no matter how you slice your fruit, 30% is a fairly large margin of error.
 
Written By: OdysseusInRTP
URL: http://
I guess you missed this comment I made:
Actually, I didn’t miss that. But I’m having trouble imagining how you can square this:
From the data you can see the last 10 years the trend is either downward or steady... depending on exactly where you start analyzing the data.
with this:
If you had bothered to ask, I would have told you that I think the data indicates plantetary warming.
If you think it’s all arbitrary and depends on which totally random point at which you decide to start counting, why do you actually think the Earth is warming? Likewise, if you think you can’t actually legitimately start counting at just any point, why do you present an argument premised on the notion that you can?

Based on what you’ve stated, you’re either being superstitious in thinking — converse to the facts at hand — that the Earth is warming... or for some reason you’re misrepresenting the understanding you do have in order to make an argument you don’t actually believe.

Which is it, superstition or distortion?
 
Written By: pangloss
URL: http://
I was the one who asked for the qualifications for the answers Odysseus provided. Is Terra warming? From all the evidence, it appears so. What is causing it? Probably a myriad of factors and one of them probably is greenhouse gases generated by man.

The next question is "What can we do about it?" The answer is a whole lot of things from standing idly by and watching it happen all the way to shutting down society as we know it and taking ourselves back to the stone age and in the process condemn about 5 billion humans to slow death by starvation because stone age technology, while probably being close to carbon neutral, will not feed many people.

For me there are two questions that still have not been answered. The first is, "Are the projected major negative effects really going to happen as the result of continued warming?" I see a lot of gloom and doom but I am not sure if this is another one of those chicken little scares or the real deal. Have the IPCC conclusions changed by 30% in 5 years because of better data or because the conditions have changed by 30%. We haven’t done anything that would cause this downturn, have we? And what if they downturn another 30% in the next five years? Again, without any significant actions on our part to cause such a downturn. Once again, better data?

The second question is, "Is there anything we can do that would significantly reverse the effect and avoid or deter the potential major negative effects of warming?" In other words, can we realistically do anything that can reverse the trend? I don’t like the idea of destroying our economy only to find the effect on warming is minimal. I also do not like the idea of destroying our economy only to find the dire consequences would not have been the result, warming or not.

That is where the issue is at this point IMHO and if you want to blindly follow the pied piper of gloom and doom down that path, knock yourself out. I for one do not believe in knee jerk reactions and need answers to those questions before I am swayed by any "concensus"!
 
Written By: SShiell
URL: http://

If you think it’s all arbitrary and depends on which totally random point at which you decide to start counting, why do you actually think the Earth is warming? Likewise, if you think you can’t actually legitimately start counting at just any point, why do you present an argument premised on the notion that you can?
I don’t think its arbitrary, I think it is natural. I think we can all agree that the earth goes through these types of cycles. It warms up and then it cools off... over and over again. Heck, I am not even arguing that we are adding 3% more CO2 to the atmosphere. I’m owning up to the fact that we are altering 0.002% of our atmosphere I think we can all agree that we are.

I didn’t say that you can’t "actually legitimately start counting at just any point." My intention is to point out the cycles the planet goes through, regardless of human activity.

I’m not really presenting any argument. All I did was point out how easy it is to get the data to say what you want. If you could stop trying to argue for a minute you could easily accept the fact that I think it is warming and we could focus on the real difference of opinion... I’m just not convinced that man-made CO2 is the driver for global warming.

And that is why I point out how the data can be manipulated. The data can be used to show that as man has added more CO2 there is not a consistent trend of warming with the addition. An overall trend in the warming does not mean it is tracking with the CO2.

SS,

Probably a myriad of factors and one of them probably is greenhouse gases generated by man.

The next question is "What can we do about it?"
First of all, I am in almost complete agreement with you, except I don’t think that is the next question. For me, the next question is how much affect man is really having? I don’t think that question has been answered well enough. There are still too many unknowns to accept AGW.

If we proceed on the assumption we are at fault we could do more harm by fixing a problem that we aren’t causing?

I’m still not convinced global warming is bad. We know it won’t be like Al Gore’s movie. It will be gradual. If man is causing it then maybe we should have to deal with our decisions.


 
Written By: OdysseusInRTP
URL: http://
For me, the next question is how much affect man is really having? I don’t think that question has been answered well enough. There are still too many unknowns to accept AGW.
Actually throw in a question right after that as well. Whatever amount is caused by man, it is quite clear that a large percentage, and some of the most comprehensive science, being done by those who believe in AGW is that CO2 may not be the dominant factor. They stress land use changes and other aspects. They put the influence if CO2 at 30% or less of the change so far. If so, that has very different policy implications. These are not deniers, and many worked on the IPCC report.
 
Written By: Lance
URL: http://www.asecondhandconjecture.com
"I’m still not convinced global warming is bad."

I agree. Could warming more land available for crop production? Could warming increase the growing season in areas like Canada and Alaska?

On the reverse side, could warming add to dessertification (sp) of areas in North Africa and Central Asia? How much arable land would really be lost because of rising sea waters?

I would say the possible upside is greater with warming than if there were a general cooling. Imagine the loss of arable lands, the shortening of growing seasons, the cooling of the oceans and the resultant effects on fish populations from a coming ice age. A look at history and the short terms results diretly following major volcanic eruptions caused in some cases famine through large areas of the world during a time of far less population pressure than now.
 
Written By: SShiell
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider