The man-made global warming fear machine continues to collapse scientifically with new blockbuster peer-reviewed studies.
Climate Fears Debunked! - Arctic Warming Naturally Caused - Russian scientist urges 'stock up on fur coats' to face upcoming global cooling
January 3, 2008 – Round Up
1) Another new peer-reviewed study debunks man-made climate claims: see: Study finds natural causes for recent Arctic warming
Excerpt: A new study's found a natural cause may account for much of the recent dramatic thawing of the Arctic region in addition to man-made global warming. New research published in the journal Nature indicates a natural and cyclical increase in the amount of energy in the atmosphere that moves from south to north around the Arctic Circle .
http://www.livenews.com.au/Articles/2008/01/03/Study_finds_natural_causes_for_recent_Arctic_warming
Note: This studies follows two other peer-reviewed studies on the Arctic in 2007: 1) A NASA study published in the peer-reviewed journal Geophysical Research Letters on October 4, 2007, found “unusual winds” in the Arctic blew "older thicker" ice to warmer southern waters. (LINK) & 2) A November 2007 peer-reviewed study conducted by a team of NASA and university experts found cyclical changes in ocean currents impacting the Arctic . (LINK) – 3) Also for a detailed fact sheet debunking Greenland (cooled since 1940’s), Antarctica (ice growing to record levels in 2007) and the North Pole’s ice conditions, please see: (LINK)
2) Russian scientist urges 'stock up on fur coats' to face upcoming global cooling
(By Dr. Oleg Sorokhtin, (also translated to spell Sorochtin) Merited Scientist of Russia and fellow of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, is staff researcher of the Oceanology Institute. – Also featured in new U.S. Senate Report on over 400 scientists who dispute man-made global warming claims. See: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb
Link to Full Article by Sorochtin below:
Excerpt: 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.
Astrophysics knows two solar activity cycles, of 11 and 200 years. Both are caused by changes in the radius and area of the irradiating solar surface. The latest data, obtained by Habibullah Abdusamatov, head of the Pulkovo Observatory space research laboratory, say that Earth has passed the peak of its warmer period, and a fairly cold spell will set in quite soon, by 2012. Real cold will come when solar activity reaches its minimum, by 2041, and will last for 50-60 years or even longer. This is my point, which environmentalists hotly dispute as they cling to the hothouse theory. As we know, hothouse gases, in particular, nitrogen peroxide, warm up the atmosphere by keeping heat close to the ground. Advanced in the late 19th century by Svante A. Arrhenius, a Swedish physical chemist and Nobel Prize winner, this theory is taken for granted to this day and has not undergone any serious check.
A cold spell soon to replace global warming:
http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20080103/94768732.html
Dr. Oleg Sorokhtin, Merited Scientist of Russia and fellow of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, is staff researcher of the Oceanology Institute.
The opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti.
Dear Jennifer,
Much has happened since the January press release you posted.
The following climate change declaration was issued during a news conference on July 1, 2008:
Summary Declaration of the Start
of the Next Global Climate Change
After an exhaustive review of a substantial body of climate research, and in conjunction with the obvious and compelling new evidence that exists, it is time that the world community acknowledges that the Earth has begun its next climate change. In an opinion echoed by many scientists around the world, the Space and Science Research Center (SSRC), today declares that the world’s climate warming of past decades has now come to an end. A new climate era has already started that is bringing predominantly colder global temperatures for many years into the future. In some years this new climate will create dangerously cold weather with significant ill-effects world wide. Global warming is over – a new cold climate has begun.
Space and Science Research Center
Orlando, Florida, USA
July 1, 2008
You and your readers are cordially invited to read the associated press release from the news conference by going to the web site for the Space and Science Research Center at http://www.spaceandscience.net. At the site are other releases and a significant amount of information on myself, other scientists who have joined with me and much more about the next climate change.
I need your help and your readers' help in spreading the word so all our citizens can be better prepared for the future.
Best Regards,
John L. Casey
Director
Agreed,
The IPCC is neither, as is frequently claimed, 2500 of the worlds best climate scientists, nor indeed climate scientists at all. This is precisely the misconception we have been challenging, following claims made by the likes of Andrew Dessler about the Inhofe 400 list. The composition of the IPCC, it turns out, is not so different. Tony Gilland points out in his review of Bjørn Lomborg's 'Cool It', the IPCC expertise is spread across many chapters, with the result that most of the scientists involved will have read only a minimal proportion of any report. That's to say, a reviewer or contributing author to WGI on glacial recession has not made any statement about his or her agreement in WGIII on what is the best way to approach the problem of climate change from a policy or economic perspective - or even on chapters of WGI to which he or she did not contribute. So the idea that the IPCC represents a scientific consensus on climate change and what to do about it is a complete misconception of the functioning of the IPCC. At best, each chapter from each working group represents the work of just tens of authors, across a range of disciplines and levels of expertise. Yet activists, politicians, and journalists will claim that de facto policy recommendations from WGIII have the support of the consensus of 2500 climate scientists.
People in Greenhouses Throwing Stones
http://www.climate-resistance.org/2008/01/people-in-greenhouses-throwing-stones.html
We promised to provide a breakdown of the IPCC's WGI as we did for WGII and III. So here goes:
As before, we've limited ourselves to those contributors based in the US or USA . That gives us 303 authors to work with out of a total of 618. That's nearly half the total - strange, for an institution which claims to represent scientists from all over the world.
It was very difficult to establish the discipline, background and level of expertise of scientists who work at the UK 's Hadley Centre and Meteorological Office, and NOAA and NASA in the USA , as they tend not to have personal web pages. 31 of the UK contributors work at the Hadley Centre, 43 of the US contributors work at the NOAA. Where we have been unable to locate these people properly (nearly always), we've given them the benefit of the doubt, and included them in the same category as scientists in climatology, meteorology, and oceanography. There were 215 scientists in this category. So there is certainly a higher proportion of people who could reasonably be called climate scientists in WGI compared with II and III. But it's worth pointing out that this figure is also boosted by a whole bunch of people who work in climatology but who are modellers by training. That's not to knock modelling - well, maybe a bit - but it does raise questions about what a climate scientist actually is, when you get to call yourself one even if you've spent most of your career modelling traffic flows or whatever. We'll try to come up with some numbers for that at some point.
As for the other 88, 24 are atmospheric physicists, 27 are geophysicists or geologists. Arguably, these could also be lumped in with the so-called climate scientists. Ach, what the hell, let's call it 266 climate scientists out of 303. Of the rest, we have four statisticians, eight mathematicians/physicists, eight engineers, two biologists/ecologists, and one each from history of science, computer science, and a lonely economist. There were also solos from an NGO, an agronomist, and a lawyer (who curiously seemed to double up as an oceanographer). Which leaves another eight whose expertise we can't establish.
So, across WGI, II and III, we have a very generous 314 contributors among the 510 we sampled who can reasonably be described as scientific experts. Which scales up to 1539 out of the putative 2500. Some of our critics have argued that it was dishonest to look at WGII and III, and that the climate scientists are all in WGI. Of course WGII/III are not all climate scientists. This criticism misses the point that the IPCC is neither, as is frequently claimed, 2500 of the worlds best climate scientists, nor indeed climate scientists at all. This is precisely the misconception we have been challenging, following claims made by the likes of Andrew Dessler about the Inhofe 400 list. The composition of the IPCC, it turns out, is not so different.
Tony Gilland points out in his review of Bjørn Lomborg's 'Cool It', the IPCC expertise is spread across many chapters, with the result that most of the scientists involved will have read only a minimal proportion of any report. That's to say, a reviewer or contributing author to WGI on glacial recession has not made any statement about his or her agreement in WGIII on what is the best way to approach the problem of climate change from a policy or economic perspective - or even on chapters of WGI to which he or she did not contribute. So the idea that the IPCC represents a scientific consensus on climate change and what to do about it is a complete misconception of the functioning of the IPCC. At best, each chapter from each working group represents the work of just tens of authors, across a range of disciplines and levels of expertise. Yet activists, politicians, and journalists will claim that de facto policy recommendations from WGIII have the support of the consensus of 2500 climate scientists.
That 'the consensus' does not represent agreement among 2500 scientists might not be news to some people. But others are quite oblivious. We flagged up a few examples in our last post; here's some more (courtesy of a commenter).
And here's Robert F. Kennedy doing the same (thanks to another commenter)...
RFK: The science on global warming is settled. Twenty-five-hundred scientists in the IPPC [sic] report - the top meteorologists and climate scientists from around the world have announced the consensus that global warming exists, that we are causing it and that its impacts are going to be catastrophic. You don't need that science though, all you need to do is walk outside. I just came back from the Ar'tic [sic]. The Ar'tic [sic] is melting. It is catastrophic. The Good news is that everything that we need to do to solve global warming are things which we ought to be doing anyway for the sake of America's prosperity, for our national security...
The evidence of the IPCC needs to be treated for what it is - not as the last word on the science of climate change, but as a contribution to a political process. A political process that, despite the best efforts of the global warming fraternity (including the IPCC) to nip it in the bud with their claims that 'the science is in', has barely even started.
Anyway, where did the whole '2500 climate scientists of the IPCC' figure come from in the first place? If this flyer from the IPCC itself is anything to go by, it refers to the expert reviewers.
So having taken a look at the authors, we'll have a go at the reviewers next. The IPCC certainly seem pretty proud of them. One wonders how many of those 'scientific expert reviewers' will turn out to be social scientists and economists that Andrew Dessler et al make such a fuss about when they turn up in the Inhofe 400, not to mention, Heaven forfend, web officers, administrative assistants and activists . Intriguingly, many warmers have no time for the reviewers. Stoat, Desmogblog and Tim Lambert claim that anybody can be an expert reviewer, which is a handy argument when you want to cast doubt on the credentials of any pesky 'denialist' who happens to be one, but kind of backfires when you're trying to defend 'the consensus'.