Quote:
|
This is a fact because a short time period starting after an exceptionally warm period was chosen. 1998 was one of the hottest years on record (even with the recent corrections) and spiked the 5 year average. Since then it's dropped from that spike back to its "normal" rate of increase. If you look at 1999-2006 you see the average temp is still increasing, not leveling out or decreasing (though at such a small time scale it's not significant). This is a great example of how people can mislead with statistics and why scale becomes important in looking at long-term trends.
|
Wrong. They are not talking about rate of increase.
Quote:
|
for the years 1998-2005 global average temperature did not increase
|
-------------------------------------------------------
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/908
New Peer-Reviewed Study Finds ‘Warming is naturally caused and shows no human influence’
By EPW Blog Monday, December 10, 2007
An inconvenient new peer-reviewed study published in the December 2007 issue of the International Journal of Climatology.
Climate warming is naturally caused and shows no human influence:
Climate scientists at the University of Rochester, the University of Alabama, and the University of Virginia report that observed patterns of temperature changes (‘fingerprints’) over the last thirty years are not in accord with what greenhouse models predict and can better be explained by natural factors, such as solar variability. Therefore, climate change is ‘unstoppable’ and cannot be affected or modified by controlling the emission of greenhouse gases, such as CO2, as is proposed in current legislation.
These results are in conflict with the conclusions of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and also with some recent research publications based on essentially the same data. However, they are supported by the results of the US-sponsored Climate Change Science Program (CCSP).
The report is published in the December 2007 issue of the International Journal of Climatology of the Royal Meteorological Society [DOI: 10.1002/joc.1651]. The authors are Prof. David H. Douglass (Univ. of Rochester), Prof. John R. Christy (Univ. of Alabama), Benjamin D. Pearson (graduate student), and Prof. S. Fred Singer (Univ. of Virginia).
The fundamental question is whether the observed warming is natural or anthropogenic (human-caused). Lead author David Douglass said: “The observed pattern of warming, comparing surface and atmospheric temperature trends, does not show the characteristic fingerprint associated with greenhouse warming. The inescapable conclusion is that the human contribution is not significant and that observed increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases make only a negligible contribution to climate warming.”
Co-author John Christy said: “Satellite data and independent balloon data agree that atmospheric warming trends do not exceed those of the surface. Greenhouse models, on the other hand, demand that atmospheric trend values be 2-3 times greater. We have good reason, therefore, to believe that current climate models greatly overestimate the effects of greenhouse gases. Satellite observations suggest that GH models ignore negative feedbacks, produced by clouds and by water vapor, that diminish the warming effects of carbon dioxide.”
Co-author S. Fred Singer said: “The current warming trend is simply part of a natural cycle of climate warming and cooling that has been seen in ice cores, deep-sea sediments, stalagmites, etc., and published in hundreds of papers in peer-reviewed journals. The mechanism for producing such cyclical climate changes is still under discussion; but they are most likely caused by variations in the solar wind and associated magnetic fields that affect the flux of cosmic rays incident on the earth’s atmosphere. In turn, such cosmic rays are believed to influence cloudiness and thereby control the amount of sunlight reaching the earth’s surface and thus the climate.” Our research demonstrates that the ongoing rise of atmospheric CO2 has only a minor influence on climate change. We must conclude, therefore, that attempts to control CO2 emissions are ineffective and pointless. – but very costly.
Now on the web at
http://science-sepp.blogspot.com/200...c-10-2007.html
Contact: Dr S Fred Singer, President, SEPP
singer@SEPP.org 703-920-2744
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
EXPLANATION OF THE GRAPH: Scientists of NASA have discovered a positive trend in the intensity of the solar activity since 1980. The factor of variability is about 0.06 flares per year. The latter is similar to the annual variability of the tropospheric temperature on Earth, which has been 0.05 per year. In the graph, the green sharp line represents the number of solar flares per day, the blue line represents the variability in the tropospheric temperature on Earth, the dashed green straight line corresponds to the average of the tendency in the variability of solar irradiance per decade, and the blue dashed straight line denotes the median of the decadal tendency of the variability in the tropospheric temperature of Earth.
I have noticed that
the trend in the fluctuations of the solar activity and the trend in the variability of the tropospheric temperature on Earth are almost parallel one to another. Simultaneously, both trends are separated by an equalized interval. I think that the steadiness of the difference between the two trends corresponds to a difference between the Intensity of Solar Irradiance and the Tropospheric Temperature (0.06 - 0.05 = 0.01).
It is evident that the equivalences between the variability of the tropospheric Temperature and the variability of the solar irradiance are directly related with the intensity of the incoming Solar Radiation. The latter includes all forms of radiation emitted by the Sun, for example, Infrared Radiation (Heat), light, UV radiation, X rays, gamma rays, etc.
At present, we are experiencing a larger solar cycle (lasting about 100 years) that includes 10 cycles of 11 years each.
In the graphic of the Geological Eras we can observe large fluctuations in the global temperature of Earth through millions of years. I do not know the point that the current tropospheric temperature fluctuations will reach, perhaps the fluctuations will stretch to standards similar or higher than the maximum values of precedent fluctuations, but I am not sure about that.
NASA scientists elaborated a prediction about the next solar cycle of 11 years based on the observation of the past tendencies and on the direct influence that the previous cycles have had on the intensity of the following cycle.
The intensity of the solar activity has been progressively increasing on every cycle.
The implementation of the Kyoto’s Protocol will not solve the phenomenon of global warming; in the first place, because it does not depend absolutely of the human activities, but from natural factors. In the second place, because the concentration of Heat-Forcing gases in the atmosphere are not thermodynamically capable of store the density of heat registered in the last century.
The variability in the tropospheric temperature on Earth depends on cosmic factors, like the increase in the intensity of Solar Radiation and of Intergalactic Cosmic Rays.
The graph gives also a clear explanation about the global warming observed on other planets like Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn and some satellites of giant planets.
I HAVE BASED MY GRAPH ON ORIGINAL SCIENTIFIC DATA SO FOR THE DRAWING AS FOR ITS INTERPRETATION. I EXTENSIVELY RECOMMEND YOU TO READ THE REPORT AT NASA'S SITE AND THE ARTICLE FROM SCIENCE MAGAZINE THAT I HAVE INCLUDED LIKE REFERENCES AT THE FOOT OF THE DIAGRAM.
Author of this page: Nasif Nahle, biologist
------------------------------------------------------------------
Not so cut and dry once you see facts not presented by the "Union of Concerned Scientists", is it?