Russian academic says CO2 not to blame for global warming

[hagbard]

ST. PETERSBURG, January 15 (RIA Novosti) - Rising levels of carbon dioxide and other gases emitted through human activity, generally believed to trap heat in the Earth's atmosphere, are an effect rather than the cause of global warming, a prominent Russian scientist said Monday.

Habibullo Abdusamatov, head of the space research laboratory at the St. Petersburg-based Pulkovo Observatory, said global warming stems from an increase in the sun's activity. His view contradicts the international scientific consensus that climate change is attributable to the emission of greenhouse gases generated by industrial activities, such as the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation.

"Global warming results not from the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, but from an unusually high level of solar radiation and a lengthy - almost throughout the last century - growth in its intensity," Abdusamatov told RIA Novosti in an interview.

"It is no secret that when they go up, temperatures in the world's oceans trigger the emission of large amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. So the common view that man's industrial activity is a deciding factor in global warming has emerged from a misinterpretation of cause and effect relations."

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a UN panel of thousands of international scientists, widely regarded as an authority on climate change issues, has for many years held a consensus view that most of the warming experienced over the last half-century has been attributable to human activities.

Abdusamatov, a doctor of mathematics and physics, is one of a small number of scientists around the world who continue to contest the view of the IPCC, the national science academies of the G8 nations, and other prominent scientific bodies.

He said an examination of ice cores from wells over three kilometers (1.5 miles) deep in Greenland and the Antarctic indicates that the Earth experienced periods of global warming even before the industrial age.

Abdusamatov even disputed the plausibility of the greenhouse effect, claiming it fails to take into account the effective transmission of heat to the outer layers of atmosphere.

Scientists have known about the greenhouse effect since the 19th century. The phenomenon by which gases such as methane and CO2 warm the troposphere by absorbing some of the infra-red heat reflected by the earth's surface has the effect of a global thermostat, sustaining global temperatures within ranges that allow life on the planet to thrive.

However, Abdusamatov insisted: "Ascribing 'greenhouse' effect properties to the Earth's atmosphere is not scientifically substantiated. Heated greenhouse gases, which become lighter as a result of expansion, ascend to the atmosphere only to give the absorbed heat away."

The upper layers of the world's oceans are - much to climatologists' surprise - becoming cooler, which is a clear indication that the Earth has hit its temperature ceiling already, and that solar radiation levels are falling and will eventually lead to a worldwide cold spell, Abdusamatov said.

"Instead of professed global warming, the Earth will be facing a slow decrease in temperatures in 2012-2015. The gradually falling amounts of solar energy, expected to reach their bottom level by 2040, will inevitably lead to a deep freeze around 2055-2060," he said, adding that this period of global freeze will last some 50 years, after which the temperatures will go up again.

"There is no need for the Kyoto Protocol now, and it does not have to come into force until at least a hundred years from now - a global freeze will come about regardless of whether or not industrialized countries put a cap on their greenhouse gas emissions," Abdusamatov said.

The 1998 Kyoto Protocol to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, which sets greenhouse gas emission targets for the period up to 2012, entered into force two years ago following ratification by 141 countries, which together account for over 55% of the world's gas pollutions.

Russia ratified the treaty in November 2004, making it legally binding. But the world's top polluter, the United States, is still reluctant to sign on for fear the treaty's emission commitments will slow down the country's economic growth.

http://en.rian.ru/russia/20070115/59078992.html

[mlc2000]

These are the same folks who tried to 'hide' Chernobyl.

Yea, sounds like a crackerjack bunch on smart alecks.

[Prophallus]

this is pretty interesting, an alternative way of looking at climate change..
what i'd like to know is how the rest of the scientific community views this stance

[ZenOps]

Its BS.

You can't create something out of nothing, and even if the earth was heating up, it would not create more carbon dioxide as there is a limited amount in circulation (which converts back to oxygen when it hits plant life)as is.

By pumping millions of barrels of oil out of the ground each day, with a definite hydrogen+carbon structure, and burning it (oxidizing it) creates carbon dioxide for sure. The added carbon dioxide will encourage plant life to grow.

What is of some concern is that we are not adding much oxygen to the atmosphere. However, if carbon dioxide levels continue to grow, the earth should naturally begin to stop oxiding other latent materials on the surface of the earth #1 being iron or ferrous rock, which will not rust (oxidize) as fast in an atmospheric oxygen lacking environment.

[hagbard]

So, how did we cause the mini-ice age of the 8th and 9th century?

[Alvito]

The earth naturally goes through cycles of warming and cooling.

[The_Madz]

The earth naturally goes through cycles of warming and cooling.

you shoudl take a peak at "an inconvenient truth" where al gore does his presentation on climate change.

if what he shows is correct then even though the earth does go through natural cycles, where we are heading is beyond the historical natural boundaries as they have seen from reading ice core samples.

since russia is not exactly who you would describe as a fore runner for protecting the environment i woudln't doubt if this scientiest is paid off by industries.

[hagbard]

The earth naturally goes through cycles of warming and cooling.

Exactly. Why would anyone think it would be any other way?

[hagbard]

you shoudl take a peak at "an inconvenient truth" where al gore does his presentation on climate change.

if what he shows is correct then even though the earth does go through natural cycles, where we are heading is beyond the historical natural boundaries as they have seen from reading ice core samples.

since russia is not exactly who you would describe as a fore runner for protecting the environment i woudln't doubt if this scientiest is paid off by industries.

Oh yes. And "I built the Internet" and Former Vice President of the United States Al Gore is a good source. Thanks for letting us know.

[gilboman]

Exactly. Why would anyone think it would be any other way?

that does not mean human activity has no impact on the earth and its climate:lol:

your reasoning is like me saying people are eventually die. so if someone is murdered, you attribute it to natural cycle of death for people:lol:

[cthulhu]

"Global warming results not from the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, but from an unusually high level of solar radiation and a lengthy - almost throughout the last century - growth in its intensity," Abdusamatov told RIA Novosti in an interview.

But no growth in the last 50 years.

"It is no secret that when they go up, temperatures in the world's oceans trigger the emission of large amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. So the common view that man's industrial activity is a deciding factor in global warming has emerged from a misinterpretation of cause and effect relations."

Except the oceans are currently absorbing more carbon dioxide than they emit. And human activity is emitting about 28 billion tons of co2 into the atmosphere per year while it's only rising about 15 billion tons per year in the atmosphere. So it's pretty obvious the increase is coming from man, not the oceans which is completely 180 to what this guy is saying. He obviously just isn't an authority on this issue and I wonder if he has actually published any papers on climate - or even whether his field has anything to do with climate..

He said an examination of ice cores from wells over three kilometers (1.5 miles) deep in Greenland and the Antarctic indicates that the Earth experienced periods of global warming even before the industrial age.

But that's accepted by everyone. It's not an argument anymore than "examination of sediment data showed the earth has experienced forest fires long before the industrial age" is an argument against the existance of arson as a cause of forest fires.

Abdusamatov even disputed the plausibility of the greenhouse effect, claiming it fails to take into account the effective transmission of heat to the outer layers of atmosphere.

I don't know the answer to this one. But as a betting man I would put a lot on him being wrong yet again.

However, Abdusamatov insisted: "Ascribing 'greenhouse' effect properties to the Earth's atmosphere is not scientifically substantiated. Heated greenhouse gases, which become lighter as a result of expansion, ascend to the atmosphere only to give the absorbed heat away."

You could use that argument against any warming. I could claim the sun can't warm the earth because warm air just rises and takes the heat out the atmosphere. There's probably far far more wrong with it than that though.

The upper layers of the world's oceans are - much to climatologists' surprise - becoming cooler, which is a clear indication that the Earth has hit its temperature ceiling already, and that solar radiation levels are falling and will eventually lead to a worldwide cold spell, Abdusamatov said.

Not necessarily. He's talking about a period of about 3 years at the end of a 30 year trend of warming, which has contained multi-year cooling periods before.

"Instead of professed global warming, the Earth will be facing a slow decrease in temperatures in 2012-2015.

We'll see..

[cthulhu]

"Global warming results not from the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, but from an unusually high level of solar radiation and a lengthy - almost throughout the last century - growth in its intensity," Abdusamatov told RIA Novosti in an interview.

But no significant growth in the last 50 years.

"It is no secret that when they go up, temperatures in the world's oceans trigger the emission of large amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. So the common view that man's industrial activity is a deciding factor in global warming has emerged from a misinterpretation of cause and effect relations."

Except the oceans are currently absorbing more carbon dioxide than they emit. And human activity is emitting about 28 billion tons of co2 into the atmosphere per year while it's only rising about 15 billion tons per year in the atmosphere. So it's pretty obvious the increase is coming from man, not the oceans which is completely 180 to what this guy is saying. He obviously just isn't an authority on this issue and I wonder if he has actually published any papers on climate - or even whether his field has anything to do with climate..

He said an examination of ice cores from wells over three kilometers (1.5 miles) deep in Greenland and the Antarctic indicates that the Earth experienced periods of global warming even before the industrial age.

But that's accepted by everyone. It's not an argument anymore than "examination of sediment data showed the earth has experienced forest fires long before the industrial age" is an argument against the existance of arson as a cause of forest fires.

Abdusamatov even disputed the plausibility of the greenhouse effect, claiming it fails to take into account the effective transmission of heat to the outer layers of atmosphere.

I don't know the answer to this one. But as a betting man I would put a lot on him being wrong yet again.

However, Abdusamatov insisted: "Ascribing 'greenhouse' effect properties to the Earth's atmosphere is not scientifically substantiated. Heated greenhouse gases, which become lighter as a result of expansion, ascend to the atmosphere only to give the absorbed heat away."

You could use that argument against any warming. I could claim the sun can't warm the earth because warm air just rises and takes the heat out the atmosphere. There's probably far far more wrong with it than that though.

The upper layers of the world's oceans are - much to climatologists' surprise - becoming cooler, which is a clear indication that the Earth has hit its temperature ceiling already, and that solar radiation levels are falling and will eventually lead to a worldwide cold spell, Abdusamatov said.

Not necessarily. He's talking about a period of about 3 years at the end of a 30 year trend of warming, which has contained multi-year cooling periods before.

"Instead of professed global warming, the Earth will be facing a slow decrease in temperatures in 2012-2015.

We'll see..

[whampoa]

I subscribe to the Superman theory, how else can you describe planet Krypton turning to ice.

And what about the star blowing up because it's getting too big.

[ZenOps]

The single best thing that we could do for the atmosphere would be to figure out a way to precipitate a solid material made of atmospheric nitrogen and dump it all in a big waste pit somewhere or make plant food out of it.

The atmosphere is made up of 78 percent atmospheric nitrogen, which does plants no good, and does humans no good as its basically inert. All it does it nothing at all.

[farooq7]

This guy is actually not full of it as you may think. their was an article publised in the vancouver sun talking about this also called the "Cosmic Culprit" Henrik Swensmark a man from denmark has also claimed the same.

[grant]

This russian may or may not be a crackpot, but there is nonetheless valid scientific doubt about how much rising CO2 affects global warming.

On July 1, 2003 the Geological Society of America released a paper that, among other conclusions, "Throughout the 20th centure, the sun continued to brighten and so, not surprisingly, the Earth warmed." and "...shows essentially no correlation between CO2 leves and temperatures..." (quoted from financial post, July 14, 2003).

(btw, this paper was authoried by University of Ottawa geology professor Dr. Jan Veizer and UofToronto trained astrophysicist Dr. Nir J. Shaviv ... i.e., home-grown scientists.)

[IronMac]

Abdusamatov even disputed the plausibility of the greenhouse effect, claiming it fails to take into account the effective transmission of heat to the outer layers of atmosphere.

The book "The Upside of Down" explains this part. I don't remember much about it but something to do with "short-wave" vs "long-wave". Abdusamatov is wrong.

[IronMac]

This russian may or may not be a crackpot, but there is nonetheless valid scientific doubt about how much rising CO2 affects global warming.

On July 1, 2003 the Geological Society of America released a paper that, among other conclusions, "Throughout the 20th centure, the sun continued to brighten and so, not surprisingly, the Earth warmed." and "...shows essentially no correlation between CO2 leves and temperatures..." (quoted from financial post, July 14, 2003).

(btw, this paper was authoried by University of Ottawa geology professor Dr. Jan Veizer and UofToronto trained astrophysicist Dr. Nir J. Shaviv ... i.e., home-grown scientists.)

First of all, this is from 2003 which means that the study is using old data and techniques. Ergo, out of date.
Second, one is a geology professor and the other is actually Israeli.

[bionicbadger]

methane is a far worse greenhouse gas than CO2. Maybe if we killed all the cows on the planet, it would help some.... :D

[grant]

First of all, this is from 2003 which means that the study is using old data and techniques. Ergo, out of date.
I am not sure if you are making a joke or if you seriously believe that any scientific studies done in 2003 or earlier are worthless.

Second, one is a geology professor and the other is actually Israeli.
Shaviv was born in NY, USA. I'm not sure what your problem is with isreali scientists though.

Obviously you have not read the paper or even any summaries of it, or else you would understand why it was co-authored by a geologist and released by the geological society of america.

"ergo" you have absolutely no clue whether the "data and techniques" are out of date or not.

[ElChico]

The atmosphere is made up of 78 percent atmospheric nitrogen, which does plants no good, and does humans no good as its basically inert. All it does it nothing at all.

It keeps the atmosphere from exploding every time somebody lights a match. :D

[IronMac]

I am not sure if you are making a joke or if you seriously believe that any scientific studies done in 2003 or earlier are worthless.

This field of study is dynamic so, yes, it may be worthless by now.

Shaviv was born in NY, USA. I'm not sure what your problem is with isreali scientists though.

The poster who brought up this study said that the authors were home-grown and they're not. I don't care if they're Israeli or British or American or whatever. Stop looking for things that don't exist.

Obviously you have not read the paper or even any summaries of it, or else you would understand why it was co-authored by a geologist and released by the geological society of america.

"ergo" you have absolutely no clue whether the "data and techniques" are out of date or not.


Actually, I do know that it was co-authored by a geologist and released by the GSA but what does that have to do with whether or not I have a clue as to whether or not that the study is out of date? Are you trying to say that just because it's released in those circumstances it will never be out of date?

[The_Madz]

Oh yes. And "I built the Internet" and Former Vice President of the United States Al Gore is a good source. Thanks for letting us know.

ehh, he is presenting on it, he didn't make the scientific evidence up himself.


you appear a bit defensive.. you really should see the movie, it's good and may change your mind about him.

[galanz]

The sky is falling, the sky is falling. Oh wait, I guess it's not afterall.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=E58DFF04-5A65-42A4-9F82-87381DE894CD

"Renowned Scientist Defects From Belief in Global Warming"
-Amazing what an impartial observation of actual evidence will do for your opinion...

"60 Scientists Debunk Global Warming Fears"

"'Climate Change is Nothing New'"
-No really?

"Global Cooling on the Horizon?"
-Oh no, not again?

"Sun’s Contribution to Warming"

Etc, etc.

[ZenOps]

It keeps the atmosphere from exploding every time somebody lights a match. :D

True enough... I think at 23 percent oxygen content things tend to spontaneously combust a lot easier.

Still though, taking one percent of the nitrogen out of the air (which would be a massive undertaking) would do wonders for the planet.

[mykalberta]

Very interesting and unlike the Global Warming CO2 guys, he has actually given concrete dates in which to measure his projections/failure by.

Interesting - I will wait until our temperature starts decreasing before I believe him though.

MYK

[grant]

Are you trying to say that just because it's released in those circumstances it will never be out of date?
I AM saying that a great number of studies, reports, and papers are accurate & relevant after 3, 30, or 300 years. I'd never consider any supported research "out of date" until newer, better research proves it so. (e.g. Newton's physical laws).

Can you describe any specific defects in the paper that have been discovered in the intervening 3 years? If so, please do. Otherwise you are unqualified to make the claim you have.

[grant]

Still though, taking one percent of the nitrogen out of the air (which would be a massive undertaking) would do wonders for the planet.
I find your theories very intriguing and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

Please explain these wonders, and how less nitrogen will achieve them.

[hagbard]

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=5c8d30c6-9d77-4ccc-99d9-c3a095750cdc&p=1

[IronMac]

I AM saying that a great number of studies, reports, and papers are accurate & relevant after 3, 30, or 300 years. I'd never consider any supported research "out of date" until newer, better research proves it so. (e.g. Newton's physical laws).

Can you describe any specific defects in the paper that have been discovered in the intervening 3 years? If so, please do. Otherwise you are unqualified to make the claim you have.

Are you qualified to say that the paper is still relevant. No?

The UN has just come out with the following:

http://www.thestar.com/News/article/172778

The preponderance of research now state that humans are the cause of global warming.

[kirvydikk]

i like global warming

[MizTEcK]

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=5c8d30c6-9d77-4ccc-99d9-c3a095750cdc&p=1

i dont believe anything national post says anymore, remember they tried to say that Iran is forcing racial badges on the ppl living there?


riiiite

[grant]

Are you qualified to say that the paper is still relevant. No?
Since I actually know what the paper discusses, and you have no clue... i'm more qualified to pass judgement than you are.

The preponderance of research now state that humans are the cause of global warming.
So you'll ignore any research that doesn't support the conclusion. The conclusion is supported by the research that you've arbitrarily chosen to believe. Nice circular logic!

If you actually have something constructive to say about these papers, please do. Otherwise I'll ignore the generic baseless global-warming debate.. which is basically worthless because as you are demonstrating, most people are closed-minded to any information that doesn't fit their bias.

[mattpiloto]

you shoudl take a peak at "an inconvenient truth" where al gore does his presentation on climate change.

if what he shows is correct then even though the earth does go through natural cycles, where we are heading is beyond the historical natural boundaries as they have seen from reading ice core samples.

since russia is not exactly who you would describe as a fore runner for protecting the environment i woudln't doubt if this scientiest is paid off by industries.

This one (http://www.michaelcrichton.net/fear/) is much better.

[BadDrafter]

Personally I would find it more disturbing that the sun would be the cause than greenhouse gases. CO2 is something we can deal with but the sun? How do you stop a sun?

If anything this study is affirming that global warming exists. Most skeptics deny it's existence.

[mattpiloto]

Personally I would find it more disturbing that the sun would be the cause than greenhouse gases. CO2 is something we can deal with but the sun? How do you stop a sun?

If anything this study is affirming that global warming exists. Most skeptics deny it's existence.

Actually, most skeptics are skeptical that the main cause of climate change is human activity. Anybody with more than 2 brain cells realizes that the climate changes.

[IronMac]

Since I actually know what the paper discusses, and you have no clue... i'm more qualified to pass judgement than you are.

What's your background? Geology?


So you'll ignore any research that doesn't support the conclusion. The conclusion is supported by the research that you've arbitrarily chosen to believe. Nice circular logic!

If you actually have something constructive to say about these papers, please do. Otherwise I'll ignore the generic baseless global-warming debate.. which is basically worthless because as you are demonstrating, most people are closed-minded to any information that doesn't fit their bias.

No, but I know better than to believe one author whose background is geology and the other who is an astrophysicist. I'd leave all of this to the climate scientists.

BTW, you can read rebuttals of this paper in:

http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publications/Journals/rahmstorf_etal_eos_2004.html
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=153

[The_Madz]

Actually, most skeptics are skeptical that the main cause of climate change is human activity. Anybody with more than 2 brain cells realizes that the climate changes.

of course the climate changes, but if we are causing to change more drastically than it otherwise would then we should do something about it.


as what i can see right now there are a heck of a lot more proof for rapid climate change because of human activity than that of mere sun flares or volcanic activity.

[mattpiloto]

of course the climate changes, but if we are causing to change more drastically than it otherwise would then we should do something about it.


as what i can see right now there are a heck of a lot more proof for rapid climate change because of human activity than that of mere sun flares or volcanic activity.


LOL...mere sun flares...

There is nothing mere about the sun or the flares it gives off on a regular basis...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun

[konfusion666]

There is nothing mere about the sun or the flares it gives off on a regular basis...

Mr. Sun (http://www.udel.edu/PR/UDaily/2006/feb/Just-Mr-Sun.gif) is a nice guy, don't worry about him, he doesn't want to hurt you...

[blackhawk]

you shoudl take a peak at "an inconvenient truth" where al gore does his presentation on climate change.

if what he shows is correct then even though the earth does go through natural cycles, where we are heading is beyond the historical natural boundaries as they have seen from reading ice core samples.

since russia is not exactly who you would describe as a fore runner for protecting the environment i woudln't doubt if this scientiest is paid off by industries.

You mean Al Gore, the ex vice president, ran and lost the presidency? I didn't realize he went back to school.

Remember he's a politician, a salesman and he's got an idea he wants to sell you and he needs to make a living.

Climate cant be explained in a 2 hour 'movie', it takes the largest computers in the world to predict weather a few days ahead & thats with just over a 50% probability.

Ice core samples only go back a short way on the long term climate models and there's been small and large ice ages, cycles within cycles. Did you realize there's pretrified tropical forest stumps on the northernmost part of Ellesmere Island in the canadian arctic?

Right now we're on the warming side of the 'little ice age' thats been over for a hundred years or so, the glaciers have been retreating for over 10,000 years and the cycle will change again after our life time.

This doesn't take into account the changing ocean currents which have a tremendous impact on climate, northern europe is much warmer than northern canada due to the gulf stream.

Godthab, the capital of greenland has a climate similar to ottawa with a year round fishery while Iqaluit on Baffin Island, pretty much same latitude is an arctic community all due to currents.

Humans are very insignificant in the global sense and the earths timeline.
Forty years ago it was the developement of nuclear energy that was going to end the world.

That shouldn't make anyone think that the air in cities cant be cleaned up and cleaner sources of power developed.

[grant]

What's your background? Geology?
Why would someone need a background in geology to believe that a PhD geologist has performed accurate geological research?

Do you also need a background in rocketry to believe men have stood on the mood, or a degree in economics to believe your accountant can prepare your taxes?

No, but I know better than to believe one author whose background is geology and the other who is an astrophysicist. I'd leave all of this to the climate scientists.
So you either:

a) disbelieve that the sun affects our climate & that climate history is recorded in the earth
b) think PhD astrophysicists & geologists are unqualified to perform research on the sun & earth.

Either of those possibilities seems far-fetched to me, but you're welcome to your opinion.

However your own link proves that there is earnest scientific dissent (between very educated and clever individuals) on the subject... if you deny that, then your head is in the sand.

[jli]

haha i just had a lecture on this

[IronMac]

Why would someone need a background in geology to believe that a PhD geologist has performed accurate geological research?

We're talking about climate not geology..get a clue will ya?

So you either:

a) disbelieve that the sun affects our climate & that climate history is recorded in the earth
b) think PhD astrophysicists & geologists are unqualified to perform research on the sun & earth.

Either of those possibilities seems far-fetched to me, but you're welcome to your opinion.

However your own link proves that there is earnest scientific dissent (between very educated and clever individuals) on the subject... if you deny that, then your head is in the sand.

First off, did u even bother skimming their short paper?
Second, I don't believe that geologists are qualified to talk about climate change...there's a field for that and it's called "climateology".
Third, my links shoots down their contention that solar activity is responsible for global warming. The only earnest scientific dissent is their's.

[hdom]

This clip from a program featuring Dr. Patrick Moore, founder & former President of Greenpeace is really worth a listen to, on the topic of environmentalist movement and "global warming".

http://www.pennfans.net/view/Audio_Archive/PennRadio/The.Penn.Jillette.Radio.Show.2006.06.08/

[grant]

"No, a proof is a proof. What kind of a proof? It's a proof. A proof is a proof, and when you have a good proof, it's because it's proven." - Jean Ch

A fitting quote that could come from the mouth of people who think the only research worth considering is that which supports the conclusions they've already drawn!