Visit the Archives for U.S. Politics Online -- U.S. Politics Online . net
Joint Chiefs of Staff Member
At least not according to this scientist.
No connection to Exxon that I can find.
Climate changes are not caused by greenhouse gases by Dr. Noor van Andel
Monday, January 31st 2011,
Dr. Noor van Andel, former head of research at Akzo Nobel, has a new paper out showing the available data to date contradicts the notion of greenhouse gas induced global warming or ‘climate change.’ He notes that while there have been extensive efforts to ‘prove’ the ‘greenhouse’ warming theory by bringing computer models and observations into agreement, this has been done “strangely only by adjusting the measurements instead of adjusting the models,” in other words, via unscientific means. Dr. van Andel instead finds that ocean oscillations and the cosmic ray theory of Svensmark et al best explain climate changes.
CO2 and climate change by Dr.Noor van Andel
Abstract: It is shown that tropical Pacific sea surface temperature anomalies are closely congruent to global temperature anomalies, and that over more than a century. When we understand the cooling mechanism over the tropical Pacific, and especially its CO2 dependency, we can draw conclusions for the global CO2 climate sensitivity.
It is shown that the cooling of the tropics, or trade wind belt, is by deep convection, i.e. by a few thousand concentrated tropical thunderstorms that carry all the sensible and latent heat swept up by the trade winds all the way on to the tropopause. The physics of deep convection have been formulated since 1958 and are based on sound thermodynamics and measurements on location.
The trends of the temperature in the high atmosphere in the last half century are very negative, starting on this height where the convection reaches. That means that more CO2 has a cooling effect rather than a warming effect. Cloud tops radiate much more intense than the thin air on this height. This is the cause behind the cooling, as much as the CO2 increase.
The cooling trend is quite in discrepancy with the “greenhouse-gas-induced-global-warming” theory, but is quite in accord with increasing deep convection. The adjustment of these temperature measurements to bring them more in line with the climate models leads to unphysical conditions and processes. The response of the upper atmosphere temperature on volcanic eruptions also fits in the deep convection theory, but not in the mainstream theory.
Not CO2 increase, but two other parameters are the cause of climate change: ENSO or El Nino Southern Oscillation, a large change in the cold water upwelling along the coast of South America correlates well to short term climate change, and change in the intensity of hard, deeply penetrating Galactic Cosmic Radiation, well documented by 10Be deposits and 14C levels, correlates very well with long-term climate change including ice ages.
My conclusion is that climate changes are not caused by greenhouse gases.
The paper is here:
http://climategate.nl/wp-content/upl...t_VanAndel.pdf
Conclusions:
• Rising Outgoing Long-wave radiation with more than 3.7 W/m^2
per ºC SST cannot be the effect of rising CO2 or of the increase of
other “greenhouse” gases. Rising OLR/SST with 8.6 W/m^2K means
that the atmosphere has become more transparent to IR radiation
in the past 60 years. The “greenhouse effect” has become less.
• Solar constant and the properties of water determine our climate
• Rising surface temperature is tightly controlled by increasing wet
convection and concomitant upper tropospheric drying
• No observational evidence for influence of CO2 on past or present
climate
• Strong observational correlation of solar magnetic activity with
climate temperatures, presumably via cloud condensation nucleation
and albedo.
Vice President
Well, would it not be something IF, this guy is actually right? And the hysteria over Co2 was just that, hysterical people losing their minds over global warming being caused by the burning of fossil fuels. That perhaps we are just in a natural cycle? Since I don't understand any of this stuff, I can say this without feeling dumb.
I hope this guy is right and everyone else is wrong. When I cannot get a consensus from scientists, it is very difficult to believe ANYTHING they say.
President
Brexx,
There are two (that i found quickly, there are probably more though) very obvious errors in this guys theory (painfully obvious, to be sure).
Since you consider yourself a skeptic can you please point them out for us.
Andrew
“...corporations and those who run them cannot stop exploiting resources and amassing wealth until they have... .I cannot finish this sentence, because the truth is that can never stop; like cancer, they can only continue to expand until they kill the host.”
-- Derrick Jensen
Joint Chiefs of Staff Member
I agree.Originally Posted by Blue Doggy
Well, would it not be something IF, this guy is actually right? And the hysteria over Co2 was just that, hysterical people losing their minds over global warming being caused by the burning of fossil fuels. That perhaps we are just in a natural cycle? Since I don't understand any of this stuff, I can say this without feeling dumb.
I hope this guy is right and everyone else is wrong. When I cannot get a consensus from scientists, it is very difficult to believe ANYTHING they say.
Vice President
Dude's with AkzoNobel.
Check out their current homepage. Brace yourself. You might die laughing otherwise
Joint Chiefs of Staff Member
I am as skeptical of this theory as I am of all the others, but I can't point out what you are seeing. You'll have to do that.
I posted this paper to point out once again that there are many differing opinions amongst scientists on the subject of climate change.
Joint Chiefs of Staff Member
What does that prove?Dude's with AkzoNobel.
Check out their current homepage. Brace yourself. You might die laughing otherwise
Are you saying he has no credibility because he hasn't spent his whole career living on AGW grant money?
President
He says that the only possible cause for lower albedo is less cloud cover. What about ice (the most well-known), trees, black carbon, sulfate aerosols, human-development, etc...
How can you, a skeptic, miss that?
He also says that cosmic rays correlate well with temperature. They don't. And its not even clear that cosmic rays have a causal relationship with cloud cover. Worse, cosmic rays are at an all time recorded high - going by the cosmic ray theory we should see a measurable cooling effect - but we don't.
Could cosmic rays be causing global warming?
Do cosmic rays cause clouds?
Science does not work on opinions Brexx, it works on facts.I posted this paper to point out once again that there are many differing opinions amongst scientists on the subject of climate change.
When it comes to climate scientists there is no dispute at all that the earth is warming and the cause is CO2 emissions. They differ only on the details.
Andrew
“...corporations and those who run them cannot stop exploiting resources and amassing wealth until they have... .I cannot finish this sentence, because the truth is that can never stop; like cancer, they can only continue to expand until they kill the host.”
-- Derrick Jensen
Joint Chiefs of Staff Member
Given that about 70% of the earths surface is under cloud cover at any given time I can understand why he would attribute a lower albedo to less cloud cover. The other factors you mention may not have changed enough to have caused the effect he is talking about.
I don't know anything about the effect of cosmic rays and I am not taking this guys word for it. I am also very skeptical about what is said on your favorite pro-AGW site.
This theory is about more than cosmic rays.
Science is about facts, but scientists don't always agree on what the facts mean or which facts are important, hence, its also about opinions.
President
Thank you.
Rob Van Dorland is the guy who sent his calculations to Van Andel and in a response here at this link, Dorland states that Andel`s calculations are faulty since he does not consider other greenhouse gases among other factors.
Van Dorland: ``I think the computation of Kirchhoff’s rule by Noor illustrates very well that assumptions (which are not a standard part of radiative transfer calculations) are put into the model of Noor (and probably also in Ferenc’s model)``.
Niche Modeling Regression Conclusion
Van Andel is just another quack who leaves crucial information out in order to try to get to his point. That`s not science then, it`s just an opinion based on faulty calculations.
President
But they have.
Loss of reflectivity in the Arctic doubles estimate of climate models | SpaceRef - Your Space Reference
It is a pro-science site. Everything on their comes from the published peer-reviewed science. No politics, no hyperbole, no ad-hominem. That site actually promotes genuine scientific skepticism - not the ideological based anti-science denialism that you are caught up in.I don't know anything about the effect of cosmic rays and I am not taking this guys word for it. I am also very skeptical about what is said on your favorite pro-AGW site.
Not really. I'm beginning to wonder if you even read any of it - i think you just saw the headline and posted it. Is that what passes as skepticism in your world?This theory is about more than cosmic rays.
Informed opinion, yes. Your OP does not rate as such. It is propaganda.Science is about facts, but scientists don't always agree on what the facts mean or which facts are important, hence, its also about opinions.
In regards to climate scientists there is overwhelming agreement (in the published, peer reviewed literature) on the fact that the earth is warming and the cause is CO2 emissions.
Opinion does not play a role when the evidence is so overwhelming.
Andrew
“...corporations and those who run them cannot stop exploiting resources and amassing wealth until they have... .I cannot finish this sentence, because the truth is that can never stop; like cancer, they can only continue to expand until they kill the host.”
-- Derrick Jensen
President
Yep. It is nothing but propaganda. It is worse than opinion, it is deliberate, and it is designed to mislead.
Andrew
“...corporations and those who run them cannot stop exploiting resources and amassing wealth until they have... .I cannot finish this sentence, because the truth is that can never stop; like cancer, they can only continue to expand until they kill the host.”
-- Derrick Jensen
Joint Chiefs of Staff Member
The loss of ice and snow in the arctic was caused by some kind of warming. Maybe it was caused be the less cloud cover he is talking about.
The paper certainly talks about a lot more than cosmic rays. Outgoing radiation, convection, etc.
For example:
The heat transfer from surface into space uses two
mechanisms in series: Convection in the lower atmosphere, IR
radiation in the higher atmosphere.
• The warmer it becomes, going from pole to equator, the more
important the convection part becomes. The height on which
radiation flux becomes larger than convection flux, the
convection top, rises.
• More convection means a higher tropopause, a lower cloud top
temperature, a higher condensation efficiency, and in this way a
drier upper troposphere.
• These two effects: a higher convection top and a drier upper
troposphere, both increase Outgoing Longwave Radiation. This
controls the temperature.
Vice President
It is amazing how often you make the Appeal to Authority despite how many times it gets refuted. The site you reference is the good one. The site opponents of yours reference is the bad one. Can you name one qualified scientist who has made legitimate observations against AGW?
"No free government, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue; and by a frequent recurrence to fundamental principles."
-- Patrick Henry
President
I'm just describing the style of the website - and that having a grounding in scientific facts is a good idea for any real skeptic.
Where? I'm sorry, did you actually think your confused conspiratorial blathering has refuted anything?....despite how many times it gets refuted.
Why do you hate legitimate scientific sources so much?The site you reference is the good one. The site opponents of yours reference is the bad one. Can you name one qualified scientist who has made legitimate observations against AGW?
I'm not concerned about any individual scientists. I'm concerned about what the facts show - and to date, nobody's opinion (scientist or otherwise) has changed the facts.
Andrew
“...corporations and those who run them cannot stop exploiting resources and amassing wealth until they have... .I cannot finish this sentence, because the truth is that can never stop; like cancer, they can only continue to expand until they kill the host.”
-- Derrick Jensen
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks