(1).jpg)
A new peer reviewed study calls into question the
science behind the manmade global warming theory.
A new peer-reviewed study calls into question the so-called ‘consensus’ on the causes of global warming by saying that “Nature, not man, responsible for recent global warming.” The new study authored by three Australian scientists and published in the Journal of Geophysical Research says that the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) accounts for the vast majority of temperature variability.
Authored by Chris de Freitas (University of Auckland in New Zealand), John McLean (Melbourne) and Bob Carter (James Cook University), the new study is sure to cause waves among those debating the causes of global warming. Completely contrary to the mainstream media’s portrayal of climate change, the study says, “little or none of the late 20th century global warming and cooling can be attributed to human activity.”
Lead author de Freitas said in a press release, “The surge in global temperatures since 1977 can be attributed to a 1976 climate shift in the Pacific Ocean that made warming El Niño conditions more likely than they were over the previous 30 years and cooling La Niña conditions less likely."
We have shown that internal global climate-system variability accounts for at least 80% of the observed global climate variation over the past half-century.
The effects of El Niño and La Niña are well known to even laymen and the two year study has concluded that ENSO is directly related to global temperature rises in recent decades. The authors have been able to directly correlate the past 50 years of average global temperatures with ENSO cycles. Temperatures were found to have lagged ENSO events by approximately seven months consistently. De Freitas said, “We have shown that internal global climate-system variability accounts for at least 80% of the observed global climate variation over the past half-century.”
If ENSO is indeed responsible for 80% of global temperature changes, manmade contributions to global warming would appear to be highly insignificant, much like a growing chorus of scientists have been claiming for some time. Australia, much like the United States, is considering cap and trade legislation that would attempt to limit carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by forcing businesses to buy credits for their emissions.
No scientific justification exists for emissions regulation, and that, irrespective of the severity of the cuts proposed, ETS (emission trading scheme) will exert no measurable effect on future climate.
Concerns about the cost to consumers and the negligible effect it would have has the measure stalled in the United States Senate for the time being. Carter specifically addressed carbon trading schemes saying “No scientific justification exists for emissions regulation, and that, irrespective of the severity of the cuts proposed, ETS (emission trading scheme) will exert no measurable effect on future climate."
Co-author McLean drew attention to the fact that current climate models cannot even accurately reproduce known temperature changes. Previous studies have shown that the climate models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) fall outside acceptable scientific boundaries. McLean said, “When climate models failed to retrospectively produce the temperatures since 1950 the modelers added some estimated influences of carbon dioxide to make up the shortfall.”
More Americans are doubting man's effect on the climate and a growing number of scientists are raising their voices of dissent. Will this new study help to turn the tide against what had been called a 'consensus?'
Comments
Interesting study. A few years ago- it was was considered heresay, or 'denialism' to study the sun's effect on climate. Now it is acknowledged by even the IPCC to be up to 30% of the .8 degree warming.
I've never been able to understand what the 'Consensus' refers to, most IPCC scientists do not expect dramatic influence from Co2- and almost all independent scientists think the whole thing is nonsense.
What ignorance!!! What spin!!! Perhaps you should have a display at the Creation Museum in Covington, KY. You'd fit right in! We know what's causing global warming!!! We've known what causes it for more than 100 years. Keep in mind the difference between rationalization and reason; the former merely leads us to conclude what we already believe, that latter teaches us something new.
We've known the cause for more that 100 years? Really? We've only been keeping records for 140 years. We weren't spewing much carbon 100 years ago except when we exhaled.
I would be easier to consider if Gore and his Hollywood friends weren't such hypocrites. If they really believed it is such a disaster, wouldn't they stop their jetting all around the world and live in modest dwellings? How about the musicians who play guitars made of wood cut from the forests? or the use of petroleum to manufacture their amplifiers, microphones, recording equipment? How about all the carbon released into the atmosphere resulting from their over luxurious lifestyles? NO NO NO, just follow the money. Where would the "Carbon Credits" end up? The carbon exchange the Gore himself set up? Pleeeeease, open your closed global warming minds for a moment and look where the money is to go.
The Global Warming SCAM is all about money - incestuious scientific whores feeding at the money trough and inspiring a few ignorant sheep like Todd...Read all about it;
scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/climate_money.pdf
Man is just another part of nature. Anything Man does is natural. So yes, nature is responsible for warming and cooling.
Of course, 3 Aussies would explain why their temps are controlled by El Nino or not, and because it's a new study, you act like this is the first time your hypothesis has been postulated.
But long before any of us were born, scientists questioned Man's impact on the biosphere and thought they had none.
The consensus has always been Man plays no role.
Nice to see you keeping the 3000 year old consensus alive.
On the global temperature issue, surface temps are but one facet of a global total heat index, and because El Nino makes it good or bad for specific land masses, it does little to solve the riddles of climate behavoir.
All that really matters is whether the ice will melt enough to raise sea level or change ocean currents, and whether the ocean acidifies enough to kill the bottom of the food chain.
I'm over the warming or cooling discussion.
Thank you. I'm beginning to think that most of the "consensus" comes from grant seekers and folks eager to impress their peers with their own versions of support for a pre-determined conclusion.
Climate change is something residents of Earth have to deal with. You can't tax it away.
What a hoax! These guys have clearly been hired by the oil industry to obfuscate the clear evidence that humans are causing the earth's climate to warm. The oil companies have much to lose and that's their motivation to hire these morons.
All the urgency seems to be coming from the "man made climate catastrophe" lobby. I think they see opportunity slipping away as reality refuses to conform to their hypothesis. I guess they should have moved faster.
Big Science is far more vested in clouding the facts than Big Oil is.
Interesting study. I'm sure it will be trumpeted on every cable channel all week! No, probably not. Here is macro global warming and a carbon dioxide study from a Chemical Engineers perspective:
davesuncommonsense.blogspot.com/2009/07/what-is-carbon-pollution.html
davesuncommonsense.blogspot.com/2009/06/macro-climate-change.html
google needs to identify the writer to reduce waste.
Thank you all for your comments – they are much appreciated and I think they speak to the fact that the ‘consensus’ on the causes of global warming is far from rock solid.
Todd – Again, there is some serious questions about the science behind the global warming theory and this study and other new evidence certainly requires investigation.
Ed – I think you are right on target. There is big money funding the climate change fight and there is no doubt it is a big driving force.
Frank – Interesting comment. Anything to back that up?
David – Great resource. Thank you.
Dixiechick – Do you have anything relevant to contribute?
Errors in this study pointed out here:
tamino.wordpress.com/2009/07/24/old-news
Have you had the opportunity to study the math?
The math makes it clear the method used removes any trending information as part of their effort to reach a conclusion about the other Oscillations. Unfortunately they don't put the info back to reach their conclusions.
It's not hard to conclude that there's no warming trend except for El Nino/La Nina/Atlantic cycles when you've subtracted out the background warming trend. Wow, subtract out the problem and then there's no problem.
It's amazing it made it through the peer review process. We know that these cycles (and the sun) drive the energy economy of the earth. That's really really old news. Just as the heating effect of CO2/Methane/GHG of the moment is old news.
Pretty much all of this is old news, and doesn't eliminate Human causes in climate change one way or another.
I wish it was so simple, since I don't want to have to change my life a lot either. But it's not, and we need to be adult enough to step up.
Frank Perry says "These guys have clearly been hired by the oil industry to obfuscate the clear evidence that humans are causing the earth's climate to warm."
CLEAR evidence? Where is that?
What about all the other leading dissenting scientists (Richard Lindzen, MIT atmos phys), Bill Gray (leading climatologist, pioneer of long-range forecasting), Chris Landsea (trop climatologist), Ian Plimer (leading Aussie geologist) - to name only a handful from hundreds - are they all in the pay of Big Oil?
I'm perfectly willing to be convinced by the evidence. But I am yet to see it.
Which Bill Gray-the one who works for ACCF ($B1.6 from Exxon), Heartland ($M676), or Tech Central (only $K95, but disgraced in the scientific field by pushing GW theories without evidence)? Richard Lindzen who gets $2500 daily for his speeches from Western Fuels (and others; he also gets paid by Tech Central, the GC Marshall Institute ($K840 from Exxon), Cato Institute ($K125), Annapolis Centre...($K975)? Chris Landsea doesn't deny Global Warming, he simply diasagrees on its effect on Hurricanes, his area of expertise. Plimer (like Gray) makes claims but has been (even in his own books) unable to substantiate them with evidence. He challenged Monbiot to a debate, but balked when Monbiot requested some answers also be written beforehand and exchanged so their scientific veracity could be verified.
As a scientist (but admittedly not a climatologist)
These are not good names to support your cause.
As a scientist (but not a climatologist), it disturbs me how the press will latch on deniers (to sell more copy) of any scientific accepted truth. Also, people tend to see scientific uncertainty as doubt. Scientific uncertainty is the core of science. We still don't understand Gravity, but it's still a fact. We don't know why people age, but we do. In climatology, we don't agree on how bad GW is, on whether it's 30 or 70% man-made, on why methane levels have stopped rising, on where the catastrophic tipping points are (?3 degrees? 5 degrees? 10? who knows)... but the vast majority of climatologists agree global warming is real, it's bad, and we case a lot of it. The ones who don't usually are in the pay of Big Oil. In my experience, it's easy to get a controversial idea published if the science is well done. Joining the crowd cuts your research funding in the long run, so scientists must be publishing about the dangers of GW for a good reason--my hunch is because of the _facts._
Chris,
Thank you for your comments. I want to throw out there that there is big money on both sides of this issue. One could certainly say that scientists and researchers are well aware of where their bread is buttered so-to-speak and right now that money is on climate change. Many studies that alarmists quote are funded by left-leaning, pro green movement organizations and “non-profits” that certainly stand to benefit from studies that uphold their beliefs. Are we to discount them as a result of where their funding comes from?
Science is about proof. When you say "...studies that...are funded by left-leaning...organizations...that...stand to benefit from studies that uphold their beliefs," I ask which studies, which organizations? IE can you prove your claims? If so, then we should question their bias. But from my time in academic research, most funding came from the gov't, which (in Canada at least) has mostly wanted to deny GW for as far back as I can remember. The US gov't has tried to deny it for 8 years, yet the research kept saying the same thing. Not 100% of the time, just the majority of the time. Which is all science can offer. When stats in my work tell me a result is 95% certain, this means there is a 5% chance the data is due to chance, and if the same experiment was repeated 20 times, one time it would tell us the opposite. So since 95% of the research tells us GW is mostly man-made, and only 5% says otherwise...The IPCC (~2500 volunteer scientists) says climate change is 90-95% likely human.
it is full of non-sence
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!