PDA

View Full Version : Japanese: U.N. Man-Made Global Warming Theory Like 'Ancient Astrology'


dharma
02-27-2009, 11:58 AM
Stand back! The Japanese have scientists, and they're not afraid to use them!

Wednesday, February 25, 2009 4:04 PM

By: Jim Hirsen

Japanese scientists have made a dramatic break with the United Nations’ view on man-made global warming with a report asserting that “this hypothesis has been substituted for truth.”

Three of the five researchers involved in the report disagree with the view of the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that recent warming is due primarily to industrial emissions of greenhouse gases, and say it is instead driven by natural cycles.

The report was issued by the Japan Society of Energy and Resources, an academic group representing scientists from the energy and resource fields that acts as a government advisory panel. The report has been translated from the Japanese by The Register in Britain.

Kanya Kusano, Program Director for the Earth Simulator at the Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science & Technology, compares computer climate modeling used to support the man-made global warming theory to “ancient astrology.”

He states that the IPCC’s “conclusion that from now on atmospheric temperatures are likely to show a continuous, monotonous increase should be perceived as an unprovable hypothesis.”

Shunichi Akasofu, head of the International Arctic Research Center in Alaska, agrees: “IPCC’s theory that atmospheric temperature has risen since 2000 in correspondence with [carbon dioxide increases] is nothing but a hypothesis.”

Among the points made in the report:

— CO2 emissions began to increase significantly after 1946 and are still rising. Therefore, according to the IPCC, global atmospheric temperatures should continue to increase. However, temperatures stopped increasing in 2001.

— The global temperature increase up to today is primarily a recovery from the “Little Ice Age” that earth experienced from 1400 to 1800. This rise peaked in 2000.

— Global warming and the “halting of the temperature rise are related to solar activity.”

Despite the continuing controversy and uncertainty surrounding the claims of man-made global warming, efforts to influence major climate change legislation in Washington are heating up.

An analysis by the Center for Public Integrity found that more than 770 companies and interest groups hired an estimated 2,340 lobbyists in the past year to influence federal policy.

Politico.com notes that since 2003, the number of global warming lobbyists has risen by more than 300 percent, and “Washington can now boast more than four climate lobbyists for every member of Congress.”

http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/japan_warming_UN/2009/02/25/185606.html

A.T. Hagan
02-27-2009, 12:20 PM
— The global temperature increase up to today is primarily a recovery from the “Little Ice Age” that earth experienced from 1400 to 1800. This rise peaked in 2000.

Hmmm...

.....Alan.

Fiddlerdave
02-28-2009, 02:39 PM
The hordes of godlike "top Japanese scientists" tell us GW is hokum!!! Praise the day, we are saved!!!!!! Burn that gas! Shovel that coal! Uncover those smokestacks and stop wasting money on emissions controls! Party like its 2006!!

Ooops, Gee, nothing like disclosing the "Japan Society of Energy and Resources" is another small but well connected oil company thinktank apparently dedicated to primacy of fossil fuels, with major fossil fuel company science consultants in leadership positions.

Never Mind!

dyrt
02-28-2009, 09:10 PM
The socialist global warming religion devotees are not happy. The earth has been cooling. Some of the measurements that they have been preaching have been shown to be full of error. Polls are showing the masses are not sure any more. Real scientists are providing solid evidence that the founding theories are myths. On top of that, the current economic situation is making people think about money and not environment. The momentum is being lost.

The collapse of a religion is such an ugly bitter thing.

DryHeat
03-02-2009, 10:00 PM
And your credentials to judge the opinions of the vast majority of scientists who have addressed the global warming issue are? How many university level science courses versus rants on right-wing and money-hungry industry supported blogs and web pages have you studied? I bet not many. No, you aren't providing a balanced view to save leftist sheeples or whatever, you're showing yourself to be rather foolish and showing it better to skip your opinions on most any subject.

Ought Six
03-02-2009, 10:06 PM
DH:".... and showing it better to skip your opinions on most any subject."I, for one, would consider that a personal favor, if you could accomplish it silently. :yes:

Fiddlerdave
03-03-2009, 01:05 AM
Real scientists are providing solid evidence that the founding theories are myths. This is the part that seems to be missing in the Denialist program.

This little puff piece from the the 6 person, oil company dominated "Japan Society of Energy and Resources" is neither "solid evidence" nor shows any climate science to be a "myth".

hillsidedigger
03-03-2009, 09:52 AM
Whether warming or not from increased CO2, I suspect the great volume of smoke, soot and dust injected into the atmosphere by human activity which largely eventually settles to the surface somewhere with much of it settling onto the surface if glaciers and ice-caps tends to darken the surface of the ice so promoting quicker melting.

Sysiphus
03-03-2009, 02:54 PM
Whether one believes CO2 levels in the atmosphere are a leading or trailing indicator, we have not been at 450ppm for millions of years. How do the skeptics explain that one?

dharma
03-03-2009, 05:29 PM
Whether one believes CO2 levels in the atmosphere are a leading or trailing indicator, we have not been at 450ppm for millions of years. How do the skeptics explain that one?
They use charts like this:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/76/Phanerozoic_Carbon_Dioxide.png

This figure shows estimates of the changes in carbon dioxide concentrations during the Phanerozoic. Three estimates are based on geochemical modeling: GEOCARB III (Berner and Kothavala 2001), COPSE (Bergmann et al. 2004) and Rothman (2001). These are compared to the carbon dioxide measurement database of Royer et al. (2004) and a 30 Myr filtered average of those data. Error envelopes are shown when they were available. The right hand scale shows the ratio of these measurements to the estimated average for the last several million years (the Quaternary). Customary labels for the periods of geologic time appear at the bottom.

Direct determination of past carbon dioxide levels relies primarily on the interpretation of carbon isotopic ratios in fossilized soils (paleosols) or the shells of phytoplankton and through interpretation of stomatal density in fossil plants. Each of these is subject to substantial systematic uncertainty.

Estimates of carbon dioxide changes through geochemical modeling instead rely on quantifying the geological sources and sinks for carbon dioxide over long time scales particularly: volcanic inputs, erosion and carbonate deposition. As such, these models are largely independent of direct measurements of carbon dioxide.

Both measurements and models show considerable uncertainty and variation; however, all point to carbon dioxide levels in the past that have been signifcantly higher than they are at present. While the GEOCARB Carbon dioxide levels in the most part of the Phanerzoic Eon shows a fit and resultíng climate sensitivity similar to todays values, the early Phanerozoic includes a global ice age during the Ordovician age combined with high atmospheric carbon contents based on the same project. There have been different speculations about the reasons but no acknowledged mechanism so far.

Uh oh! High carbon dioxide levels cause ice ages! Run in circles, scream and shout!

Sysiphus
03-03-2009, 06:45 PM
And which of those traces shows CO2 anywhere near 450ppm in the past 20MY? I am not talking about stuff that happened 100MY ago. The green one kinda gets close, but do you really believe that we just so happen to live within the 200 year period where CO2 levels are suddenly the highest for more than 20 million years? At the rate things are going, we are going to hit 750PPM before 2050. If you believe that this is all a coincidence, I have an uncle who owns some nice swamp land in Florida. Cheap! ;)

dharma
03-03-2009, 09:33 PM
My point, which I could have made more clearly, is that it is hard to get excited about carbon dioxide concentrations in the last few million years—a geologic finger snap—when they have been not only higher, but hugely higher, in the past (and in fact associated with ice ages!)

dyrt
03-03-2009, 10:10 PM
The collapse of a religion is such an ugly bitter thing.

And your credentials to judge the opinions of the vast majority of scientists who have addressed the global warming issue are? How many university level science courses versus rants on right-wing and money-hungry industry supported blogs and web pages have you studied? I bet not many. No, you aren't providing a balanced view to save leftist sheeples or whatever, you're showing yourself to be rather foolish and showing it better to skip your opinions on most any subject.
:cool:

I love the subject of comparative mythologies and am not the only one to write about the comparison. A quick net search will reveal many good articles. In addition, the radical socialist agenda of the global warming cultists is disturbing. Their political aspirations are turning off people to any understanding of the science.

Sysiphus
03-03-2009, 11:00 PM
is that it is hard to get excited about carbon dioxide concentrations in the last few million years—a geologic finger snap—when they have been not only higher, but hugely higher, in the past (and in fact associated with ice ages!)

I'll make the point again. Do you really think it is a coincidence that CO2 levels just so happen to be rising to such levels for the first time in 20 million years? We are talking about a massive rise in just 150 years to levels that have not been seen in 20 million or more years. One hundred and fifty years is less than 0.001% of 20 million years. Statisically, this is the Achilles heel of the skeptics' arguments. The burden is on the skeptics to come up with a plausible explanation for this rise being caused by anything other than humans putting more CO2 into the atmosphere than the atmosphere can handle. Now, if you want to argue that in fact the CO2 level increase will not lead to global warming that is a different matter and I am all ears.

dharma
03-04-2009, 12:41 AM
The burden is on the skeptics to come up with a plausible explanation for this rise being caused by anything other than humans putting more CO2 into the atmosphere than the atmosphere can handle.
I'm not sure many are arguing with the origin of the carbon dioxide. It's that last phrase that seems iffy. I refer you once again to the chart.

Sysiphus
03-04-2009, 01:34 AM
The atmosphere is in very close equilibrium. When there is too much CO2, e.g. from human sources, volcanoes, etc., there are take up mechanisms like increased plant growth and absorption by the oceans. So, yes if the point you are making is whether the atmosphere can deal with higher levels of CO2 in the long run, the answer is most certainly yes. If the CO2 in the atmosphere doubles or triples in the next 100 years, yes eventually the system will adjust and we will return to equilibrium in the geological time scale. However, we humans do not live in a geological time scale, so for the next 1,000, 10,000, 100,000, 1 million or whatever number of years the system takes to get back into sync, there are going to be some major problems. Personally, I believe the system is very fine tuned, just like the universe is generally. Push a bit too hard too fast, and the system gets out of whack with disastrous consequences in the short to medium term. I am not pedantic like fiddlerdave, nor do I think I am smarter than other people, and can accept that reasonable minds disagree on this point. But, that is my personal view.

Ought Six
03-04-2009, 01:50 PM
I think the evidence is perfectly clear. CO2 is a lagging indicator. It is not the cause of global warming. It is caused by global warming. Global warming itself is caused by a number of factors, but the likely biggest suspect is solar output.

dharma
03-04-2009, 01:57 PM
What .06 said. I've made the same argument a dozen times, where was my brain last night? I retract my last post.

Fiddlerdave
03-04-2009, 02:04 PM
I think the evidence is perfectly clear. CO2 is a lagging indicator. It is not the cause of global warming. It is caused by global warming. Global warming itself is caused by a number of factors, but the likely biggest suspect is solar output.A factor which, even with direct satellite measurement of sun output, has zero serious scientific support. :re:

Sysiphus
03-04-2009, 02:12 PM
06 - Your argument still does not account for the rapid increase in CO2 in the atmosphere; a rate which is unprecedented in the past 600,000 years based on the Vostok cores, and unprecedented in the past 20 million years based on other indicators (although those are not as sensitive as Vostok to short-term fluctuations). This strikes me as an odd coincidence. Anyways, assuming it is a lagging indicator, what is the mechanism? One would think that increased solar output equals warmer temperatures equals more plant growth equals less, not more, CO2. Just curious - I'm trying to take this discussion away from being a bunch of fingerpointing and instead to be a civil discussion of the various theories, pro and con AGW.

dharma
03-04-2009, 02:43 PM
I'm trying to take this discussion away from being a bunch of finger pointing and instead to be a civil discussion
And doing very well. Thank you. (I'm a hothead myself, but I try not to be.)