A Russian scientist claims global warming can be just a temporary inconvenience, since climatic changes show their natural fluctuating patterns and depend on our Sun’s activity level. A Research fellow of the Arctic and Antarctic research and science centre suggests the phenomenon, widely known as global warming, is not more than a natural variation.
The rest of the translated article is here.
The original Russian article is here.
Anyone who speaks Russian should be able to find out his name.
Thanks to Marc Morano for the links.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Nje pomimaju parusski!
Translation: ” I don’t speak Russian ”
One of the more irritating aspects of Western Science is its Anglo-Saxon hegemony. Russian scientists,(and I suspect Chinese as well),publish literally thousands of top class papers in the Russian literature which rarely see the light of english translations.
I have personal experience of editing such papers for english journals, and it is a formidable task to get the correct sense of meaning conveyed from Russian to English. Sometimes there are Russian words which have no equivalent analog in English. And it usually takes a few to and fro emails to get the correct meanings right.
It does seem that AGW is a peculiarly Anglo-Saxon prelediction and a cause celebre among the socialists or social democrats, hence Europe’s jump onto the AGW bandwagon.
But why Anglo-Saxon science refuses to give Russian science equal standing remains mystifying.
But if the Russians reckon global warming is actually a natural cyclic event, then I would place more credence on that, than the screeches from the harradins in Green Peace and the environmental movement.
No stats – denialist solar theory #728
Funny how Louis suddenly likes socialist science. If it had been Chinese you wouldn’t have believed them.
Just more cycles crap.
Luke,
There is certainly socialist science – and I have texts written by Russian Scientists who write the uusal socialist platitudes in the foreword, but as I didn’t mention socialist science but Russian science, you in your tiresome way, again misconstrue the written word and replace it with your misconceptions.
In fact with your comment above I suddenly realise you actually don’t know what science is.
But there is science based on the deductive method, and science based on the empirical method, and your hallowed climate science is dominated by the deductive method. That is why it is pseudoscience, or consensus science.
As Albert Einstein once was alleged to have said, to prove his theory wrong, only one scientist is needed, not a phalanx of contradictors. Facts are facts and only one person is required to point to an error of fact in a scientific hypothesis or theory to render it false.
That has already been done in terms of the mainstream recorded global temperature and CO2 emissions.
Hey Louis, where are CO2 levels at. A 75% of doubling increase from 280 takes us to 490. Is that where you think we are at or do you need to check your calculator?
Nuh – they’re commie reds Louis and you’re supporting them so you’re a commie red too. Which means you don’t get a vote.
Anyway as you’re a reductionist like most geologists you’ll never get AGW
It is interesting to note that when the goverment of Russia considered signing theKyoto protocol, the Russian chief scientist recommended that they not sign, because the science relating Anthropogenic CO2 to temprature change had not been established.
However, the governments of the EU promised entry to the WTO if Russia signed, so Putin signed.
By the way, there are excellent translation services in Israel for Russion scientific articles. It is quite a profitable business. I have more than a few Russian papers, andthey often offer a ignificantly different slant on the science.
Anthony
You should check your calculator please
The result is (280 + 280)*0.75 = 420
Luke,
You seem to be an arch Lysenkoist and an expert in writing non sequiturs. And you have lost teh argument since all you can respond with is personal invective and name calling. Isn’t it about time you quit here since nothing you write seems to have any effect here apart from irritation by all concerned.
But I do get AGW – it is an emperor with no clothes as is fast becoming evident as more and more thoughtful scientists are examining the science and evidence.
Louis – you of all people can’t talk about invective. You’re an old greenie basher from way back. Mate do bung it on. Do you provide a useful contribution or are your comments “random hand grenades in the blogosphere”. Like most right wing gimps you’re not used to getting it back. Hand it out OK but gee no backchat please.
As for “emporer with no clothes” – mate except for your WMC mates the world of serious business has moved on. You guys have lost. Ageing cold war warriors – out of time and out of the debate.
Also 280 + (280*0.75) = 420
2X = 560 !!
Which is why you’re in trouble.
So I had to look up Lysenkoist
“Lysenkoism is a term given to the repressive political and social campaigns undertaken in science and agriculture by the powerful Stalinist director of the Soviet Institute of Genetics, Trofim Denisovich Lysenko and his followers, which began in the late 1920s and formally ended in 1964. Lysenkoism, or Lysenko-Michurinism, may also denote the biological inheritance principles Lysenko subscribed to which derive from theories of the heritability of acquired characteristics, a body of biological inheritance theory which departs from Mendelism and that Lysenko himself named “Michurinism”.”
Somehow I don’t think so – but I do think you’re a wanker.
Anyway one day you might hang around long enough and sparing us the tedious Marxist twaddle to do a decent debate.
I mean – it’s either an issue or it isn’t. Be heaps easier for all of us if it weren’t an issue.
Interestingly some very serious AGW believing scientists do blame the greens for this AGW issue being picked up by the left – if it had been picked up by the right things may have been very different.
From: Phaeton’s Reins
The human hand in climate change by Kerry Emanuel
http://web.archive.org/web/20070125224909/http://bostonreview.net/BR32.1/emanuel.html
Excerpt:
The politics of global climate change
Especially in the United States, the political debate about global climate change became polarized along the conservative–liberal axis some decades ago. Although we take this for granted now, it is not entirely obvious why the chips fell the way they did. One can easily imagine conservatives embracing the notion of climate change in support of actions they might like to see anyway. Conservatives have usually been strong supporters of nuclear power, and few can be happy about our current dependence on foreign oil. The United States is renowned for its technological innovation and should be at an advantage in making money from any global sea change in energy-producing technology: consider the prospect of selling new means of powering vehicles and electrical generation to China’s rapidly expanding economy. But none of this has happened.
Paradoxes abound on the political left as well. A meaningful reduction in greenhouse-gas emissions will require a shift in the means of producing energy, as well as conservation measures. But such alternatives as nuclear and wind power are viewed with deep ambivalence by the left. Senator Kennedy, by most measures our most liberal senator, is strongly opposed to a project to develop wind energy near his home in Hyannis, and environmentalists have only just begun to rethink their visceral opposition to nuclear power. Had it not been for green opposition, the United States today might derive most of its electricity from nuclear power, as does France; thus the environmentalists must accept a large measure of responsibility for today’s most critical environmental problem.
There are other obstacles to taking a sensible approach to the climate problem. We have preciously few representatives in Congress with a background or interest in science, and some of them display an active contempt for the subject. As long as we continue to elect scientific illiterates like James Inhofe, who believes global warming to be a hoax, we will lack the ability to engage in intelligent debate. Scientists are most effective when they provide sound, impartial advice, but their reputation for impartiality is severely compromised by the shocking lack of political diversity among American academics, who suffer from the kind of group-think that develops in cloistered cultures. Until this profound and well documented intellectual homogeneity changes, scientists will be suspected of constituting a leftist think tank.
On the bright side, the governments of many countries, including the United States, continue to fund active programs of climate research, and many of the critical uncertainties about climate change are slowly being whittled down. The extremists are being exposed and relegated to the sidelines, and when the media stop amplifying their views, their political counterparts will have nothing left to stand on. When this happens, we can get down to the serious business of tackling the most complex and perhaps the most consequential problem ever confronted by mankind.
Luke,
has if you hadn’t noticed but WMC doesn’t exist Any more and, quite frankly, your knowledge of the mining industry is appalling.
And once again you still do not understand the small numerical problem. Lindzen said that right now we have reached about 75% of the target of doubling CO2 from historical levels. So my numbers are about right, so we are about 75% at the target and the temperature has not risen anywhere near what the computer models are predicting from the unproven assumption of climate forcing.
And I do indeed bash greenies Luke but I don’t attack the person as you do, I bash the philosophy and ideas.
Now what point are you wishing to make?
280 + (280*0.75) = 490 not 420
Come off it Louis – you’ve done your share of ad homs. As I said – don’t bung it on.
WMC may be merged but the point being the WMC greenhouse mafia dinosaurs aka your old mates are still out there.
As for your maths – err nope ! no – wrong (mine too above but not defending it).
And so your reference for the models being wrong is what? In any test of validation I’d suggest they’re pretty bloody good. Your understanding is clutches at little wiggles and ignores all previous internal variability which shows some ups and downs – but a VERY strong overall trend. Perhaps Louis you might like to explain why the troposphere is warming and the stratosphere cooling – exactly NOT what a solar warming would give you – http://www.ssmi.com/msu/msu_data_description.html
and it seems predictions are actually exceeding expectations
Science 4 May 2007:
Vol. 316. no. 5825, p. 709
DOI: 10.1126/science.1136843
Recent Climate Observations Compared to Projections
Stefan Rahmstorf,1 Anny Cazenave,2 John A. Church,3 James E. Hansen,4 Ralph F. Keeling,5 David E. Parker,6 Richard C. J. Somerville5
We present recent observed climate trends for carbon dioxide concentration, global mean air temperature, and global sea level, and we compare these trends to previous model projections as summarized in the 2001 assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The IPCC scenarios and projections start in the year 1990, which is also the base year of the Kyoto protocol, in which almost all industrialized nations accepted a binding commitment to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. The data available for the period since 1990 raise concerns that the climate system, in particular sea level, may be responding more quickly to climate change than our current generation of models indicates.
1 Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, 14482 Potsdam, Germany.
2 Laboratoire d’Etudes en Géophysique et Océanographie Spatiales, 31400 Toulouse, France.
3 Marine and Atmospheric Research and Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Cooperative Research Centre, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Hobart Tasmania, 7001, Australia.
4 NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), New York, NY 10025, USA.
5 Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093, USA.
6 Hadley Centre, Met Office, Exeter EX1 3PB, UK.
(yes Rog you are totally correct and I am silly – 490 the point I was trying to make and also myself goofed rewriting Louis’s 420 number – was meaning 280 + (280*0.75) = 490 not 420)
Not only is your maths wrong, the models are too (ref BOM model)
What BoM model? My maths is fine – my transcription is less than perfect.
Pielke Sr wasn’t impressed by the Rahmstorf/Hansen paper:
There is an article today in Science Express by Stefan Rahmstorf, Anny Cazenave, John A. Church, James E. Hansen, Ralph F. Keeling, David E. Parker,Richard C. Somerville entitled “Recent Climate Observations Compared to Projections” which is remarkably blatant about its cherry picking of papers to support their view and in ignoring peer reviewed papers that do not.
They make statements such as
“The global mean surface temperature increase (land and ocean combined) in both the NASA GISS data set and the Hadley Centre / Climatic Research Unit data set is 0.33 ºC for the 16 years since 1990, which is in the upper part of the range projected by the IPCC. Given the relatively short 16- year time period considered, it will be difficult to establish the reasons for this relatively rapid warming, although there are only a few likely possibilities. The first candidate reason candidate is climate forcings other than CO2: While the concentration of other greenhouse gases has risen more slowly than assumed in the IPCC scenarios, a smaller aerosol cooling than expected is a possible cause of the extra warming. A third candidate is an underestimation of the climate sensitivity to CO2 (i.e., model error).”
This set of reasoning has conveniently ignored the conclusions of the following peer reviewed papers which document a warm bias in existing global surface land air temperature trend assessments; i.e.
Pielke Sr., R.A., and T. Matsui, 2005: Should light wind and windy nights have the same temperature trends at individual levels even if the boundary layer averaged heat content change is the same? Geophys. Res. Letts., 32,
No. 21, L21813, 10.1029/2005GL024407. [and as summarized on Climate Science in January 2006]
Hale, R.C., K.P. Gallo, T.W. Owen, and T.R. Loveland, Land use/land cover change effects ontemperature trends at U.S. Climate Normals Stations, Geophys. Res. Lett., 33, doi:10.1029/2006GL026358, 2006
which were available to the authors of the Science Express paper. Our new paper
Pielke Sr., R.A., C. Davey, D. Niyogi, K. Hubbard, X. Lin, M. Cai, Y.-K. Lim, H. Li, J. Nielsen-Gammon, K. Gallo, R. Hale, J. Angel, R. Mahmood, S. Foster, J. Steinweg-Woods, R. Boyles , S. Fall, R.T. McNider, and P. Blanken, 2007: Unresolved issues with the assessment of multi-decadal global land surface temperature trends. J. Geophys. Res. accepted.
summarizes these issue, and adds significant new problems with the use of land surface air temperature trends as part of the construction of a global average surface temperature trend as used by Rahmstorf and colleagues.
Thus the reported “warming” reported from the Hadley Centre / Climatic Research Unit data has a warm bias of a significant value (certainly tenths of a degess) in its construction.
Even more egregious was their selection of the
Willis, J.K., D. Roemmich, and B. Cornuelle, 2004: Interannual variability in upper ocean heat content, temperature, and thermosteric expansion on global scales. J. Geophys. Res., 109, C12036, doi: 10.1029/2003JC002260
paper to cite (which documents a strong ocean warming in the 1990s), but ignores the more recent paper
Lyman, J. M., J. K. Willis, and G. C. Johnson (2006), Recent cooling of the
upper ocean, Geophys. Res. Lett., 33, L18604, doi:10.1029/2006GL027033
Corrected to show no ocean warming over the past 5 years
The authors cannot be faulted for bolstering the case for their perspective of climate change, but by ignoring peer reviewed literature that provides another perspective, they are grossly misleading the public and policymakers on our actual understanding of the climate system. As a former Co-Chief Editor of the Journal of Atmospheric Science, the former Chief Editor of the Monthly Review, and Chief Editor of the U.S. National Report to International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics 1991-1994. such a paper would not have been accepted in the form as submitted until they, at the very least, address these other issues.
Yep seen a number. All just nibblers – doesn’t change the big picture. Or inconvenient stratospheric effects.
They make a small point that things like sea level are trending at the upper range of their predictions. Not a bad integrator.
You guys are going to be a right pickle when the temperature starts to move up again.
But still Paul – any useful advice for our drought stricken farmers. Like hang in, invest or retreat?
Or crickets chirping …
Spoke to a senior scientist in BoM this week. Said he doesn’t bother debating contrarians anymore – reason nothing positive to say and doesn’t help those who are trying to make some decisions. Said “of course some is natural but would you like to put a bet that it ALL is”.
Louis, a 75% of doubling when we are at 280 is not (280+280)*.75
As Rog points out, it is i280 +(280)*75.
Here’s the author:
http://www.aari.ru/misc/staff/_pers1.asp?id=99
Aleksandr Gennad’evich Egorov. Or just Alexander Egorov. Googling the email address on that page turns up a few things.
My advice to stricken farmers is not to listen to carbon claptrap.
Useless – they weren’t anyway.
I don’t think you know about climate risk management Paul.
You see you don’t have to make a calculation.
It’s all a game.
If you were really clever you might review many of the few comments Bazza has made.
You mean 75% of 100%?
Incredible…
And equally Rog NEVER adds anything positive except one-liners. I have yet to see Rog a contribution ? Whatever a “Rog” actually is?
Sigh.
Historically CO2 levels were 280 ppmv. Doubling = 560 ppmv.
We are close to having reached 75% of that doubling.
560 *.75 = 420
QED.
And it is now raining in Halls Creek.
thanks for the clarification Louis
Fires are now raging in California