Ciklusi ledenih doba postoje na planeti već stotinama tisuća godina. Geološka ispitivanja i bušenja to su lijepo pokazala. Sada se nalazimo na vrhuncu ciklusa, i krećemo u ledeno doba. Najveći čimbenik u promjenama su prirodnog porijekla, npr. vulkani, koji su se aktivirali u posljednjem periodu (pogotovo oni pod morem), i vodena para koja utječe na (trenutno) globalno zatopljenje više od 80%!
Problem je u tome što znanstvenici proučavaju samo dio za koji su im omogućena materijalna sredstva, tj. ona od koje bi moćnici kasnije mogli imati koristi. A to je u ovom slučaju proučavanje CO2, koji tek nekoliko % utječe na globalno zatopljenje. I zato su samo takvi znanstveni podaci dostupni javnosti. Sve ostalo je djelomično istraženo ili neistraženo i nebitno za moćnike!
Najveći staklenički plin je vodena para, a ljudski utjecaj na promjenu klime je tek par %!
No oduvijek u ovoj civilizaciji čovjek je bio u središtu svega na svijetu, baš kao i zemlja oko koje se sve vrtilo, pa čak i sunce.
Zato, ne vežite se uz informacije koje nam serviraju, proučavajte i ne vjerujte na prvu. Osluškujte sami, jer dio smo prirode koja stvari dovede u red bez obzira na nas. Promjene i periodička gibanja prisutna su svugdje i u svemu!
Ne treba nasjedati na mit o ljudskom utjecaju na globalno zatopljenje, jer taj mit je proizvod monetarne politike, a služi samo da bi uvodili poreze i ubirali profit u ime ekologije. Najveći problem je što se istraživanja u znanosti danas odvijaju samo u područjima gdje je lova prisutna i gdje se financiraju samo određeni projekti, a puno toga ostane neistraženog. Oni koji investiraju, itekako imaju razloga za ulaganje u znanstvene projekte, jer vrlo dobro znaju koja istraživanja mogu vratiti uloženi novac. I onda na kraju nam serviraju samo istraživanja koja im idu u prilog, a ne cjelokupna, jer ih često puta niti nema! previše je tu jakih osoba i njihovih karijera uključeno u mit o globalnom zatopljenju. Zamislite da moraju priznati kako sve pada u vodu, pali bi i oni u vodu. I ne samo oni, već i političari koji će sve napraviti da održe tu teoriju ako ne milom onda silom jer je to izgovor za visoko oporezivanje u automobilskoj industriji i energetici, a rezanje tih poreza bi izazvalo manjak prihoda.
Što se tiče prirodnih pojava; potresa, vulkana, tsunamija, poplava, općih potopa ))… bilo ih je i prije, a biti će i dalje, u istoj ili sličnoj mjeri (ovisno o prirodnim ciklusima). ovo globalno zatopljenje ne traje od industrijske revolucije, već od zadnjeg ledenog doba – što je potpuno normalan ciklus na zemlji. I sada krećemo u ledeno doba (pogledajte akademika V. Paara u emisiji „na rubu znanosti“)! No jednu stvar treba imati na umu, a to je da mjerenja temperature i sl.. ne postoje dugo, već samo nekoliko stotina godina, što je zapravo kratki period da bi se bilo kakvi zaključci mogli dati samo na temelju mjerenja temperature.
Geološka istraživanja su potvrdila 4 velika ciklusa izmjenjivanja globalnih zatopljenja i ledenih doba u razdoblju od nekih 400 000 godina. U svojoj studiji o globalnom zagrijavanju, Fischer i sur. (1999) su utvrdili da temperatura zraka poraste uvijek PRVA, nakon čega slijedi porast CO2 u atmosferi, i to do 1000 godina kasnije! podjednako, Petit et al. (1999) found that for all of the glacial inceptions of the past half-million years, air temperature consistently dropped before the air's CO2 content did, and that the CO2 decreases lagged the temperature decreases by several thousand years.
Osim geoloških istraživanja koja očito ne idu u prilog zagovornicima ljudskog faktora u promjeni klime, postoji još brdo istraživanja o sunčevim ciklusima, strujanjima u oceanima i vulkanima koji su veliki i najvažniji faktori promjeni klime. male promjene na suncu mogu inducirati velike promjene klime na zemlji. Npr. Lockwood and Stamper (1999), procjenjuju da promjene u sunčevom sjaju mogu i do 52% utjecati na promjenu temperature.
IPCC chapter 3 did a good job explaining the patterns of climate variability through global teleconnections and defining the circulation indices including the short term and decadal scale oscillations in the Pacific, and Atlantic. It noted that the decadal variability in the Pacific (the Pacific Decadal Oscillation or PDO) is likely due to oceanic processes.
Extratropical ocean influences are likely to play a role as changes in the ocean gyre evolve and heat anomalies are subducted and reemerge. The Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) is thought to be due to changes in the strength of the thermohaline circulation.
A što se tiče vulkana, jedan veći vulkan može u svojoj kratkoj aktivnosti u atmosferu izbaciti pepela, SO2, CO2, vodene pare i drugih stakleničkih plinova više nego čovječanstvo u godinu dana (btw vodena para je najveći staklenički plin)!
GLOBAL WARMING IS PRIMARILY CAUSED BY NATURAL PROCESSES:
Singer argues there is no evidence that global warming is attributable to human-caused increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide, and that humanity would benefit if temperatures do rise.
Khabibullo Abdusamatov, mathematician and astronomer at Pulkovo Observatory: "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...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."
Sallie Baliunas, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics: "The recent warming trend in the surface temperature record cannot be caused by the increase of human-made greenhouse gases in the air."
George V. Chilingar, Professor of Civil and Petroleum Engineering at the University of Southern California: "The authors identify and describe the following global forces of nature driving the Earth’s climate: (1) solar radiation ..., (2) outgassing as a major supplier of gases to the World Ocean and the atmosphere, and, possibly, (3) microbial activities ... . The writers provide quantitative estimates of the scope and extent of their corresponding effects on the Earth’s climate [and] show that the human-induced climatic changes are negligible."
Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa: "That portion of the scientific community that attributes climate warming to CO2 relies on the hypothesis that increasing CO2, which is in fact a minor greenhouse gas, triggers a much larger water vapour response to warm the atmosphere. This mechanism has never been tested scientifically beyond the mathematical models that predict extensive warming, and are confounded by the complexity of cloud formation – which has a cooling effect. ... We know that [the sun] was responsible for climate change in the past, and so is clearly going to play the lead role in present and future climate change. And interestingly... solar activity has recently begun a downward cycle."
Chris de Freitas, Associate Professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland: "There is evidence of global warming. ... But warming does not confirm that carbon dioxide is causing it. Climate is always warming or cooling. There are natural variability theories of warming. To support the argument that carbon dioxide is causing it, the evidence would have to distinguish between human-caused and natural warming. This has not been done."
David Douglass, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester: "The observed pattern of warming, comparing surface and atmospheric temperature trends, does not show the characteristic fingerprint associated with greenhouse warming. The inescapable conclusion is that the human contribution is not significant and that observed increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases make only a negligible contribution to climate warming."
Don Easterbrook, professor of geology, Western Washington University: "Global warming since 1900 could well have happened without any effect of CO2. If the cycles continue as in the past, the current warm cycle should end soon and global temperatures should cool slightly until about 2035."
Timothy F. Ball, former Professor of Geography, University of Winnipeg: "[The world's climate] warmed from 1680 up to 1940, but since 1940 it's been cooling down. The evidence for warming is because of distorted records. The satellite data, for example, shows cooling." (November 2004)[4] "There's been warming, no question. I've never debated that; never disputed that. The dispute is, what is the cause. And of course the argument that human CO2 being added to the atmosphere is the cause just simply doesn't hold up..." (May 18, 2006; at 15:30 into recording of interview)[5] "The temperature hasn't gone up. ... But the mood of the world has changed: It has heated up to this belief in global warming." (August 2006)[6] "Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970's global cooling became the consensus. ... By the 1990's temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I'll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling." (Feb. 5, 2007)[7]
William M. Gray, Professor Emeritus and head of The Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University: "This small warming is likely a result of the natural alterations in global ocean currents which are driven by ocean salinity variations. Ocean circulation variations are as yet little ..."
Marcel Leroux, former Professor of Climatology, Université Jean Moulin: “The possible causes, then, of climate change are: well-established orbital parameters on the palaeoclimatic scale, … solar activity, …; volcanism …; and far at the rear, the greenhouse effect, and in particular that caused by water vapor, the extent of its influence being unknown. These factors are working together all the time, and it seems difficult to unravel the relative importance of their respective influences upon climatic evolution. Equally, it is tendentious to highlight the anthropic factor, which is, clearly, the least credible among all those previously mentioned.” (M. Leroux, Global Warming – Myth or Reality?, 2005, p. 120 [26])
Zbigniew Jaworowski, chair of the Scientific Council at the Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, Warsaw: “The atmospheric temperature variations do not follow the changes in the concentrations of CO2 … climate change fluctuations comes … from cosmic radiation.” (21st Century Science & Technology, Winter 2003-2004, p. 52-65)
David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware: “About half of the warming during the 20th century occurred prior to the 1940s, and natural variability accounts for all or nearly all of the warming.” (May 15, 2006)
Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa: global warming “is the biggest scientific hoax being perpetrated on humanity. There is no global warming due to human anthropogenic activities. The atmosphere hasn’t changed much in 280 million years, and there have always been cycles of warming and cooling. The Cretaceous period was the warmest on earth. You could have grown tomatoes at the North Pole”
Tim Patterson [28], paleoclimatologist and Professor of Geology at Carleton University in Canada: “There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth’s temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years. On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century’s modest warming?”
Ian Plimer, Professor of Mining Geology, The University of Adelaide: “We only have to have one volcano burping and we have changed the whole planetary climate… It looks as if carbon dioxide actually follows climate change rather than drives it”
Frederick Seitz, retired, former solid-state physicist, former president of the National Academy of Sciences: “So we see that the scientific facts indicate that all the temperature changes observed in the last 100 years were largely natural changes and were not caused by carbon dioxide produced in human activities.” (Environment News, 2001)
Willie Soon, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics: “[T]here’s increasingly strong evidence that previous research conclusions, including those of the United Nations and the United States government concerning 20th century warming, may have been biased by underestimation of natural climate variations. The bottom line is that if these variations are indeed proven true, then, yes, natural climate fluctuations could be a dominant factor in the recent warming. In other words, natural factors could be more important than previously assumed.” (Harvard University Gazette, 24 April 2003)
Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London: “…the myth is starting to implode. … Serious new research at The Max Planck Institute has indicated that the sun is a far more significant factor…” (Global Warming as Myth)
Henrik Svensmark, Danish National Space Center: “Our team … has discovered that the relatively few cosmic rays that reach sea-level play a big part in the everyday weather. They help to make low-level clouds, which largely regulate the Earth’s surface temperature. During the 20th Century the influx of cosmic rays decreased and the resulting reduction of cloudiness allowed the world to warm up. … most of the warming during the 20th Century can be explained by a reduction in low cloud cover.”
Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, Professor Emeritus from University of Ottawa: “At this stage, two scenarios of potential human impact on climate appear feasible: (1) the standard IPCC model …, and (2) the alternative model that argues for celestial phenomena as the principal climate driver. … Models and empirical observations are both indispensable tools of science, yet when discrepancies arise, observations should carry greater weight than theory. If so, the multitude of empirical observations favours celestial phenomena as the most important driver of terrestrial climate on most time scales, but time will be the final judge.” (In J. Veizer, “Celestial climate driver: a perspective from four billion years of the carbon cycle”, Geoscience Canada, March, 2005)
Syun-Ichi Akasofu, retired professor of geophysics and Director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks: “Thus, there is a possibility that only a fraction of the present warming trend may be attributed to the greenhouse effect resulting from human activities. This conclusion is contrary to the IPCC (2007) Report, which states that “most” of the present warming (+0.7°C/100 years) is due to the greenhouse effect.”
Claude Allègre, geochemist, Institute of Geophysics (Paris): “The increase in the CO2 content of the atmosphere is an observed fact and mankind is most certainly responsible. In the long term, this increase will without doubt become harmful, but its exact role in the climate is less clear. Various parameters appear more important than CO2. Consider the water cycle and formation of various types of clouds, and the complex effects of industrial or agricultural dust. Or fluctuations of the intensity of the solar radiation on annual and century scale, which seem better correlated with heating effects than the variations of CO2 content.” (Translation from the original French version in L’Express, May 10, 2006)
August H. “Augie” Auer Jr., retired New Zealand MetService Meteorologist, past professor of atmospheric science at the University of Wyoming: “So if you multiply the total contribution 3.6 by the man-made portion of it, 3.2, you find out that the anthropogenic contribution of CO2 to the the global greenhouse effect is 0.117 percent, roughly 0.12 percent, that’s like 12c in $100.” “‘It’s miniscule … it’s nothing,’”.
Robert C. Balling, Jr., director of the Office of Climatology and a professor of geography at Arizona State University: “[I]t is very likely that the recent upward trend [in global surface temperature] is very real and that the upward signal is greater than any noise introduced from uncertainties in the record. However, the general error is most likely to be in the warming direction, with a maximum possible (though unlikely) value of 0.3 °C. … At this moment in time we know only that: (1) Global surface temperatures have risen in recent decades. (2) Mid-tropospheric temperatures have warmed little over the same period. (3) This difference is not consistent with predictions from numerical climate models.” (George C. Marshall Institute, Policy Outlook, September 2003)
Chris de Freitas, Associate Professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland: “There is evidence of global warming. … But warming does not confirm that carbon dioxide is causing it. Climate is always warming or cooling. There are natural variability theories of warming. To support the argument that carbon dioxide is causing it, the evidence would have to distinguish between human-caused and natural warming. This has not been done.” (The New Zealand Herald, May 9, 2006)
David Deming, geology professor at the University of Oklahoma: “The amount of climatic warming that has taken place in the past 150 years is poorly constrained, and its cause–human or natural–is unknown. There is no sound scientific basis for predicting future climate change with any degree of certainty. If the climate does warm, it is likely to be beneficial to humanity rather than harmful. In my opinion, it would be foolish to establish national energy policy on the basis of misinformation and irrational hysteria.” (Testimony before the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, December 6, 2006)
Richard Lindzen, Alfred Sloane Professor of Atmospheric Science at the Massachussetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences: “We are quite confident (1) that global mean temperature is about 0.5 °C higher than it was a century ago; (2) that atmospheric levels of CO2 have risen over the past two centuries; and (3) that CO2 is a greenhouse gas whose increase is likely to warm the earth (one of many, the most important being water vapor and clouds). But–and I cannot stress this enough–we are not in a position to confidently attribute past climate change to CO2 or to forecast what the climate will be in the future.” [46] “[T]here has been no question whatsoever that CO2 is an infrared absorber (i.e., a greenhouse gas — albeit a minor one), and its increase should theoretically contribute to warming. Indeed, if all else were kept equal, the increase in CO2 should have led to somewhat more warming than has been observed.” (San Francisco Examiner, July 12, 2006, and in Wall Street Journal, June 26, 2006, Page A14)
Roy Spencer, principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville: “We need to find out how much of the warming we are seeing could be due to mankind, because I still maintain we have no idea how much you can attribute to mankind.” (George C. Marshall Institute Washington Roundtable on Science and Public Policy, April 17, 2006)
Robert M. Carter, geologist, researcher at the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University in Australia: “The essence of the issue is this. Climate changes naturally all the time, partly in predictable cycles, and partly in unpredictable shorter rhythms and rapid episodic shifts, some of the causes of which remain unknown.” (Telegraph, April 9, 2006)
naravno....lista se nastavlja.
Problem je u tome što znanstvenici proučavaju samo dio za koji su im omogućena materijalna sredstva, tj. ona od koje bi moćnici kasnije mogli imati koristi. A to je u ovom slučaju proučavanje CO2, koji tek nekoliko % utječe na globalno zatopljenje. I zato su samo takvi znanstveni podaci dostupni javnosti. Sve ostalo je djelomično istraženo ili neistraženo i nebitno za moćnike!
Najveći staklenički plin je vodena para, a ljudski utjecaj na promjenu klime je tek par %!
No oduvijek u ovoj civilizaciji čovjek je bio u središtu svega na svijetu, baš kao i zemlja oko koje se sve vrtilo, pa čak i sunce.
Zato, ne vežite se uz informacije koje nam serviraju, proučavajte i ne vjerujte na prvu. Osluškujte sami, jer dio smo prirode koja stvari dovede u red bez obzira na nas. Promjene i periodička gibanja prisutna su svugdje i u svemu!
Ne treba nasjedati na mit o ljudskom utjecaju na globalno zatopljenje, jer taj mit je proizvod monetarne politike, a služi samo da bi uvodili poreze i ubirali profit u ime ekologije. Najveći problem je što se istraživanja u znanosti danas odvijaju samo u područjima gdje je lova prisutna i gdje se financiraju samo određeni projekti, a puno toga ostane neistraženog. Oni koji investiraju, itekako imaju razloga za ulaganje u znanstvene projekte, jer vrlo dobro znaju koja istraživanja mogu vratiti uloženi novac. I onda na kraju nam serviraju samo istraživanja koja im idu u prilog, a ne cjelokupna, jer ih često puta niti nema! previše je tu jakih osoba i njihovih karijera uključeno u mit o globalnom zatopljenju. Zamislite da moraju priznati kako sve pada u vodu, pali bi i oni u vodu. I ne samo oni, već i političari koji će sve napraviti da održe tu teoriju ako ne milom onda silom jer je to izgovor za visoko oporezivanje u automobilskoj industriji i energetici, a rezanje tih poreza bi izazvalo manjak prihoda.
Što se tiče prirodnih pojava; potresa, vulkana, tsunamija, poplava, općih potopa ))… bilo ih je i prije, a biti će i dalje, u istoj ili sličnoj mjeri (ovisno o prirodnim ciklusima). ovo globalno zatopljenje ne traje od industrijske revolucije, već od zadnjeg ledenog doba – što je potpuno normalan ciklus na zemlji. I sada krećemo u ledeno doba (pogledajte akademika V. Paara u emisiji „na rubu znanosti“)! No jednu stvar treba imati na umu, a to je da mjerenja temperature i sl.. ne postoje dugo, već samo nekoliko stotina godina, što je zapravo kratki period da bi se bilo kakvi zaključci mogli dati samo na temelju mjerenja temperature.
Geološka istraživanja su potvrdila 4 velika ciklusa izmjenjivanja globalnih zatopljenja i ledenih doba u razdoblju od nekih 400 000 godina. U svojoj studiji o globalnom zagrijavanju, Fischer i sur. (1999) su utvrdili da temperatura zraka poraste uvijek PRVA, nakon čega slijedi porast CO2 u atmosferi, i to do 1000 godina kasnije! podjednako, Petit et al. (1999) found that for all of the glacial inceptions of the past half-million years, air temperature consistently dropped before the air's CO2 content did, and that the CO2 decreases lagged the temperature decreases by several thousand years.
Osim geoloških istraživanja koja očito ne idu u prilog zagovornicima ljudskog faktora u promjeni klime, postoji još brdo istraživanja o sunčevim ciklusima, strujanjima u oceanima i vulkanima koji su veliki i najvažniji faktori promjeni klime. male promjene na suncu mogu inducirati velike promjene klime na zemlji. Npr. Lockwood and Stamper (1999), procjenjuju da promjene u sunčevom sjaju mogu i do 52% utjecati na promjenu temperature.
IPCC chapter 3 did a good job explaining the patterns of climate variability through global teleconnections and defining the circulation indices including the short term and decadal scale oscillations in the Pacific, and Atlantic. It noted that the decadal variability in the Pacific (the Pacific Decadal Oscillation or PDO) is likely due to oceanic processes.
Extratropical ocean influences are likely to play a role as changes in the ocean gyre evolve and heat anomalies are subducted and reemerge. The Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) is thought to be due to changes in the strength of the thermohaline circulation.
A što se tiče vulkana, jedan veći vulkan može u svojoj kratkoj aktivnosti u atmosferu izbaciti pepela, SO2, CO2, vodene pare i drugih stakleničkih plinova više nego čovječanstvo u godinu dana (btw vodena para je najveći staklenički plin)!
GLOBAL WARMING IS PRIMARILY CAUSED BY NATURAL PROCESSES:
Singer argues there is no evidence that global warming is attributable to human-caused increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide, and that humanity would benefit if temperatures do rise.
Khabibullo Abdusamatov, mathematician and astronomer at Pulkovo Observatory: "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...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."
Sallie Baliunas, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics: "The recent warming trend in the surface temperature record cannot be caused by the increase of human-made greenhouse gases in the air."
George V. Chilingar, Professor of Civil and Petroleum Engineering at the University of Southern California: "The authors identify and describe the following global forces of nature driving the Earth’s climate: (1) solar radiation ..., (2) outgassing as a major supplier of gases to the World Ocean and the atmosphere, and, possibly, (3) microbial activities ... . The writers provide quantitative estimates of the scope and extent of their corresponding effects on the Earth’s climate [and] show that the human-induced climatic changes are negligible."
Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa: "That portion of the scientific community that attributes climate warming to CO2 relies on the hypothesis that increasing CO2, which is in fact a minor greenhouse gas, triggers a much larger water vapour response to warm the atmosphere. This mechanism has never been tested scientifically beyond the mathematical models that predict extensive warming, and are confounded by the complexity of cloud formation – which has a cooling effect. ... We know that [the sun] was responsible for climate change in the past, and so is clearly going to play the lead role in present and future climate change. And interestingly... solar activity has recently begun a downward cycle."
Chris de Freitas, Associate Professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland: "There is evidence of global warming. ... But warming does not confirm that carbon dioxide is causing it. Climate is always warming or cooling. There are natural variability theories of warming. To support the argument that carbon dioxide is causing it, the evidence would have to distinguish between human-caused and natural warming. This has not been done."
David Douglass, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester: "The observed pattern of warming, comparing surface and atmospheric temperature trends, does not show the characteristic fingerprint associated with greenhouse warming. The inescapable conclusion is that the human contribution is not significant and that observed increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases make only a negligible contribution to climate warming."
Don Easterbrook, professor of geology, Western Washington University: "Global warming since 1900 could well have happened without any effect of CO2. If the cycles continue as in the past, the current warm cycle should end soon and global temperatures should cool slightly until about 2035."
Timothy F. Ball, former Professor of Geography, University of Winnipeg: "[The world's climate] warmed from 1680 up to 1940, but since 1940 it's been cooling down. The evidence for warming is because of distorted records. The satellite data, for example, shows cooling." (November 2004)[4] "There's been warming, no question. I've never debated that; never disputed that. The dispute is, what is the cause. And of course the argument that human CO2 being added to the atmosphere is the cause just simply doesn't hold up..." (May 18, 2006; at 15:30 into recording of interview)[5] "The temperature hasn't gone up. ... But the mood of the world has changed: It has heated up to this belief in global warming." (August 2006)[6] "Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970's global cooling became the consensus. ... By the 1990's temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I'll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling." (Feb. 5, 2007)[7]
William M. Gray, Professor Emeritus and head of The Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University: "This small warming is likely a result of the natural alterations in global ocean currents which are driven by ocean salinity variations. Ocean circulation variations are as yet little ..."
Marcel Leroux, former Professor of Climatology, Université Jean Moulin: “The possible causes, then, of climate change are: well-established orbital parameters on the palaeoclimatic scale, … solar activity, …; volcanism …; and far at the rear, the greenhouse effect, and in particular that caused by water vapor, the extent of its influence being unknown. These factors are working together all the time, and it seems difficult to unravel the relative importance of their respective influences upon climatic evolution. Equally, it is tendentious to highlight the anthropic factor, which is, clearly, the least credible among all those previously mentioned.” (M. Leroux, Global Warming – Myth or Reality?, 2005, p. 120 [26])
Zbigniew Jaworowski, chair of the Scientific Council at the Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, Warsaw: “The atmospheric temperature variations do not follow the changes in the concentrations of CO2 … climate change fluctuations comes … from cosmic radiation.” (21st Century Science & Technology, Winter 2003-2004, p. 52-65)
David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware: “About half of the warming during the 20th century occurred prior to the 1940s, and natural variability accounts for all or nearly all of the warming.” (May 15, 2006)
Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa: global warming “is the biggest scientific hoax being perpetrated on humanity. There is no global warming due to human anthropogenic activities. The atmosphere hasn’t changed much in 280 million years, and there have always been cycles of warming and cooling. The Cretaceous period was the warmest on earth. You could have grown tomatoes at the North Pole”
Tim Patterson [28], paleoclimatologist and Professor of Geology at Carleton University in Canada: “There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth’s temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years. On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century’s modest warming?”
Ian Plimer, Professor of Mining Geology, The University of Adelaide: “We only have to have one volcano burping and we have changed the whole planetary climate… It looks as if carbon dioxide actually follows climate change rather than drives it”
Frederick Seitz, retired, former solid-state physicist, former president of the National Academy of Sciences: “So we see that the scientific facts indicate that all the temperature changes observed in the last 100 years were largely natural changes and were not caused by carbon dioxide produced in human activities.” (Environment News, 2001)
Willie Soon, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics: “[T]here’s increasingly strong evidence that previous research conclusions, including those of the United Nations and the United States government concerning 20th century warming, may have been biased by underestimation of natural climate variations. The bottom line is that if these variations are indeed proven true, then, yes, natural climate fluctuations could be a dominant factor in the recent warming. In other words, natural factors could be more important than previously assumed.” (Harvard University Gazette, 24 April 2003)
Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London: “…the myth is starting to implode. … Serious new research at The Max Planck Institute has indicated that the sun is a far more significant factor…” (Global Warming as Myth)
Henrik Svensmark, Danish National Space Center: “Our team … has discovered that the relatively few cosmic rays that reach sea-level play a big part in the everyday weather. They help to make low-level clouds, which largely regulate the Earth’s surface temperature. During the 20th Century the influx of cosmic rays decreased and the resulting reduction of cloudiness allowed the world to warm up. … most of the warming during the 20th Century can be explained by a reduction in low cloud cover.”
Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, Professor Emeritus from University of Ottawa: “At this stage, two scenarios of potential human impact on climate appear feasible: (1) the standard IPCC model …, and (2) the alternative model that argues for celestial phenomena as the principal climate driver. … Models and empirical observations are both indispensable tools of science, yet when discrepancies arise, observations should carry greater weight than theory. If so, the multitude of empirical observations favours celestial phenomena as the most important driver of terrestrial climate on most time scales, but time will be the final judge.” (In J. Veizer, “Celestial climate driver: a perspective from four billion years of the carbon cycle”, Geoscience Canada, March, 2005)
Syun-Ichi Akasofu, retired professor of geophysics and Director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks: “Thus, there is a possibility that only a fraction of the present warming trend may be attributed to the greenhouse effect resulting from human activities. This conclusion is contrary to the IPCC (2007) Report, which states that “most” of the present warming (+0.7°C/100 years) is due to the greenhouse effect.”
Claude Allègre, geochemist, Institute of Geophysics (Paris): “The increase in the CO2 content of the atmosphere is an observed fact and mankind is most certainly responsible. In the long term, this increase will without doubt become harmful, but its exact role in the climate is less clear. Various parameters appear more important than CO2. Consider the water cycle and formation of various types of clouds, and the complex effects of industrial or agricultural dust. Or fluctuations of the intensity of the solar radiation on annual and century scale, which seem better correlated with heating effects than the variations of CO2 content.” (Translation from the original French version in L’Express, May 10, 2006)
August H. “Augie” Auer Jr., retired New Zealand MetService Meteorologist, past professor of atmospheric science at the University of Wyoming: “So if you multiply the total contribution 3.6 by the man-made portion of it, 3.2, you find out that the anthropogenic contribution of CO2 to the the global greenhouse effect is 0.117 percent, roughly 0.12 percent, that’s like 12c in $100.” “‘It’s miniscule … it’s nothing,’”.
Robert C. Balling, Jr., director of the Office of Climatology and a professor of geography at Arizona State University: “[I]t is very likely that the recent upward trend [in global surface temperature] is very real and that the upward signal is greater than any noise introduced from uncertainties in the record. However, the general error is most likely to be in the warming direction, with a maximum possible (though unlikely) value of 0.3 °C. … At this moment in time we know only that: (1) Global surface temperatures have risen in recent decades. (2) Mid-tropospheric temperatures have warmed little over the same period. (3) This difference is not consistent with predictions from numerical climate models.” (George C. Marshall Institute, Policy Outlook, September 2003)
Chris de Freitas, Associate Professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland: “There is evidence of global warming. … But warming does not confirm that carbon dioxide is causing it. Climate is always warming or cooling. There are natural variability theories of warming. To support the argument that carbon dioxide is causing it, the evidence would have to distinguish between human-caused and natural warming. This has not been done.” (The New Zealand Herald, May 9, 2006)
David Deming, geology professor at the University of Oklahoma: “The amount of climatic warming that has taken place in the past 150 years is poorly constrained, and its cause–human or natural–is unknown. There is no sound scientific basis for predicting future climate change with any degree of certainty. If the climate does warm, it is likely to be beneficial to humanity rather than harmful. In my opinion, it would be foolish to establish national energy policy on the basis of misinformation and irrational hysteria.” (Testimony before the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, December 6, 2006)
Richard Lindzen, Alfred Sloane Professor of Atmospheric Science at the Massachussetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences: “We are quite confident (1) that global mean temperature is about 0.5 °C higher than it was a century ago; (2) that atmospheric levels of CO2 have risen over the past two centuries; and (3) that CO2 is a greenhouse gas whose increase is likely to warm the earth (one of many, the most important being water vapor and clouds). But–and I cannot stress this enough–we are not in a position to confidently attribute past climate change to CO2 or to forecast what the climate will be in the future.” [46] “[T]here has been no question whatsoever that CO2 is an infrared absorber (i.e., a greenhouse gas — albeit a minor one), and its increase should theoretically contribute to warming. Indeed, if all else were kept equal, the increase in CO2 should have led to somewhat more warming than has been observed.” (San Francisco Examiner, July 12, 2006, and in Wall Street Journal, June 26, 2006, Page A14)
Roy Spencer, principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville: “We need to find out how much of the warming we are seeing could be due to mankind, because I still maintain we have no idea how much you can attribute to mankind.” (George C. Marshall Institute Washington Roundtable on Science and Public Policy, April 17, 2006)
Robert M. Carter, geologist, researcher at the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University in Australia: “The essence of the issue is this. Climate changes naturally all the time, partly in predictable cycles, and partly in unpredictable shorter rhythms and rapid episodic shifts, some of the causes of which remain unknown.” (Telegraph, April 9, 2006)
naravno....lista se nastavlja.
