Russian Academic Says Man Not to Blame for Global Warming!
 

ST. PETERSBURG, January 15 (RIA Novosti) - Rising levels of carbon dioxide and other gases emitted through human activities, believed by scientists to trap heat in the Earth's atmosphere, are an effect rather than the cause of global warming, a prominent Russian scientist said Monday.

Habibullo Abdusamatov, head of the space research laboratory at the St. Petersburg-based Pulkovo Observatory, said global warming stems from an increase in the sun's activity. His view contradicts the international scientific consensus that climate change is attributable to the emission of greenhouse gases generated by industrial activities, such as the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation.

"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," Abdusamatov told RIA Novosti in an interview.

"It is no secret that when they go up, temperatures in the world's oceans trigger the emission of large amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. So the common view that man's industrial activity is a deciding factor in global warming has emerged from a misinterpretation of cause and effect relations."

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a UN panel of thousands of international scientists, widely regarded as an authority on climate change issues, established a consensus many years ago that most of the warming experienced over the last half-century has been attributable to human activities.

However, scientists acknowledge that rises in temperatures can potentially cause massive increases of greenhouse gases due to various natural positive feedback mechanisms, for example the methane released by melting permafrost, ocean algae's reduced capacity to absorb carbon at higher water temperatures, and the carbon released by trees when forests dry up.

Abdusamatov, a doctor of mathematics and physics, is one of a small number of scientists around the world who continue to contest the view of the IPCC, the national science academies of the G8 nations, and other prominent scientific bodies.

He said an examination of ice cores from wells over three kilometers (1.5 miles) deep in Greenland and the Antarctic indicates that the Earth experienced periods of global warming even before the industrial age (which began two hundred years ago).

Climate scientists have used information in ice cores, which contain air samples trapped by snow falling hundreds of thousands of years ago, providing an ancient record of the atmosphere's makeup, to establish that throughout the numerous glacial and interglacial periods on record, temperatures have closely tracked global CO2 concentrations.

The fact that background atmospheric CO2 levels, shown for example by the famous Keeling curve, displaying precise measurements going back to 1958, are now known to be well above concentrations experienced in hundreds of millennia, as displayed by the ice cores, is considered by most of the scientific community as incontrovertible proof of mankind's influence on greenhouse gas concentrations.

However, Abdusamatov even disputed the greenhouse effect, claiming it fails to take into account the effective transmission of heat to the outer layers of atmosphere.

Scientists have known about the greenhouse effect since the 19th century. The phenomenon by which gases such as methane and CO2 warm the troposphere by absorbing some of the infra-red heat reflected by the earth's surface has the effect of a global thermostat, sustaining global temperatures within ranges that allow life on the planet to thrive.

But Abdusamatov insisted: "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."

Abdusamatov claimed that the upper layers of the world's oceans are - much to climatologists' surprise - becoming cooler, which is a clear indication that the Earth has hit its temperature ceiling already, and that solar radiation levels are falling and will eventually lead to a worldwide cold spell.

"Instead of professed global warming, the Earth will be facing a slow decrease in temperatures in 2012-2015. The gradually falling amounts of solar energy, expected to reach their bottom level by 2040, will inevitably lead to a deep freeze around 2055-2060," he said, adding that this period of global freeze will last some 50 years, after which the temperatures will go up again.

"There is no need for the Kyoto Protocol now, and it does not have to come into force until at least a hundred years from now - a global freeze will come about regardless of whether or not industrialized countries put a cap on their greenhouse gas emissions," Abdusamatov said.

The 1998 Kyoto Protocol to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, which sets greenhouse gas emission targets for the period up to 2012, entered into force two years ago following ratification by 141 countries, which together account for over 55% of the world's gas pollutions. However, most environmentalists now consider its targets inadequate to enforce the emissions cuts necessary to curb climate change.

Russia ratified the treaty in November 2004, making it legally binding. But the world's top polluter, the United States, is still reluctant to sign on for fear the treaty's emission commitments will slow down the country's economic growth.

This is from a Russian ?

:thumbsup thought they were all scammers

will be back to read this in 30 minutes...just wanted to be able to find it.
regardless of man made or not...the it is happening..and we need to figure out how to stop it..before half of europe is under water

Hahahhaahahaahah

Can man stop the ebb and flow of the tides? Or the movement of the techtonic plates? Or the precessional cycle of the earth's cycle around the sun? How about the sun's cycles? Until we can control all the natural forces around us, we can't stop this perfectly natural (and repetative in history)cycle from occuring.

Very well said !

Global warming, while huge, is a pretty minuscule problem compared to others.

all the worlds oceans are cooling? He "claims"?

If the tempatures are going back down in 6 years, why would the oceans be cooling now?

LOM: You state that it's natural for iceshelfs that have been there for thousands and thousands of years to break off?

Do you think it's natural for billions of tonnes of carbon dioxcide to be released into the atmosphere, man-made, while the world does it's natural warming and cooling?

i'd say in response to this thread.. "ching-ching".

No scientist would state

"There is no need for the Kyoto Protocol now, and it does not have to come into force until at least a hundred years from now - a global freeze will come about regardless of whether or not industrialized countries put a cap on their greenhouse gas emissions,"

Not one.

Would that be such a bad thing ??

:1orglaugh :1orglaugh

No one is implying they can stop natural processes from occuring, but we are implying that we can do something to keep from hastening those natural processes.

God doesn't make mistakes, hippy!

If man lights a fuse, he is not the cause of the fuse to continuing to burn.

Show me where I said he / she / it does.

Once again..for the functionally retarded...we can do our part in keeping from speeding up the process.

You know it is kind of like being a human being. We humans cannot stop the aging process, however we can do things like eat right, exercise, get plenty of sleep etc so barring any unforseen accidents, illnesses, we maybe ON AVERAGE live longer than expected...right?

Once again 2+2 folks...it's right in front of you.

The big oil companies need to have a few scientists in their pocket. This way they can spread some disinformation and put a little bit of doubt in your mind about the whole global warming scenario. It's the same tactics big tobacco used after studies found smoking to be bad for your health and nicotine to be addictive. They are only protecting their investments...they have to eat too you know.

your maximum theoretical age is determined by your own genetics. you cannot extend your own life by doing anything. you can only eat and live in a way that increases your chances of reaching that age.

even your thoughts are assumptions. again... like this thread and the article, its proof of how little agreement there is to why the temperature is warming and whether or not man is a factor at all or to what extent.

if you think man is causing global warming... then the obvious solution is to eliminate man. 6 billion and growing fast... crusading isn't going to do a lot to change that fact.

you mention your audience as being "functionally retarded" and yet you have boiled the complexities of the universe down to "2+2".. some might say thats a little retarded in itself.

Does ice misplace more mass than water does, or less, or the same?

No one wants to answer my question...?

I'll take all the blame for global warming. sorry about that one.

If they stop charging for electricity, we can all just turn on our Air Conditioners and keep our windows and doors open. Should solve the problem.

No, I think ice knows exactly where it put the weight.

Umm ya so which displaces more mass, water or ice?

Liquid (water) doesn't displace, it is displaced.

lol ok So lets make this simple. A glass filled to the top with ice melts, does it overflow the glass?

lets make it simpler... glaciers that are not in the water... melt into the water... what happens to the general level of the water?


good god man! are you Bush's long lost autistic stepchild or what?

Is the arctic and antarctic a land mass, or all ice? Do the ice shelfs falling into the ocean have land mass under them, or are they already in the water?

If the glass already is filled with water also, then yes, if it's just ice in the glass, then no. But that is not displacement, so if you want to make it simple, you might want to learn the words you are asking about first.

They are land masses, that's why they are called continents.

Both, depends where it breaks.

Volume added to a body of water isnt displacement? :uhoh

Main Entry: dis·place·ment
Pronunciation: (")dis-'plA-sm&nt, di-'splA-
Function: noun

2 a : the volume or weight of a fluid (as water) displaced by a floating body (as a ship) of equal weight b : the difference between the initial position of something (as a body or geometric figure) and any later position

So if these shelfs are falling into the ocean its unlikely there is a land mass under them supporting them yes? You know the shelfs that the polar bears are starving on, those shelfs? lol

1/3 of iceberg is usually above water

:1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

Read it again... no, melting ice is not displacement. Putting an icecube into a glass of water would be displacement.

Jesus you are dumb, this is like 8th grade level stuff here.

Are you for real? Ice shelves are connected to land, that's what Both means jackass. What the fuck are you talking about polar bears starving on shelves (not shelfs oh wise one)?

are you serious? now you want people to school you in 3rd grade science, geography and geology?

wow

:disgust :disgust

Oh adding water to water doesnt displace more volume? Are you saying water has no volume? lol

this thread is funny as hell

OMFG you had me cracking up

Dude, you really need to stop talking. No wait, keep talking, this is classic.

I seriously can not stop laughing right now, partly from disbelief of the stupidity and partly from the stupidity.

be careful not to misplace your water volume mass!

So Al Gores little movie didnt talk for a long time about how Ice shelves breaking off were going to make sea levels rise eh?

haha... did you get bored with your "scientific" discussion?

no one is defending anything that Al Gore said.

please go back to schooling everyone on 8th grade science and 3rd grade geography. thats much more entertaining!

:1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

Ice is expanded water and will only displace it's weight in the water
so when ice melts in water the total volume of water will be less not more!

As far as areas going under water it's more a result of the land sinking
not the water level rising.

There are some areas where the land is actually rising above sea level
like Northern Europe and Antarctica.

Seriously, I can't argue with you anymore, I feel bad, I didn't realize how dumb you really were until this thread.

So, let me see if I got this right. Adding more water to water decreases its volume?

Holy shit the Europeans are gonna have a hay day in this thread.

Are you saying ice is water so it's volume, mass and density will be the same ?

water expands when it freezes. when a piece of ice is floating the a cup and melts, the result would be a very slight decrease in the level of water in the cup assuming a significant portion was not floating above the ice (determined by its own density).

what genius boy is trying to say in his own cute, but sadly pathetic and morbidly entertaining way, is that ice floating in the sea and then melting does not raise sea overall levels. this is true for two reasons. 1) fresh water is less dense than salt water 2) ice is less dense than water

what his thick head can't seem to grasp is that no one argues thats the case (not talking about rare exceptions of extremists). the melting ice, ice shelves breaking apart etc are generally seen as warning signs that the polar ice caps might begin melting at an accellerated pace as well.. which would then result in an overall increase in sea levels as that water ends up in the sea.

hope this brings the class up to speed!

No I am saying, Ice is fucking Ice and when it melts it becomes Water, so when you add more water to water, the volume of that water increases...

Jesus fucking christ did you two go to the same fucking school???