Russian academic says CO2 not to blame for global warming

[hagbard]

ST. PETERSBURG, January 15 (RIA Novosti) - Rising levels of carbon dioxide and other gases emitted through human activity, generally believed 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, has for many years held a consensus view that most of the warming experienced over the last half-century has been attributable to human activities.

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.

Abdusamatov even disputed the plausibility of 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.

However, 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."

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, Abdusamatov said.

"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.

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.

http://en.rian.ru/russia/20070115/59078992.html

[mlc2000]

These are the same folks who tried to 'hide' Chernobyl.

Yea, sounds like a crackerjack bunch on smart alecks.

[Prophallus]

this is pretty interesting, an alternative way of looking at climate change..
what i'd like to know is how the rest of the scientific community views this stance

[ZenOps]

Its BS.

You can't create something out of nothing, and even if the earth was heating up, it would not create more carbon dioxide as there is a limited amount in circulation (which converts back to oxygen when it hits plant life)as is.

By pumping millions of barrels of oil out of the ground each day, with a definite hydrogen+carbon structure, and burning it (oxidizing it) creates carbon dioxide for sure. The added carbon dioxide will encourage plant life to grow.

What is of some concern is that we are not adding much oxygen to the atmosphere. However, if carbon dioxide levels continue to grow, the earth should naturally begin to stop oxiding other latent materials on the surface of the earth #1 being iron or ferrous rock, which will not rust (oxidize) as fast in an atmospheric oxygen lacking environment.

[hagbard]

So, how did we cause the mini-ice age of the 8th and 9th century?

[Alvito]

The earth naturally goes through cycles of warming and cooling.

[The_Madz]

The earth naturally goes through cycles of warming and cooling.

you shoudl take a peak at "an inconvenient truth" where al gore does his presentation on climate change.

if what he shows is correct then even though the earth does go through natural cycles, where we are heading is beyond the historical natural boundaries as they have seen from reading ice core samples.

since russia is not exactly who you would describe as a fore runner for protecting the environment i woudln't doubt if this scientiest is paid off by industries.

[hagbard]

The earth naturally goes through cycles of warming and cooling.

Exactly. Why would anyone think it would be any other way?

[hagbard]

you shoudl take a peak at "an inconvenient truth" where al gore does his presentation on climate change.

if what he shows is correct then even though the earth does go through natural cycles, where we are heading is beyond the historical natural boundaries as they have seen from reading ice core samples.

since russia is not exactly who you would describe as a fore runner for protecting the environment i woudln't doubt if this scientiest is paid off by industries.

Oh yes. And "I built the Internet" and Former Vice President of the United States Al Gore is a good source. Thanks for letting us know.

[gilboman]

Exactly. Why would anyone think it would be any other way?

that does not mean human activity has no impact on the earth and its climate

your reasoning is like me saying people are eventually die. so if someone is murdered, you attribute it to natural cycle of death for people

[cthulhu]

"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.

But no growth in the last 50 years.

"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."

Except the oceans are currently absorbing more carbon dioxide than they emit. And human activity is emitting about 28 billion tons of co2 into the atmosphere per year while it's only rising about 15 billion tons per year in the atmosphere. So it's pretty obvious the increase is coming from man, not the oceans which is completely 180 to what this guy is saying. He obviously just isn't an authority on this issue and I wonder if he has actually published any papers on climate - or even whether his field has anything to do with climate..

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.

But that's accepted by everyone. It's not an argument anymore than "examination of sediment data showed the earth has experienced forest fires long before the industrial age" is an argument against the existance of arson as a cause of forest fires.

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

I don't know the answer to this one. But as a betting man I would put a lot on him being wrong yet again.

However, 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."

You could use that argument against any warming. I could claim the sun can't warm the earth because warm air just rises and takes the heat out the atmosphere. There's probably far far more wrong with it than that though.

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, Abdusamatov said.

Not necessarily. He's talking about a period of about 3 years at the end of a 30 year trend of warming, which has contained multi-year cooling periods before.

"Instead of professed global warming, the Earth will be facing a slow decrease in temperatures in 2012-2015.

We'll see..

[cthulhu]

"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.

But no significant growth in the last 50 years.

"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."

Except the oceans are currently absorbing more carbon dioxide than they emit. And human activity is emitting about 28 billion tons of co2 into the atmosphere per year while it's only rising about 15 billion tons per year in the atmosphere. So it's pretty obvious the increase is coming from man, not the oceans which is completely 180 to what this guy is saying. He obviously just isn't an authority on this issue and I wonder if he has actually published any papers on climate - or even whether his field has anything to do with climate..

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.

But that's accepted by everyone. It's not an argument anymore than "examination of sediment data showed the earth has experienced forest fires long before the industrial age" is an argument against the existance of arson as a cause of forest fires.

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

I don't know the answer to this one. But as a betting man I would put a lot on him being wrong yet again.

However, 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."

You could use that argument against any warming. I could claim the sun can't warm the earth because warm air just rises and takes the heat out the atmosphere. There's probably far far more wrong with it than that though.

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, Abdusamatov said.

Not necessarily. He's talking about a period of about 3 years at the end of a 30 year trend of warming, which has contained multi-year cooling periods before.

"Instead of professed global warming, the Earth will be facing a slow decrease in temperatures in 2012-2015.

We'll see..

[whampoa]

I subscribe to the Superman theory, how else can you describe planet Krypton turning to ice.

And what about the star blowing up because it's getting too big.

[ZenOps]

The single best thing that we could do for the atmosphere would be to figure out a way to precipitate a solid material made of atmospheric nitrogen and dump it all in a big waste pit somewhere or make plant food out of it.

The atmosphere is made up of 78 percent atmospheric nitrogen, which does plants no good, and does humans no good as its basically inert. All it does it nothing at all.

[farooq7]

This guy is actually not full of it as you may think. their was an article publised in the vancouver sun talking about this also called the "Cosmic Culprit" Henrik Swensmark a man from denmark has also claimed the same.