Greenhouse theory smashed by biggest stone

[redqueen]

http://www.physorg.com/news11710.html

A new theory to explain global warming was revealed at a meeting at the University of Leicester (UK) and is being considered for publication in the journal "Science First Hand". The controversial theory has nothing to do with burning fossil fuels and atmospheric carbon dioxide levels.

According to Vladimir Shaidurov of the Russian Academy of Sciences, the apparent rise in average global temperature recorded by scientists over the last hundred years or so could be due to atmospheric changes that are not connected to human emissions of carbon dioxide from the burning of natural gas and oil. Shaidurov explained how changes in the amount of ice crystals at high altitude could damage the layer of thin, high altitude clouds found in the mesosphere that reduce the amount of warming solar radiation reaching the earth's surface.

Shaidurov has used a detailed analysis of the mean temperature change by year for the last 140 years and explains that there was a slight decrease in temperature until the early twentieth century. This flies in the face of current global warming theories that blame a rise in temperature on rising carbon dioxide emissions since the start of the industrial revolution. Shaidurov, however, suggests that the rise, which began between 1906 and 1909, could have had a very different cause, which he believes was the massive Tunguska Event, which rocked a remote part of Siberia, northwest of Lake Baikal on the 30th June 1908.

The Tunguska Event, sometimes known as the Tungus Meteorite is thought to have resulted from an asteroid or comet entering the earth's atmosphere and exploding. The event released as much energy as fifteen one-megaton atomic bombs. As well as blasting an enormous amount of dust into the atmosphere, felling 60 million trees over an area of more than 2000 square kilometres. Shaidurov suggests that this explosion would have caused "considerable stirring of the high layers of atmosphere and change its structure." Such meteoric disruption was the trigger for the subsequent rise in global temperatures.

(more at link)

Thoughts?

[EST]

1. I hate to get pricky, but how many times does this piece

of shit have to be posted on DU?

[redqueen]

7. I searched!

Where else was it posted?

:wtf:

[Dead_Parrot]

10. There's a thread in 'science' on it...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=228&topic_id=18669

...but I don't think a single duplicate is a hanging offence. (if there's more, I can't see 'em)

[EST]

14. I'm sorry for my bitchiness.

There was one this morning and there have been several "debunking' threads, recently, not just this one.

I have been aware of the global warming problem and the warnings about it for fifty years. The puke establishment has chosen junk science over real science, although the evidence has been building for years and is now overwhelming.
It takes a lot to convince me of anything but, although I'm an engineer, not a phd equipped researcher, I am intensely involved in learning about, evaluating, and writing about scientific research and I get irritated when some idiot with a degree decides he knows so much more than anyone else and then is widely quoted by other idiots, re: Lush Limpbowel.

I'm over reacting. This is a bad day for logical, reasoned thinking and the decay of almost everything I deem of value is not helping me a bit. Time to go out to the barn and try out the new plow I invented. Again, my apologies for ripping, even though this report is pure shit, but not for my garden.
:hi: ;) :toast: :toast:

[Dead_Parrot]

15. I'd stay away from the 'Science' forum, then...

:evilgrin:

[redqueen]

16. Ah well sorry...

didn't mean to re-invent the wheel... I only searched here and LBN... :(

Sorry for spreading the shit. :blush:

Enjoy your plowing! :D :hi:

[BootinUp]

2. Worth further investigation.

Who knows? Then again, that means there ain't shit that can be done about it I guess.

[Selatius]

3. We'll have to let the scientific community review it

I think judgment should be reserved until them. In the meantime, it doesn't change the fact that the environment is warming up, and it would still make fine sense to reduce the environmental footprint man leaves on nature by trying to reduce pollution if not on environmental grounds then on health grounds alone.

[redqueen]

8. Exactly.

I just thought if anyone could out the lies it'd be this crowd.

[phantom power]

4. Quack.

[Viking12]

13. If it walks like a duck...

..."is being considered" for "Science First Hand"???? Unpublished work submitted to obscure jounrals don't deserve consideration.

[redqueen]

17. Thank you!

I don't know anything about these journals... and every bit of info I can use to shoot this down is appreciated. :)

[papau]

5. "detailed analysis of the mean temperature change by year" -from where?

I thought just getting a mean temp today was a process open to discussion.

[Dead_Parrot]

9. Detailed analysis?

There's a thought: How much detail can you get out of a mean figure? If you wanted to do a detailed analysis, you'd look at detailed data, surely...

Unless you were full of crap, of course. Then you'd just make shit up.

[jpak]

6. LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!

Richard A. Kerr (2001) It's Official: Humans Are Behind Most of Global Warming
Science 2001. 26; 291: 566 (commentary and summary of recent research)

J. E. Harries, H. E. Brindley, P. J. Sagoo, R. J. Bantges (2001). Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997. Nature 410: 355 - 357

T. P. Barnett, D. W. Pierce, R. Schnur (2001). Detection of Anthropogenic Climate Change in the World's Oceans. Science Vol. 292: pp 270-274.

S. Levitus, J. I. Antonov, J. Wang, T. L. Delworth, K. W. Dixon, and A. J. Broccoli (2001) Anthropogenic Warming of Earth's Climate System. Science 292: 267-270.

T. M. L. Wigley and S. C. B. Raper (2001) Interpretation of High Projections for Global-Mean Warming. Science Vol. 293: 451-454.

Gille, S. T. (2002) Warming of the Southern Ocean Since the 1950s. Science 295: 1275-1277

D. Rind (2002) The Sun's Role in Climate Variations. Science 296: 673-677

J. Hansen, R. Ruedy, M. Sato, and K. Lo (2002) Global Warming Continues. Science. 295: 275

S. T. Gille (2002) Warming of the Southern Ocean Since the 1950s. Science vol 295:1275-1277.

D. W. J. Thompson and S. Solomon (2002) Interpretation of Recent Southern Hemisphere Climate Change. Science. 296: 895-899.

R. E. Moritz, Cecilia M. Bitz, and Eric J. Steig (2002) Dynamics of Recent Climate Change in the Arctic. Science. 297: 1497-1502.

E. Rignot and R. H. Thomas (2002) Mass Balance of Polar Ice Sheets. Science 297: 1502-1506.

T. R. Karl and K. E. Trenberth 2003 Modern Global Climate Change. Science. 302: 1719 - 1723.

D. J. Karoly, K. Braganza, P. A. Stott, J. M. Arblaster, G. A. Meehl, A. J. Broccoli, and K. W. Dixon (2003) Detection of a Human Influence on North American Climate. Science. 302: 1200-1203.

P. A. Stott, D. A. Stone and M. R. Allen (2004) Human contribution to the European heatwave of 2003 Nature 432: 610-614

B. D. Santer, M. F. Wehner, T. M. L. Wigley, R. Sausen, G. A. Meehl, K. E. Taylor, C. Ammann, J. Arblaster, W. M. Washington, J. S. Boyle, and W. Brüggemann (2003) Contributions of Anthropogenic and Natural Forcing to Recent Tropopause Height Changes. Science. 301: 479-483.

J. Hansen, L. Nazarenko, R. Ruedy, M Sato, J. Willis, A. Del Genio, D. Koch, A. Lacis, K. Lo, S. Menon, T. Novakov, J. Perlwitz, G. Russell, G. A. Schmidt N. Tausnev (2005) Earth's Energy Imbalance: Confirmation and Implications. Science. 308: 1431 – 1435.

B. J. Soden, D. L. Jackson, V. Ramaswamy, M. D. Schwarzkopf, and X. Huang (2005) The Radiative Signature of Upper Tropospheric Moistening. Science. 310: 841-844.

T. P. Barnett, D. W. Pierce, K. M. AchutaRao, P. J. Gleckler, B. D. Santer, J. M. Gregory, and W. M. Washington (2005) Penetration of Human-Induced Warming into the World's Oceans. Science. 309: 284-287.

V. Ramaswamy, M. D. Schwarzkopf, W. J. Randel, B. D. Santer, B. J. Soden, and G. L. Stenchikov (2006) Anthropogenic and Natural Influences in the Evolution of Lower Stratospheric Cooling. Science. 311: 1138-1141

Yup - all wrong....

:)

[oneighty]

11. Suspected

to equal 15 one megaton bomb?

Years later Russia set of the 'Tzar Bomba'Hydrogen bomb estimated to be fifty megatons.

Of course maybe it was an air burst but I do not know. Anyway it did not seem to change the earth any (At least no claim was made that I know of).

180

[phantom power]

12. The ever-useful Real Climate had this to say...

Firstly, one would anticipate that immediate effects of the impact on climate would be strongest near the time of the impact (allowing for some inertia in the system) and decay away subsequently. Secondly, the timescales for any mechanism associated with the impact (in this case disruption of the atmopsheric water vapour) would need to be in line with the change one hopes to explain. And thirdly, one has to show that this explanation is better than the alternatives. Unfortunately, none of of these requirements are met by this hypothesis.

An impact hypothesis is usefully contrasted to the impacts of a large volcanic eruption like Pinatubo in 1991. There was a very clear dip in temperatures a year or so after the eruption and a subsequent relaxation back to normal. No such event (warming or cooling) is recorded in 1908 to 1910. The timescales for water vapour in the lower atmosphere is on the order of days (see our previous post on the subject), while in the stratosphere it is a a few years. But there are no reservoirs of climatically important water vapour amounts that could still be causing the impact effect to be felt (and to accelerate!) almost 100 years later. And finally, current theories based on greenhouse gas increases, changes in solar, volcanic, ozone , land use and aerosol forcing do a pretty good job of explaining the temperature changes over the 20th Century. It's very hard to see what this idea has to add to that.

In an additional twist, it is suggested that atmospheric nuclear tests from 1940s to the 1970s masked out the effects of the impact due to the supposed mixing up of tropospheric water vapour into the stratosphere after every explosion. This is even odder since stratospheric water vapour is actually quite a significant greenhouse gas, and had this occured to any large extent, it would have been a warming factor, not a cooling one.

So while the physics being invoked here is barely worth discussing, a more interesting question might be why the University of Leicester thought that this was worthy of a press release in the first place, and why this got any traction in the media at all. True, it didn't get much attention, so maybe there is some hope for science journalism after all...

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=271

[redqueen]

18. THANK YOU PHANTOM POWER!

:D

*makes note of the real climate url*

[phantom power]

19. Real-climate is great for cutting thru the pro-confusion industry spin.

[hatrack]

20. A stone which planted the seeds of . . . wait for it . . .

ABIOTIC OIL!!!!!

May as well try and save some space.

[phantom power]

21. The "magic meteor" theory?