Back-up Global Warming Doubt With Scientific Studies?

Question

A lot of people express doubt that humans are a factor in global warming. Can anyone provide a link to a recent (i.e. let's say within the last 2 years) scientific study in a peer reviewed scientific journal that concludes humans are NOT a significant factor in global warming?

Please don't post links to opinion pieces from the Wall Street Journal or personnel web-sites. I want to see actual scientific reports from respected professional journals (e.g. Science, Nature, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Geophysical Research Letters, etc.).

Follow-on: I'm disappointed that the GW doubters chose to post personal opinion, a news article link, or links to web-sites full of other links. I was hoping a skeptic would link to a scientific journal article that they had personally read.

Answer 1

There was one recent one by Christy, Singer, Douglass et al which discussed the apparent discrepancy in upper troposphere vs. surface warming. According to the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) theory, the upper troposphere should be warming at a slightly faster rate than the surface. There's a bit of a question about this, because most measurements show the opposite.

http://globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:S...

However, this is most likely due to instrumentation problems. The upper troposphere temperature has been measured since 1978 by both satellites and radiosondes on weather balloons. However, the satellites have to make daily corrections, and they base these corrections on the radiosonde measurements.

The radiosonde measurements used to be slightly biased to the high side, because the thermometers were exposed to sunlight. A thermometer only measures temperature accurately when it's in the shade, not being constantly bombarded by solar radiation. Eventually radiosonde thermometers were put under plastic covers to measure more accurately, but consequently the earlier measurements were biased to the high side while more recent measurements are more accurate. This has resulted in less apparent tropospheric warming than scientists believe has actually happened.

So at this point it's unclear whether the upper troposphere vs. surface temperature trends validate or undermine the AGW theory. However, the Christy, Singer, Douglass et al paper claimed that the apparent lesser warming in the upper troposphere disproved the AGW theory. They basically ignored the large uncertainty in the data. They also ignored all the other observations which support the AGW theory.

I'm sure someone will bring up the recent Inhofe report in which he listed 400 scientists skeptical of the theory. Of course, this was not a peer-reviewed study, and in fact contained zero scientific evidence. It was simply a list of 400 random 'scientists' (including chemists, mathematicians, geographers, etc.) who have expressed any degree of skepticism in any aspect of the AGW theory.

If these scientists seriously think the warming over the past 30 years can be better explained by natural factors such as solar forcing as claimed by Evans' article, in my mind they lose all credibility. See the graph below from the Stanford Solar Center for an explanation.

http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/600px-Temp-sunspot-co2.svg.png

Answer 2

As somebody from Oklahoma, I can say with some certainty that Imholf is a moron. He is only representing his narrow self interest and the oil and gas industry. He is a real-estate developer hoping the industry will throw him and his family a bone if he keeps saying GW is a hoax. I think even the oil and gas industry is embarrassed by him now.

He dragged an OU Climatologist to Washington and totally embarrassed the poor guy with his lack of understanding. The climatologist was saying GW is occurring, but maybe the fraction caused bu human beings is less than the IPCC has concluded. He is in the "more due to natural variation" camp. Imholf tried to say his opinion was proof it is a hoax. I think he has had a hard time finding climatologist to support him since then.

Evans - good work. There are some real scientist is that camp but most are in the AGW camp. Have they figured out the physics of the cycles yet or are they still stuck in the empirical modeling? The AGW camp is using physics to show the relationship and how the increase in CO2 can cause warming - it is not totally empiracal. If the "natural" warming camp can reliably recreate climate trends using the same models, it lends more credibility to their argument.

Either way, humans need to learn how to best adapt to a warmer climate. Right now, reducing the human impact on the climate seems to be a reasonable beginning.

Answer 3

Here ya go:

http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/global_warming/2007/12/10/55974.html

"Writing in the International Journal of Climatology of the Royal Meteorological Society, professor David H. Douglass (of the University of Rochester), professor John R. Christy (of the University of Alabama), Benjamin D. Pearson and professor S. Fred Singer (of the University of Virginia) report that observed patterns of temperature changes ("fingerprints") over the last 30 years disagree with what greenhouse models predict and can better be explained by natural factors, such as solar variability.


The conclusion is that climate change is "unstoppable" and cannot be affected or modified by controlling the emission of greenhouse gases, such as CO2, as is proposed in current legislation."

Would the "International Journal of Climatology of the Royal Meteorological Society" classify as a peer reviewed scientific journal?

Answer 4

Why doesn't someone backup global warming theory with something concrete? There is no proof that any increase in temperatures on the planet are due to man.

Many of the same global warming pushers today were pushing global cooling and the next ice age just 30 years ago.

Anyone with common sense knows that man does not have the knowledge or the data to accurately predict anything with regards to the climate.

The same scientists pushing global warming want you to believe them when they say the planet has cooled & warmed for billions of years (prior to the industrial revolution and cars) and still believe them when they say they know man is causing the current warming trend. It is ridiculous on its' face.

Let's see, the same people that tell us the earth has been much warmer & much cooler in the past are not able to tell us what the weather will be next week or next year but now they can tell us what it will be like decades from now. Can't you understand how utterly insane this all is?

It is time for people to use common sense, you don't need to see a study or be a scientist to understand that climate change has little or nothing to do with humans.

Answer 5

Inreality01 - Since you chose to post simply your opinion "climate change has little or nothing to do with humans", I'll simply post mine.

Have 99% of the world's scientists, most all world leaders, and most corporate leaders lost their minds? Are they dumb? Have they not heard the "skeptics" arguments? Are they engaged in a giant conspiracy? Is Al Gore an alien who has them under his control?

Or is global warming real? Pretty much a no brainer for me.

O shucks. I can't do it. Tons of concrete proof here (which is why all those guys know it's real).

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution.png
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html
summarized at:
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf

Answer 6

http://z4.invisionfree.com/Popular_Technology/index.php?showtopic=2050

That's alot of links.....
Just scroll to the bottom first to see how many links there are and articles with all the sources and everything.... enjoy! =)

Answer 7

Prepare for a brutal onslaught. You're correct, but all you'll catch for that question is crap on here. I've tried similar tactics.