Home > Climate Change > >Russians to save the world from Climate Socialism?

>Russians to save the world from Climate Socialism?

>The Russians have been a nation of Climate Blasphemers pretty much since the beginning of the unscientific drivel that passes for consensus. It’s ironic that the nation that instituted socialism (to the peril of tens of millions of its own citizens) is now at the vanguard of scientific opposition to the Climate Establishment, which hopefully will save us from the socialist policies of Big Green.

Dr. Oleg Sorokhtin, Merited Scientist of Russia and fellow of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, is staff researcher of the Oceanology Institute. In this piece he describes that the warming we’ve seen is completely normal and that we’re headed for a cool period. I reckon that the Climate Faithful understand completely that we’re headed for cooler times and want to be able to take the credit when it actually happens, thus strengthening their position.

Earth is now at the peak of one of its passing warm spells. It started in the 17th century when there was no industrial influence on the climate to speak of and no such thing as the hothouse effect. The current warming is evidently a natural process and utterly independent of hothouse gases.

The real reasons for climate changes are uneven solar radiation, terrestrial precession (that is, axis gyration), instability of oceanic currents, regular salinity fluctuations of the Arctic Ocean surface waters, etc. There is another, principal reason—solar activity and luminosity. The greater they are the warmer is our climate.

Astrophysics knows two solar activity cycles, of 11 and 200 years. Both are caused by changes in the radius and area of the irradiating solar surface. The latest data, obtained by Habibullah Abdusamatov, head of the Pulkovo Observatory space research laboratory, say that Earth has passed the peak of its warmer period, and a fairly cold spell will set in quite soon, by 2012. Real cold will come when solar activity reaches its minimum, by 2041, and will last for 50-60 years or even longer.

This is my point, which environmentalists hotly dispute as they cling to the hothouse theory. As we know, hothouse gases, in particular, nitrogen peroxide, warm up the atmosphere by keeping heat close to the ground. Advanced in the late 19th century by Svante A. Arrhenius, a Swedish physical chemist and Nobel Prize winner, this theory is taken for granted to this day and has not undergone any serious check.

It determines decisions and instruments of major international organizations—in particular, the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Signed by 150 countries, it exemplifies the impact of scientific delusion on big politics and economics. The authors and enthusiasts of the Kyoto Protocol based their assumptions on an erroneous idea. As a result, developed countries waste huge amounts of money to fight industrial pollution of the atmosphere. What if it is a Don Quixote’s duel with the windmill?

Hothouse gases may not be to blame for global warming. At any rate, there is no scientific evidence to their guilt. The classic hothouse effect scenario is too simple to be true. As things really are, much more sophisticated processes are on in the atmosphere, especially in its dense layer. For instance, heat is not so much radiated in space as carried by air currents—an entirely different mechanism, which cannot cause global warming.

The temperature of the troposphere, the lowest and densest portion of the atmosphere, does not depend on the concentration of greenhouse gas emissions—a point proved theoretically and empirically. True, probes of Antarctic ice shield, taken with bore specimens in the vicinity of the Russian research station Vostok, show that there are close links between atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide and temperature changes. Here, however, we cannot be quite sure which is the cause and which the effect.

Temperature fluctuations always run somewhat ahead of carbon dioxide concentration changes. This means that warming is primary. The ocean is the greatest carbon dioxide depository, with concentrations 60-90 times larger than in the atmosphere. When the ocean’s surface warms up, it produces the “champagne effect.” Compare a foamy spurt out of a warm bottle with wine pouring smoothly when served properly cold.

Likewise, warm ocean water exudes greater amounts of carbonic acid, which evaporates to add to industrial pollution—a factor we cannot deny. However, man-caused pollution is negligible here. If industrial pollution with carbon dioxide keeps at its present-day 5-7 billion metric tons a year, it will not change global temperatures up to the year 2100. The change will be too small for humans to feel even if the concentration of greenhouse gas emissions doubles.

Carbon dioxide cannot be bad for the climate. On the contrary, it is food for plants, and so is beneficial to life on Earth. Bearing out this point was the Green Revolution—the phenomenal global increase in farm yields in the mid-20th century. Numerous experiments also prove a direct proportion between harvest and carbon dioxide concentration in the air.

Carbon dioxide has quite a different pernicious influence—not on the climate but on synoptic activity. It absorbs infrared radiation. When tropospheric air is warm enough for complete absorption, radiation energy passes into gas fluctuations. Gas expands and dissolves to send warm air up to the stratosphere, where it clashes with cold currents coming down. With no noticeable temperature changes, synoptic activity skyrockets to whip up cyclones and anticyclones. Hence we get hurricanes, storms, tornados and other natural disasters, whose intensity largely depends on carbon dioxide concentration. In this sense, reducing its concentration in the air will have a positive effect.

Carbon dioxide is not to blame for global climate change. Solar activity is many times more powerful than the energy produced by the whole of humankind. Man’s influence on nature is a drop in the ocean.

Earth is unlikely to ever face a temperature disaster. Of all the planets in the solar system, only Earth has an atmosphere beneficial to life. There are many factors that account for development of life on Earth: Sun is a calm star, Earth is located an optimum distance from it, it has the Moon as a massive satellite, and many others. Earth owes its friendly climate also to dynamic feedback between biotic and atmospheric evolution.

The principal among those diverse links is Earth’s reflective power, which regulates its temperature. A warm period, as the present, increases oceanic evaporation to produce a great amount of clouds, which filter solar radiation and so bring heat down. Things take the contrary turn in a cold period.

What can’t be cured must be endured. It is wise to accept the natural course of things. We have no reason to panic about allegations that ice in the Arctic Ocean is thawing rapidly and will soon vanish altogether. As it really is, scientists say the Arctic and Antarctic ice shields are growing. Physical and mathematical calculations predict a new Ice Age. It will come in 100,000 years, at the earliest, and will be much worse than the previous. Europe will be ice-bound, with glaciers reaching south of Moscow.

Meanwhile, Europeans can rest assured. The Gulf Stream will change its course only if some evil magic robs it of power to reach the north—but Mother Nature is unlikely to do that.

These are facts, of course, so the Climate Faithful will studiously ignore them, question the author’s credentials and/or pull out the Big Oil slur.

(Nothing Follows)

Categories: Climate Change
  1. January 5, 2008 at 3:32 pm

    >You really will post any old shit, won’t you. If you had any scientific literacy at all, you’d probably have worried a bit to read that the main ‘hothouse’ gas is ‘nitrogen peroxide’. You’d have worried even more at this pure nonsense: When tropospheric air is warm enough for complete absorption, radiation energy passes into gas fluctuations. But you don’t have any scientific literacy at all, and you have a complete inability to distinguish between valid science and pure bullshit.

  2. January 5, 2008 at 5:26 pm

    >If the warmies knew any science, they would be able to prove their “theory” with the Scientific Method, which they cannot. Those scientists promoting the global warming charade have no ethics or integrity whatsoever. Common sense is not common.

  3. January 5, 2008 at 6:27 pm

    >Unfortunately, language doesn’t always translate well. From thisRussian article we have “Hothouse” gas” and “nitrogen peroxide” with the later actually being a correct variant of nitrous oxide. Language translation often confuses but in no way invaldates what the author is saying. His point on the NO is that it has a much longer residence time in the atmosphere than CO2 and is thought liter for liter to have about 300X the GHG value of CO2. Sometimes you have to put forth some effort to understand a foreign paper instead of simply labeling it as bullshit.

  4. January 5, 2008 at 6:44 pm

    >So you think that N2O is the main greenhouse gas then? And you think that When tropospheric air is warm enough for complete absorption, radiation energy passes into gas fluctuations?Your first comment rather gives away the fact that you’ve already closed your mind to the science behind our understanding of the global warming situation, so I fully expect you to carry on defending this undefendable nonsense.

  5. January 5, 2008 at 9:51 pm

    >Fudgie,You really are fighting a losing battle on scientific grounds.Climate science is drivel and its politically-driven proponents really are Climate Liars.

  6. January 6, 2008 at 12:01 am

    >Twatty,I think not. You show no evidence of understanding the science at all. All you ever write on this blog is scientific illiteracy mixed with far right politics.

  7. January 6, 2008 at 6:18 am

    >What I believe doesn’t matter. The scientific facts are what matters. NASA happens to agree with global cooling now, so you warmies need to go invent a reason that CO2 causes global cooling. Oh yeah, you renamed it “climate change.” Funny how NASA suddenly agrees with the Russians. I call it “damage control”The link: http://www.spaceandscience.net/id16.htmlHave a nice day, mate.

  8. January 6, 2008 at 6:23 am
  9. January 6, 2008 at 6:26 am

    >Well, Hell. Maybe like this:www.spaceandscience.net/id16.html

  10. January 6, 2008 at 1:43 pm

    >NASA happens to agree with global cooling now – well that just shows that you totally lack the ability to understand what NASA has to say on the subject. No matter how much you wish they’d say ‘Oh yeah, sorry, CO2 doesn’t do anything after all’, it’s not going to happen. You’ll just have to deal with that.

  11. January 9, 2008 at 1:13 am

    >Such ad Hominem attacks on me and on the blogger just illustrate that your case is a very weak since for lack of any meaningful contribution, you must simply resort to personal attacks. Pity. I would suggest that you read CARGO CULT SCIENCE by Richard Feynman. It is a 1970s article on how science should be conducted, but is still stongly applicable to the present.http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/cargocul.htmThis Kerplunk blogger, obviously a good Australian and a man of common sense, now blogs on to other subjects, so I bid you farewell on this post. Please do yourself a favor and do read the article by Dr. Feynman.Kerplunk, blog on, my friend.

  12. January 9, 2008 at 10:40 am

    >If I see you writing something that is blatantly false, such as ‘Nasa believes in global cooling now’, really the most charitable explanation I can offer is that you don’t understand what NASA has to say on the subject. Would you prefer it if I called you a liar?And for someone so hurt by what they perceive as ad hominem attacks, it’s surprising that you chose to start off by saying that Those scientists promoting the global warming charade have no ethics or integrity whatsoever. A bit ad homines, no?

  13. January 13, 2008 at 6:58 am

    >While I’m actually inclined to believe Soroktin, and while I think that AGW is more of a cult than science, I wouldn’t use Space and Science as a source just yet. They are largely an unknown quantity. Good luck and keep up the good work.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: