Russian scientist issues global cooling alert

[Spurius]

Erm yes. Forget the previous global warming alerts, and put on something warm. The Iceman cometh!

http://en.rian.ru/russia/20060825/53143686.html

[Not much point in trying to discredit his credentials, he's the head of Russian space research section.]

[Lunar4]

Its true.

[Averroës]

It's true that he's head of the space research section of the Russian Academy of Sciences' atronomical observatory.

It's also true that he lives in a country in which reporters and politicians are gunned down in the streets for questioning business and political corruption.

[Spurius]

It's true that he's head of the space research section of the Russian Academy of Sciences' atronomical observatory.

It's also true that he lives in a country in which reporters and politicians are gunned down in the streets for questioning business and political corruption.

Tsk. We could also start about the fact the US has a law that exempts its citizens from being tried for warcrimes, and will extract them by force, if necessary - how's that for international non-conformism?

Anyhoo, it's about his observations, I think. Any thoughts there? Or is it just rubbish, or oil-and-gas-pimpology?

[Averroës]

Tsk. We could also start about the fact the US has a law that exempts its citizens from being tried for warcrimes, and will extract them by force, if necessary - how's that for international non-conformism?

Anyhoo, it's about his observations, I think. Any thoughts there? Or is it just rubbish, or oil-and-gas-pimpology?

What does U.S. law exempting citizens from war crimes (which I find appalling, by the way. We should abide by the same rules we seek to apply to others) have to do with the fact that in Russia at the moment, speaking one's mind isn't particularly healthy if that speech is negative towards the government or certain business interests?

My point, apparently completely misunderstood, was that trusting official science releases from certain disciplines is as risky from Russia right now as it would be to trust official science releases from oil industry-financed research in the U.S. or anywhere else. Unless the science is peer-reviewed outside of the agency releasing it, you simply can't trust the information to be anything more than propaganda, whether the source is a U.S. industry-funded report or a report from a scientist in working in a country in which it can be fatal to disagree with the status quo. Any questions in that regard should be directed to the relatives and friends of people like the late Anna Politkovskaya and others.

[FirstManOnTheMoon]

It's true that he's head of the space research section of the Russian Academy of Sciences' atronomical observatory.

It's also true that he lives in a country in which reporters and politicians are gunned down in the streets for questioning business and political corruption.

It's also true that many people like to judge countries and their citizens without actually ever visiting that country.

It's also true that scientists are somewhat different to reporters and politicians.

It's also true that Russia has produced many great scientists, and credit for their work shouldn't be taken away just because their country has experienced political turmoil.

[John I Tzimisces]

Well, all I've heard on this previously is the prediction that the global warming we're experiencing just may be followed by a rapid global cooling...as in...Ice Age.

[GrnEyedDvl]

Same thing they said in the 70s.

[Wild Bill Kelso]

Not that anyone is going to read this long winded post but anywhoo..


I am sure the work of this scientist is also related to the work of L. F. Khilyuk and G. V. Chilingar. These two published a paper in 2006 entitled “On global forces of nature driving the Earth’s climate. Are humans involved?” found in Environ Geol 50:899–910.

However, the 2007 their paper was severely rebuked by W. Aeschbach-Hertig in his reply “Rebuttal of ‘‘On global forces of nature driving the Earth’s climate. Are humans involved?’’ by L. F. Khilyuk and G. V. Chilingar” which appeared in Environ Geol (2007) 52:1007–1009. Now I won’t go into details, but I will quote here from Aeschbach-Hertig the main flaws he found in the paper by L. F. Khilyuk and G. V. Chilingar.

Some interesting quotes

Khilyuk and Chilingar (2006) state that based on their ‘‘adiabatic model of heat transfer in the atmosphere’’ the entire energy generated by humans could heat the atmosphere by no more than 0.01_C. This may be true but is irrelevant, since no serious scientist ever claimed that global warming is due to direct heating of the atmosphere, but to an enhancement of the greenhouse effect, which the paper does not discuss.

I found the above interesting. It shows that these two don’t even know the basic principle driving human influenced global warming.

Khilyuk and Chilingar (2006) claim that ‘‘changes in the global atmospheric temperature are closely correlated with the changes in solar activity’’, illustrated by curves of temperature and solar magnetic cycle length in their Fig. 1. This figure is identical to Fig. 6 in a former paper by the same authors in this journal (Khilyuk and Chilingar 2004) and unfortunately is not further explained (which temperature record is used, how is the cycle length related to solar activity?). Worse, however, only a document from two strangely cited websites (Robinson et al. 1998) is given as source of this figure, although there are well-known original publications on the hypothesis that the solar magnetic cycle length is linked to climate (Friis-Christensen and Lassen 1991; Lassen and Friis-Christensen 1995). As the original sources are not cited, it is no surprise that a later rebuttal of this hypothesis (Laut 2003) is not mentioned.

So, these two generate some dubious conclusion based on a graph that basically means nothing. I wonder if this Russian scientist is also using this evidence to support his claim.

Khilyuk and Chilingar (2006) present a theory that links the Earth’s outgassing rate to the rate of sea floor spreading. This theory is used to explain the recent increase of methane in the atmosphere by ‘‘a high level of current tectonic activity’’. Unfortunately, the only evidence cited for this high activity is a paper in Russian (Yasamanov 2003) that is virtually inaccessible to most readers of Environmental Geology. Khilyuk and Chilingar (2006) completely ignore the large body of literature on the sources and sinks of methane. A short review of the current knowledge about the methane balance has recently been given by Lowe (2006) in the context of the surprising finding of a methane source from plants (Keppler et al. 2006). Interestingly, the tectonic methane source that Khilyuk and Chilingar (2006) refer to is about ten times larger than the total of the identified sources listed by Lowe
(2006).

So basically these guys ignore the numerous amount of peer reviewed source material available and rely upon one very obscure paper that in a non-peer reviewed journal (Yasamanov NA (2003) Modern global warming: causes and ecological consequences (in Russian). Bull Dubna Int Univ Nat Soc Man 1(8):12–21)

Alright so the last quote

A highlight of the outgassing theory of Khilyuk and Chilingar (2006) is their comparison of the total anthropogenic carbon dioxide emission of 1.003 • 1018 g with the hypothesized total mass of CO2 degassed from the mantle throughout geologic history of 4.63 • 1023 g. This is used to declare that the total anthropogenic CO2 emission ‘‘constitutes less than 0.00022% of the total CO2 amount naturally degassed from the mantle during geologic history’’ and conclude that ‘‘the anthropogenic carbon dioxide emission is negligible (indistinguishable) in any energy-matter transformation processes changing the Earth’s climate’’. It seems that the authors forgot to take the time factor into account. The anthropogenic emission happened during 200 years, whereas the natural degassing during geologic history spanned 4.5 billion years. Thus, the above numbers yield a yearly anthropogenic flux that is about 50 times larger than the mantle degassing flux, which hardly is negligible. It appears that the authors assume that the 4.63 • 1023g of CO2 degassed
from the mantle all remained in the atmosphere. Yet, the present day atmosphere contains less than
3 • 1018 g ofCO2, and compared to this number the total anthropogenic CO2 emission of 1 • 1018g certainly is significant.

Again, the authors try some slight of hand with the numbers and try to downplay the amount of human CO2 release. Did they do this on purpose?


The list goes on and on. If someone is really interesting in reading the rebuttal please PM me and I can get you a copy of it over MSN. It appears that there are a small group of Russian scientists who are bent upon this hypothesis, in direct disregard to the large body of evidence saying otherwise. Dissention is inherently a natural part of science; however, their work is based upon dubious source materials and the misrepresentation of facts. That these authors never respond to attacks upon their research also indicates that they will continue to spout garbage in blatant disregard to new literature.

Now about the man appearing in the news article in the OP: Khabibullo Abdusamatov. A quick Google scholar search reveals only 4 hits under his name. So much for “Not much point in trying to discredit his credentials, he's the head of Russian space research section”. You would think that someone with such “prestigious credentials” would have something published in at least one of the major journal distribution databases(which by the way, incorporate almost every peer-reviewed scientific journal on the planet!).

One of the links here: http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/4361/...paper_4361.pdf quotes him as “Wikipedia’s list of global warming “skeptics”. How prestigious indeed.

And here is his wiki page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khabibullo_Abdusamatov

I found this a rather interesting quote from the wiki “He further states that "Heated greenhouse gases, which become lighter as a result of expansion, ascend to the atmosphere only to give the absorbed heat away." Now, I am no climatologist, but if this were the case then why would Venus continue to have a hellishly hot atmosphere? I mean if heated CO2 simply goes higher to release heat into space then Venus and Earth would be stone cold rocks. I think the following quote found on the wiki sums his hypothesis up nicely; "the idea just isn't supported by the theory or by the observations."

Now I am not saying that all scientists who offer contrary hypotheses are simply quakes and charlatans. However, I hope that I have shown that there appears to be a certain group of Russian scientists who may fit this description.

[Spurius]

Not that anyone is going to read this long winded post but anywhoo..

On the contrary - excellent post. Will check this out, and might want more, indeed.

[Spurius]

Not that anyone is going to read this long winded post but anywhoo..

Still reading up, but that carbon cycle is pretty complicated, and has a lot to do with our oceans, which Venus does not have. CO2 gets emitted and reabsorbed by seawater.


http://www.columbia.edu/~vjd1/carbon.htm

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/200...JC002759.shtml
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/200...JC000569.shtml

[Wild Bill Kelso]

Still reading up, but that carbon cycle is pretty complicated, and has a lot to do with our oceans, which Venus does not have. CO2 gets emitted and reabsorbed by seawater.


http://www.columbia.edu/~vjd1/carbon.htm

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/200...JC002759.shtml
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/200...JC000569.shtml

Yeah it is comlicated. Most people don't realise that there is a long term (taking hundreds to thousands of years) and short term (tens to hundreds of years). You are correct in that Venus is much different than earth. But the point I was trying to make is that the russian scientist was trying to say that global warming has nothing to do with Carbon dioxide concentrations because according to him, the Carbon dioxide would simply rise into the up atmosphere and release heat. Now I imagine that this does happen to some extent, but it is a well known fact that carbon dioxide and other gases such as methane and nitrous dioxide are capabale of storing heat and act like gas blankets (this is why Venus is so warm). As you know, the conentrations of these gases is much higher because there is no biotic mechanism pulling them out of the atmosphere! I realy find it hard to believe anything that this guy says since he makes such basic errors.

Thanks for reading my longwinded post

Another point I want to make is that there are many types of scientists, and not all are created equal. They are people and hae the flaws just like anyone else. You should question things that scienctists say, since that is what science is about questioning and requestioning, However, you can't simply dismiss what they say unless you have a serious read of how they have come about thier conclusions. Questioning and outright disbeleiving are two very different things. -preaching over

[Richard]

OH MY GOD! IT'S JUST LIKE IN 'THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW'!

Okay, so maybe not quite like that but interesting nonetheless (Is that one word? Looks like it should be three.)

[eventhorizen]

Russia has a lot of oil, gas and other energy resources.

It is infact the cornerstone of their recent re-emergance as a big player in the international political scene.

[Spurius]

Hi, yes I am pretty skeptical usually.

Also of the comparison with Venus, BTW. It's also a bit circular, CO2 causes heating (look at Venus) and we all know why Venus is so hot (CO2).

I think there are other factors in play, besides Venus having no oceans, it has a day that's longer that its year (no rotation, hence no seasons), and no moon that keeps part of the atmosphere in suspension, with the tidal forces doing a bit of mulling over too, besides what rotation would accomplish in that regard.

Now its a completely different planet, instead of our 'sister' planet. It's not our sister at all. It's only treacherously similar in size, and after that all comparison goes out the window.

I think CO2 does more of a job on Venus than it can on Earth, this whole discussion put aside for a moment. Could well be that we are judging CO2's effects on Earth through such lenses tho - and that could be very wrong.

[Wild Bill Kelso]

I am having a hard time what you are exactly getting at. Are you saying that CO2 doesn't have a heating effect in the atmosphere? Also climate change isn't only related to CO2 emissions but includes water vapour, methane and N20. Do you realise how much more methane and N20 we dump into the atmosphere with our current lifestyle (through the conversion of forests to farmland, raising cattle and inductrial production)? One molecule of methane has the heat absorbing capacity of 28 molecules of CO2, while one molecule of N2O has the heat absorbing capacity of 296 molecules of CO2.

Venus is hot because of the composition of it's atmosphere in relation to its distance from the sun. The same thing for mars; it isn't hot because of the composition of its atmosphere in relation to its distance to the sun. How is this a circular arguement? I used the venus arguement to clarify that the russian guy was wrong is saying it is as simple as saying that "the CO2 would rise and dissapate heat into space", if it worked like that then there would be little to no heat in the atmosphere of Venus and Earth. It is you who started the arguement that I am comparing venus and earth, which I clearly was not:

I found this a rather interesting quote from the wiki “He further states that "Heated greenhouse gases, which become lighter as a result of expansion, ascend to the atmosphere only to give the absorbed heat away." Now, I am no climatologist, but if this were the case then why would Venus continue to have a hellishly hot atmosphere? I mean if heated CO2 simply goes higher to release heat into space then Venus and Earth would be stone cold rocks. I think the following quote found on the wiki sums his hypothesis up nicely; "the idea just isn't supported by the theory or by the observations."

[Spurius]

I am having a hard time what you are exactly getting at. Are you saying that CO2 doesn't have a heating effect in the atmosphere? Also climate change isn't only related to CO2 emissions but includes water vapour, methane and N20. Do you realise how much more methane and N20 we dump into the atmosphere with our current lifestyle (through the conversion of forests to farmland, raising cattle and inductrial production)? One molecule of methane has the heat absorbing capacity of 28 molecules of CO2, while one molecule of N2O has the heat absorbing capacity of 296 molecules of CO2.

Venus is hot because of the composition of it's atmosphere in relation to its distance from the sun. The same thing for mars; it isn't hot because of the composition of its atmosphere in relation to its distance to the sun. How is this a circular arguement? I used the venus arguement to clarify that the russian guy was wrong is saying it is as simple as saying that "the CO2 would rise and dissapate heat into space", if it worked like that then there would be little to no heat in the atmosphere of Venus and Earth. It is you who started the arguement that I am comparing venus and earth, which I clearly was not:

Sorry if I was unclear here - I am not attacking you, and the circular argument is just that - Venus as example always for CO2 evil, and vice versa.

But Venus *has* no rising CO2 - all atmospheric movement appears to be continuously 'downward' via two huge cyclones at its poles. There is no normal CO2 heat dissipation to speak of, maybe - we could be comparing apples with pears, if Venus is the basis for our models. On Earth CO2 is part of a cycle, not a dead blanket.

Is all I am saying. Guy could be right for the wrong reasons. BTW the composition of Mars' atmosphere is mostly parts nothing - it hardly has one.

[Khan Kong]

Global cooling?! Nooooo!!!! This winter become colder than they were for the last decade back. Winters seem endless, I want some warm

[TheKwas]

But Venus *has* no rising CO2 - all atmospheric movement appears to be continuously 'downward'

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you, but how can atmospheric movement be continuously downward? Given a pressure level (we can't have pressure levels approaching infinite), for every molecule going down, another has to be going up.

two huge cyclones at its poles.

Earth has these same polar vortexs (texi?) as well in the upper trophosphere and stratosphere. We just don't notice them as much as we do on Venus because of the obvious atmosphere differences.

On Earth CO2 is part of a cycle, not a dead blanket.

Now why is this a relevent point? While the CO2 may be cycled on earth (of course there are always issues of dynamics and how much comes and goes that must be considered with increased emissions), it still causes heating while it is in the atmosphere. You can imagine it as a scarf swimming around your body if you want rather than a blanket, but I don't see the principal of the warming phenomenon changing.

[Spurius]

[1]Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you, but how can atmospheric movement be continuously downward? Given a pressure level (we can't have pressure levels approaching infinite), for every molecule going down, another has to be going up.


[2]Earth has these same polar vortexs (texi?) as well in the upper trophosphere and stratosphere. We just don't notice them as much as we do on Venus because of the obvious atmosphere differences.


[3]Now why is this a relevent point? While the CO2 may be cycled on earth (of course there are always issues of dynamics and how much comes and goes that must be considered with increased emissions), it still causes heating while it is in the atmosphere. You can imagine it as a scarf swimming around your body if you want rather than a blanket, but I don't see the principal of the warming phenomenon changing.

[1]+ [2] Naturally, but I meant there is a very active system apparently in place that helps everything back down with a vengeance. We have equal systems that make stuff go UP that Venus lacks - don't even think Venus has any vulcanism, but would have to look that up.

[2] Vortices, I think.

[3] It does not do any warming by itself, IIRC but blocks IR radiation going out again. I am very interested in how this works on Venus, and if there are other influences going on like inversions in the atmosphere, how deep incoming solar radiation penetrates into the atmospehere etc.

Again, not saying the man is correct, but I am beginning to severely doubt if you can equate the working of CO2 in the Venus system with what it does on Earth, even remotely. I wonder if Earth could even *become* a Venus, even if you did your damnedest.

@Averrroes: I put up a page for Anna on our foundations website when she was murdered. I didn't make that joke about oil-and-gas-pimpology out of the blue, either. Same would indeed go for heavily politcally sensitive/involved source material from anywhere else.