Tuesday, July 11, 2006

An Inconvenient Truth

From Physorg:

Greenhouse theory smashed by biggest stone

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.

Read the rest here.

1 comment:

Jezzy said...

Under consideration? Sorry, but that's laughable. A press release based on an article "under consideration" by some obscure journal means nothing. Speshly as it's written by some dodgy eastern European scientist!
Anyone can get a study published if they choose to publish about a contentious issue in a journal that needs some sort of publicity!
If the analysis was strong and credible, more mainstream journals with higher impact factors would be very interested in publishing the findings because they generate publicity - which is what journals want.

Well, I guess if you publish your analyses in some obscure journal, it's there for people to use to suit their own purposes.