When London is submerged and New York is awash...

[Jim Thompson]

On 12 Jan 2005 19:12:09 -0800, Winfield Hill
<hill_a@t_rowland-dotties-harvard-dot.s-edu> wrote:

Clarence_A wrote...

Jim Thompson wrote ...
Clarence_A wrote:

That's one!

Is that the classic mule joke, that's one, that's two... ?

Most appropriate for the intended individual!

WRONG. Try this one out.

Drought's Growing Reach: NCAR Study Points to Global Warming as
Key Factor. "The percentage of Earth's land area stricken by serious
drought more than doubled from the 1970s to the early 2000s, according
to a new analysis by scientists at the National Center for Atmospheric
Research (NCAR)."

http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2005/drought_research.shtml

NCAR and UCAR, two more organizations you no doubt would like to see
axed, and eliminated, because you prefer to kill the messenger rather
than listen to the message.

Aiguo Dai sure is one of our world-renonwed scientists ;-)

Win, How about citing some scientists with high reputations and
exemplary standing in the scientific community... not those with a
political ax to grind?

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.

 

[Jim Thompson]

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 22:03:15 -0500, keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:

[snip]

It's far worse than that... The classical religious person looks inward on
his problems. The modern athiest looks at his neighbor as the cause of his
problems.

Nonsense.

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.

 

[Richard the Dreaded Liber]

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 16:22:35 -0800, Charles Edmondson wrote:

Jonathan Kirwan wrote:
....
But, I suppose, Jim, you would prefer that we choose to set aside the
highly successful fields of scientifically based knowledge because you
just don't like their results?

Interesting. And very ill-advised.

Jon

I See...

I take it then, that you are not really a climatologist, or work with
climatologists very much. In my experience, most of them, at least in
private, are ashamed about the whole global warming scare. The data
isn't really there. What has happened, is that more and more 'analysis'
of the data is slanted to indicate the 'possibility' of global warming,
because that is where the funding and politics requires them to be. I
have seen similiar things in other fields. You do what you have to do
to get published and get grant money. He who has the gold makes the
rules...

I saw this done very effectively with the antismokerist money grab. It's
amazing how much buggering of data and just plain fraud got ramrodded
through and made into laws.

If you really want to shovel some bullshit and make it look official, or
authentic, or even realistic, you fall back on this wonderful sleight-of-
hand called "meta-analysis". That's where you pick and choose the
fraudulent studies that support your position and play down the
information that refutes your assertions, and people (especially
legislators, who are not noted for their scientific expertise) swallow it
hook. line, and sinker.

It's very disgusting, really.

Thanks,
Rich

 

[Richard the Dreaded Liber]

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 00:56:49 +0000, Jonathan Kirwan wrote:

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 16:22:35 -0800, Charles Edmondson <edmondson@ieee.org
....
What has happened, is that more and more 'analysis'
of the data is slanted to indicate the 'possibility' of global warming,
because that is where the funding and politics requires them to be.
I have seen similiar things in other fields. You do what you have to do
to get published and get grant money. He who has the gold makes the
rules...

And you know that published, peer-reviewed science is being doctored up and a
broad and world-wide basis, across all countries and all scientists from all
walks of life? Or that scientists make more of a future for themselves by lying
and doing poor work?

Enough to get some really bad legislation passed, yes.

It's just not believable on the face of it. Sorry.

Well, that's just tough, because it's true. Sorry.

Thanks,
Rich

 

[Rich The Philosophizer]

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 07:47:51 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 22:03:15 -0500, keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:

[snip]

It's far worse than that... The classical religious person looks inward on
his problems. The modern athiest looks at his neighbor as the cause of his
problems.

Nonsense.

Well, not completely nonsense - more like the other way around. The
religious person looks to "God", and the "atheist" looks at himself as
causal - the ones looking for somebody to blame are merely stuck somewhere
in between. Unfortunately, this is the segment that apparently makes up
the majority of voters.

Thanks,
Rich

 

[John Larkin]

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 21:43:10 -0500, keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 19:09:52 -0800, Paul Hovnanian P.E. wrote:

Richard the Dreaded Liberal wrote:

On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 22:57:11 +0000, Clarence_A wrote:
"Keith Williams" wrote

Sliding down the hills in CA.

You don't see Kofi Annan sending Aid to California, do you!

It's a little hard to work up a feeling of sympathy for idiots who build
three million dollar mansions on top of mudslides.

If you think this is bad, just wait for The Big Earthquake.

Everything east of the San Andreas fault will slide into the Atlantic
Ocean.

Yikes! That's going to ruin the day for the EuroPeons too! *SURF'S UP*!

OTOH, I'd like to visit Ireland.

As far as I can recall, the west coast of Ireland is mainly sheer
cliffs that rise up out of the ocean. The average tsunami would bounce
off.

John

 

[John Larkin]

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 06:13:38 +0000, invalid@example.com wrote:

The Carbon Dioxide Thermometer and the Cause of Global Warming;
Nigel Calder,-- Presented at a seminar SPRU (Science and
Technology Policy Research), University of Sussex, Brighton,
England, October 6, 1998.

Someone appears to have quoted text from a paper at
http://www.climatechangedebate.org/archive/10-27_11-07_1998.txt
Which I reformatted to 60 columns and will post as a reply to this post.
It is labeled "To be published" and thus may be a preliminary version.

Here it is:

From: Richard A. deSousa [m1aport@pacbell.net]
Sent: Friday, October 30, 1998 11:24 AM
To: globalwarming@joshua.law.pace.edu
Subject: Nigel Calder's Hypothesis on CO2 and Global
Warming

To view the referenced illustrations, graphs, etc., visit:
http://www.microtech.com.au/daly/calder/calder.html
r.desousa

The Carbon Dioxide Thermometer and the Cause of Global
Warming

by Nigel Calder

(To be published in `Energy and Environment')

This material was presented at a seminar at SPRU (Science
and Technology Policy Research), University of Sussex,
Brighton, England, on 6 October 1998

Note: the use of non-standard characters, for the correct
spelling of El Nino etc., is here avoided for the sake of
electronic transmissibility.

Note from John L. Daly: - In line with this website's
practice of `open review' of online guest papers, reactions
to Nigel Calder's paper have been presented on a separate
page and can be viewed here

Abstract:

Natural agents of climate change, and especially the cosmic
rays, control the concentration of carbon dioxide in the
Earth's atmosphere. Man-made emissions of carbon dioxide
have no perceptible effect. The carbon cycle acts as a
natural thermometer and year-by-year increments in carbon
dioxide measure temperature deviations similar to those
reported by man-made thermometers. By calibrating the
natural carbon dioxide thermometer to global temperature
deviations, a carbon dioxide history is inferred, which
intersects ice-core data showing elevated carbon dioxide
concentrations before the 20th Century. The variable
year-by-year increments of carbon dioxide can also be
accounted for, without reference to temperature, by the
combined effects of cosmic rays, El Nino and volcanoes. The
most durable effect is due to cosmic rays. The aa index of
the solar wind, used as a long-term proxy for the cosmic
rays, gives a carbon dioxide history similar to that
inferred from the global temperature deviations.

Introduction:

Confirmation in 1974 that the rhythm of the ice ages is
controlled by the Earth's behaviour in orbit via the
Milankovitch effect [Refs. 1, 2] encouraged the search for
similar forcing agents to explain climate changes over
shorter timescales. To account for the global warming of the
20th Century, there were two main candidates: observable
variations in the behaviour of the Sun, and a hypothetical
greenhouse effect of man-made additions of carbon dioxide
to the air. Among various discoveries favouring the solar
explanation of global warming, two are conspicuous. The
first, in 1991, showed a striking inverse relationship
between the length of the sunspot cycle and the deviations
in temperature in the Northern Hemisphere [Ref. 3]. The
second, in 1996, revealed a phenomenon unknown to
meteorologists, namely that the Earth's cloud cover varies
according to the intensity of galactic cosmic rays [Ref. 4].

As the influx of cosmic rays is diminished by a strong solar
wind, and as the solar wind has freshened during this
century, a sufficient explanation for global warming is now
available (Fig. 1). Nowadays the Sun is so active, and the
solar wind so vigorous, that the maximum intensity of cosmic
rays during recent sunspot cycles was no greater than the
minimum levels of cosmic rays experienced early in the
century. Fewer cosmic rays mean fewer clouds and a warmer
Earth.

Note that most of the warming occurred in the first half of
the century. It was partly reversed in the 1960s, and then
it resumed. The hesitant history never made any sense in the
greenhouse hypothesis, because the use of fossil fuels rose
steadily throughout the period. The pattern accords very
well with the fickle behaviour of the Sun. The rising level
of carbon dioxide in the air since 1959 is also shown in
Fig. 1, where the increase plainly coincides with the most
recent rise in temperature. The reason for the rise in
carbon dioxide needs to be reconsidered in the light of the
solar results.

The discovery about cosmic rays and clouds reported by
Henrik Svensmark and Eigil Friis-Christensen [Ref. 4] is a
Rosetta Stone that decodes the climate. The microphysical
processes by which cosmic rays contribute to cloud
formation have still to be clarified [Ref. 5]. Nevertheless
the phenomenon is plain and it offers practical benefits in
climate forecasting. For example predictions of India's
grain harvest, traditionally based on a negative
correlation with El Nino, improve if cosmic rays are taken
into account (Fig. 2).

Evidence in support of the greenhouse hypothesis remains
extremely sketchy [Ref. 6]. Hubert Lamb, the founder of
modern climate science, warned of this outcome in 1977, when
he wrote that "the effect of increased carbon dioxide on
climate is ... probably much smaller than the estimates
which have commonly been accepted" [Ref. 7]. An axiom of
the greenhouse scenario is that the increase in carbon
dioxide in the air is due to increases in man-made
emissions, chiefly from fossil fuels. The opposite view,
that carbon dioxide in the air has increased because the
Earth is warmer has often been proposed, but seldom heeded
[Refs. 8-10].

This paper brings together the proposition that cosmic rays
are the arbiter of climate change, and the proposition that
carbon dioxide follows climate change rather than leading
it. The conclusion is that the concentration of carbon
dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere is controlled by the solar
wind.

The Cause of Carbon Dioxide Increases:

The carbon dioxide concentrations in the air, recorded on
Mauna Loa since 1958, combine a rising trend with an annual
cycle peaking every May (Fig. 3).

The gains between successive May peaks vary a great deal,
but they correspond approximately with the intervening
June-May temperature deviations in the Southern Hemisphere
as compiled by the University of East Anglia. The agreement
with man-made instruments is close enough for carbon dioxide
to be considered as a natural thermometer.

The similarities were clearest between 1971 and 1989. There
was no gain in carbon dioxide in 1963-64, when the Southern
Hemisphere experienced its coldest deviation of the period.
That episode illustrates the existence of a critical
temperature, below which the carbon dioxide in the air can
be expected to fall rather than rise. After the Pinatubo
eruption of May 1991, the carbon dioxide thermometer
registered a larger fall than did the man-made thermometers
represented in the East Anglia data. The carbon cycle is
evidently hypersensitive to volcanoes.

The match between carbon dioxide gains and temperature
cannot be explained by the enhanced greenhouse hypothesis,
with carbon dioxide causing the changes in temperature. The
total carbon dioxide has never fallen during this period,
but the temperature and the carbon dioxide increments have
done so repeatedly. The temperature deviation associated
with an additional 1 ppmv (part per million by volume) in
the year-by-year increment is an order of magnitude greater
than the increase in temperature predicted for the enhanced
greenhouse effect of the increment (~0.01 deg. C/ppmv). The
match between carbon dioxide and temperature is far too
close for the greenhouse.

The trendline shows the year-by-year increments doubling
from 0.8 ppmv/yr around 1960 to 1.6 ppmv/yr around 1995.
During this period, man-made emissions from fossil fuels and
cement manufacture rose faster, by 150 per cent (from 2.6
to 6.4 gigatonnes of carbon per year, Ref. 11). An
increasing part of the supposed man-made contribution of
carbon dioxide to the air is therefore disappearing into
non-atmospheric sinks such as trees. This is the opposite of
what one would expect if the man-made contribution were
overwhelming the ability of the Earth system to manage
carbon dioxide by its own natural rules. On the contrary,
the Earth system appears to be unimpressed by man-made
inputs, which are only a few per cent of the natural trade
in carbon dioxide between the surface and the atmosphere,
said to be about 150 gigatonnes of carbon per year [Ref. 6,
p. 77].

Year-by-year variations in the man-made input also fail to
appear in the year-by-year gains in the carbon dioxide. A
headline result appears in cartoon form in Fig. 4 a, whilst
Fig. 4 b explains the use of time-sensitive correlations to
guard against spurious linkages. In the period 1960-1990,
variations in man-made emissions had no more influence on
carbon dioxide gains than did the number of motion pictures
completed each year by Mr Clint Eastwood. Instead, the gains
in carbon dioxide were closely linked to variations in the
temperature in the Southern Hemisphere in April. Another
month or season would give a similar result but, as a poet
foresaw, April is the cruellest month for the greenhouse
hypothesis, with a correlation between carbon dioxide and
temperature of 0.77 over 31 data points.

The conclusion that temperature governs the increments and
therefore the total concentration of carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere, and has nothing to do with man-made inputs, is
unsurprising. A larger increase in atmospheric carbon
dioxide (from about 190 to 260 ppmv) occurred at the end of
the last ice age. The human beings then alive had no
significant fossil-fuel industries. As the carbon dioxide
gains lagged behind the temperature gains, they were an
effect, not a cause [Ref. 12].

Calibrating the Carbon Dioxide Thermometer:

A more detailed view of the operation of the natural carbon
dioxide thermometer comes from comparisons between the
carbon dioxide gains and seasonal temperature deviations in
the Southern Hemisphere. They show patterns of
time-sensitive correlations too reasonable and orderly to be
due to chance (Fig. 5).

At the start of the new carbon dioxide accounting year, in
June, the southern winter temperatures (June-August) echo
the climatic influences in the preceding summer and autumn,
and know little about changes to come in the following
months. Their best match is therefore to the carbon dioxide
gain up to the recent May. By the following autumn,
March-May, the carbon dioxide thermometer is finalizing its
verdict on the year, and conventional thermometers have
responded to the same climatic wobbles. As one should
expect, the correlation peaks in March-May.

Temperature deviations in the Northern Hemisphere match the
carbon dioxide gains less closely and the 12-monthly
temperature of the Northern Hemisphere correlates better
with last year's carbon dioxide gain than with this year's
(Fig. 6). The reason is that the most strongly correlated
season is the summer (June-August) immediately following
the end of the previous accounting year for carbon dioxide.

The calibration of the carbon dioxide thermometer to global
temperature deviations, expressed in degrees C, is
illustrated in Fig. 7. The relationship is assumed to be
linear. With increasing temperature, the solubility of
carbon dioxide in the ocean diminishes (the warm champagne
effect) and biochemical reactions proceed faster (the warm
beer effect). No opinion is offered on the mechanism here,
although the assumption of linearity may implicitly prefer
a physical effect.

To convert a carbon dioxide increment into degrees C,
multiply the increment in ppmv (parts per million by
volume) by 0.23 deg. C and subtract 0.22 deg. C. That gives
a carbon dioxide temperature analogous to the global
temperature deviations (relative to the mean for 1961-1990)
as compiled at the University of East Anglia.

The coefficient 0.23 comes by matching the slope of the
trendline of the carbon dioxide increments to the slope of
the trendline of the global temperature deviation from 1959
to 1991, omitting the Pinatubo perturbation. The other
number, -0.22, represents the critical global temperature
deviation below which carbon dioxide diminishes instead of
increasing. The number comes from the global temperature
deviation in 1964, when the carbon dioxide gain was zero.
For a match to Southern Hemisphere temperature anomalies
the corresponding numbers are 0.29 and -0.29.

In principle one can also infer the critical temperature
from the calibration graph. This would give -0.27 for the
globe and -0.36 for the Southern Hemisphere. The natural
calibration of the critical temperatures in 1964 seems
safer to use. Regression analysis offers yet another method
of calibration. For the globe it delivers a coefficient of
0.17 and a critical temperature of - 0.20. I reject this
pair of numbers because it gives a rate of increase in
total carbon dioxide that is too fast to match the Mauna Loa
data.

The calibrations describe the ability of carbon dioxide to
track temperatures. They imply that the atmospheric
abundance was on a roller-coaster in past centuries,
according to whether temperatures were generally above or
below the critical level. The global temperature data
offered by the University of East Anglia go back to about
1856. Using the global calibration of the carbon dioxide
thermometer, one can very easily calculate the expected
annual changes in carbon dioxide in the air, and sum
(integrate) the changes to infer a history of total carbon
dioxide. The result suggests that carbon dioxide went
through a minimum in the 1920s, after the cold start to the
20th Century, but was well above the minimum in the latter
half of the 19th Century (Fig. 8).

The graph intersects carbon dioxide data from air bubbles
trapped in Antarctic ice at Siple [Ref. 13]. It does not
follow the rising trend indicated by the air bubbles.
Nevertheless, as the graph comes from the simplest possible
assumptions, its readiness to thread its way through the
data points is gratifying. One wonders if the scientists
concerned were wise to shift the Siple data by an arbitrary
83 years, to join them to the Mauna Loa graph, in the
belief that any elevated levels of carbon dioxide must be
due to man-made emissions [Refs. 13, 14].

Also shown in Fig. 8 is an alternative history inferred from
the Southern Hemisphere calibration of the carbon dioxide
thermometer, and the Southern Hemisphere temperature
anomalies. The match is neither very good nor very bad. A
minimum appears at about the same time, though higher. Again
the graph reaches the Siple data, though it droops a
little. To make a closer match by adjusting the calibrations
would be easy, but that would run counter to the simplicity
and transparency preferred here.

The analysis up to this point uses interpretations and data,
most of which have been available for about 10 years. Its
purpose has been to dislodge the unhelpful hypothesis that
carbon dioxide changes are due to human activity, in order
to open the search for the natural controller of carbon
dioxide levels.

Natural Influences on Carbon Dioxide Variations:

The next step is entirely independent of what has gone
before, because there is no reference to global or
hemispheric temperature deviations. Instead, the
year-by-year gain in carbon dioxide is treated as an index
in its own right. If thinking of it as a temperature reading
is an aid to understanding, so be it, but the only part
that notion plays in the analysis is in the choice of sign
(+/-) for the likely effects of natural agents of climate
change.

In Fig. 9, the vertical scale is graduated to the increments
in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and other data are
scaled to suit it [Ref. 15]. The series of graphs explores
directly the relationship of carbon dioxide gains to
natural agents of change, in a climatic striptease.

The record of cosmic rays from the Galaxy, as modulated by
the solar wind, appears first in the series because they
are the prime candidate to be in charge of events [Ref. 4].
Fewer cosmic rays imply fewer clouds and better conditions
for a gain in carbon dioxide, so the readings are inverted.
As the counts of cosmic rays have fallen since the 1960s,
the top graph shows a long-term rising trend.

The graph of year-by-year gains in carbon dioxide also shows
a long-term rising trend. Otherwise the match to cosmic
rays is at first sight poor, because other natural agents of
climate change confuse the picture.

A much clearer match appears at once between the carbon
dioxide gains and El Nino, as gauged by temperatures in the
equatorial zone of the Eastern Pacific Ocean (Cold Tongue
Index). Several peaks and troughs are immediately
recognisable. El Nino plays such an obvious role in
controlling carbon dioxide gains from year to year that,
even if this were the only correlation under consideration,
it would raise grave questions about the credibility of the
greenhouse hypothesis.

To help to reveal what else is going on, the next graph
subtracts the effect of El Nino from the carbon dioxide
gains. The result begins to look like a record of volcanic
effects. Besides the Pinatubo dip there is, for example,
another corresponding with the El Chichon eruption in 1982.

At the same time the match to the solar effect in the cosmic
ray graph improves, and that influence remains in place. In
any case, it is unlikely that either El Nino or volcanoes
can provide an upward trend sufficient to explain the
increase in year-by-year carbon dioxide gains.

The last step is to refine the graph of the volcanic
influence by subtracting the cosmic ray graph, as well as
the El Nino graph, from the carbon dioxide gains. Some easy
identifications of individual eruptions are labelled.

Any enhanced greenhouse effect, due to the rising total of
carbon dioxide, is lost in the noise of volcanic eruptions.
Subtracting a rising greenhouse trendline from the graph of
carbon dioxide gains would simply tilt the graph of
inferred volcanism downwards to the right, making the
influence of Pinatubo even more remarkable.

Critics who doubt the control of carbon dioxide by natural
agents must explain why the wiggles of El Nino look so much
like the wiggles in carbon dioxide gains. They must also
show that the inferred volcanic graph is seriously wrong.
As existing volcanic indices are contradictory, that may be
hard for the critics to do. Conversely, uncertainty about
volcanoes makes the analysis difficult to verify, or to
refine by adjusting the arbitrary conversion factors used
here.

If the climatic striptease of Fig. 9 approximates to
reality, it illustrates an apparent role of El Nino as a
thermostat. El Nino (warming) and La Nina (cooling) events
seem to counter the warming and cooling effects of changes
in cosmic rays and of volcanic eruptions, so reducing their
impact on the global climate. Whether or not that
interpretation is correct, the confusions due to El Nino and
volcanoes show why the solar effect has taken nearly 200
years to pin down, since the astronomer William Herschel
noted a link between sunspots and wheat prices, in a paper
published in 1801 [Ref. 16].

How the Sun Controls Carbon Dioxide Levels:

The dramatic effects of volcanoes and El Nino come and go,
but they probably average out over a few decades and the
atmosphere forgets them. What it remembers best, in its
rising inventory of carbon dioxide, is the reduction in
cosmic rays during the recent period. That change in the
cosmic rays is due to high activity in the Sun and a
freshening solar wind.

While the year-by-year increments in carbon dioxide provide
the signals from the carbon dioxide thermometer, the total
level of carbon dioxide in the air is a counter of cosmic
rays on timescales of decades. This dual role for carbon
dioxide as a natural measuring device is only to be
expected, if the cosmic rays control global temperatures in
the long run.

Carbon dioxide can be seen counting the cosmic rays quite
efficiently, in Fig. 10. This compares the rising level of
carbon dioxide (i.e. the sum of all the annual gains) with a
cumulative count of cosmic rays (i.e. the sum of all the
annual counts) during the period 1959-94. As before, the
cosmic ray data are inverted, because fewer cosmic rays
imply more carbon dioxide in the air. For cosmic rays as for
temperatures, there is a critical level where carbon dioxide
gain changes to carbon dioxide loss. Here that level is
chosen to produce zero gains around 1964.

The correlation between the cosmic ray graph and the levels
of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as measured at Mauna
Loa is 0.99, for the 38 data points where the series
overlap. Such a high correlation should perhaps be taken
with a grain of salt because the cosmic ray data have been
processed, albeit it in a very simple way, with the aim of
producing a match.

What is more persuasive is that short-term errors, the
differences between the cumulative totals from man-made
ionization chambers and from the carbon dioxide cosmic ray
counter, are readily explicable. For example the
over-reading of carbon dioxide compared with cosmic rays in
the late 1980s reflects a strong El Nino, while the
under-reading of the early 1990s coincides with the Pinatubo
event. Despite the closer match of El Nino to carbon
dioxide increments on a year-by-year basis, a cumulative
graph matching the recent accumulation of carbon dioxide
cannot be constructed by the same method from the El Nino
time series.

Routine monitoring of cosmic rays and their variations began
only in 1937, and in the 19th Century no one knew they
existed. Their variations over centuries and millennia,
recorded in the form of radiocarbon and radioberyllium
atoms created by cosmic ray impacts, nevertheless give a
vivid picture of ever-variable solar activity [Ref. 17].

The changes in cosmic rays are due to changes in the solar
wind. A strong solar wind means fewer cosmic rays reaching
the Earth, but more magnetic storms. A monthly series of
data on magnetic storms observed simultaneously in England
and Australia, called the aa index, dates back to 1868. For
technical reasons related to the orientation in space of
the Earth's magnetic field, it is better to exclude aa data
close to the spring and autumn equinoxes.

Here the aa index is used as a proxy for the cosmic rays, to
infer a carbon dioxide history (Fig. 11). Like Figs. 9 and
10, the main graph in Fig. 11 is derived without reference
to temperature, only to a direct relationship between
cosmic rays and carbon dioxide. The graph shows a carbon
dioxide history derived by the simplest possible
assumption, namely that carbon dioxide increases whenever
the aa index is above its mean for 1858-1997, and falls
when it is lower. Gains and losses are deemed to be
proportional to the difference from the mean. The only other
assumption is that the resulting history should be anchored
to the Mauna Loa carbon dioxide data.

The surprising outcome of this bravado is a graph of carbon
dioxide levels very similar to the graph inferred from
global temperatures, repeated from Fig. 8. The latter graph
was generated by a completely different route, via the
calibration of the carbon dioxide thermometer to global
temperatures measured conventionally. Their similarities
speak for themselves.

Conclusions:

In summary, I am led by two different routes to the
following unfashionable opinions:

The increases in carbon dioxide in the air from year to year
are a result, not a cause, of climate change. The carbon
dioxide changes are related to temperature, and not to human
activity. El Nino and volcanoes strongly influence the
year-by-year carbon dioxide changes, but the Sun is in
charge of decadal trends. The Sun sets the level of carbon
dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere by the cumulative effect
of variations in the galactic cosmic rays reaching the
Earth, as modulated by the variable solar wind.

The pictures given here, of carbon dioxide acting as a
thermometer and as a counter of cosmic rays, come from
comparisons of carbon dioxide data with well-known data
series: the global and hemispheric temperature deviations,
the Cold Tongue Index for El Nino, the aa index for the
solar wind, and cosmic rays measured at ground level. The
uses of the data are simple, straightforward and
transparent, and time-sensitive correlations (Figs. 4-6)
guard against spurious links. The method of incremental sums
(Figs. 8, 10 and 11) was employed successfully in the first
formal confirmation of the Milankovitch effect [Ref. 1].
Although the details and some interpretations offered here
will surely be improved, the overall impressions are
probably secure.

A great deal of climatology is represented in this paper and
in back-up studies not included here. Thanks to the
discovery of the role of cosmic rays, climatology will
become an exact science, in which for example the recent
warming can be analysed in terms of solar, oceanic and
volcanic effects, month by month and region by region.

Hubert Lamb always expected that the variations in climate
would turn out to have palpable physical causes.
Philosophically that may be greatest benefit of the new
results. Natural changes will no longer be confused with
the chaos, sometimes dubbed "natural variability", that
appears unbidden in computer models of the climate.



References:

1. N. Calder, "The arithmetic of ice ages," Nature, vol.
252, pp. 216-218 (1974)

2. J.D. Hays et al., "Variations in the earth's orbit:
pacemaker of the ice ages," Science, vol. 194, pp. 1121-1132
(1976)

3. E. Friis-Christensen and K. Lassen, "Length of the solar
cycle: an indicator of solar activity closely associated
with climate," Science, vol. 254, pp. 698-700 (1991)

4. H. Svensmark and E. Friis-Christensen, "Variation in
cosmic ray flux and global cloud coverage: a missing link
in solar-climate relationships," Journal of Atmospheric and
Solar-Terrestrial Physics, vol. 59, pp.1225-1232 (1997);
the essence was announced at COSPAR 96, Birmingham, England,
July 1996

5. J. Kirkby et al., proposed CERN experiment, CLOUD
(personal communication)

6. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Working Group
1, Climate Change 1995 (Cambridge University Press, 1996)

7. H.H. Lamb, "Climate: Present, Past and Future", vol. 2
(Methuen, 1977) p. 666

8. C. Kuo et al. "Coherence established between atmospheric
carbon dioxide and global temperature," Nature, vol. 343,
pp. 709-913 (1990)

9. Z. Jaworowski et al., "Atmospheric CO2 and global
warming: a critical review (second edition)", Norsk
Polarinstitutt, Oslo Meddelelser No. 119 (1992) and
references therein

10. Z. Jaworowski, "Ice core data show no carbon dioxide
increase," 21st Century Science and Technology, vol. 10,
No. 1, p.42-52 (1997) and references therein

11. See Internet data source for "Man-made carbon dioxide"
(above)

12. J. Jouzel et al., "Vostok ice core: a continuous isotope
temperature record over the last climatic cycle," Nature,
vol. 329, pp. 403-408 (1987)

13. A. Neftel et al., "Evidence from polar ice cores for the
increase in atmospheric CO2 in the past two centuries,"
Nature, vol. 315, pp. 45-47 (1985); repositioned Siple data
also appear in Ref. 6, p. 16, Fig. 1

14. Z. Jaworowski, "Reliability of ice core records for
climatic projections," in J. Emsley (ed) The Global Warming
Debate (ESEF, 1996)

15. Conversion factors used to compare other data with the
carbon dioxide increments: ionization chamber datum
(arbitrary units) is divided by 10; Cold Tongue Index datum
(in hundredths of deg. C) is multiplied by 0.0065

16. W. Herschel, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal
Society, vol. 91, pp. 265-283, 1801

17. C.P. Sonett et al. (eds) "The Sun in Time" (University
of Arizona, 1991)

Sources of Data on the Internet (personal credits appear at
the sites):

Mauna Loa carbon dioxide (monthly):
cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/by_new/bynumber (select NDP001)

East Anglia Northern and Southern Hemisphere temperature
deviations (monthly):
daac.gsfc.nasa.gov/CAMPAIGN_DOCS/FTP_SITE/INT_DIS/readme/tmp
_dev

Cold Tongue Index for El Nino (monthly):
tao.atmos.washington.edu/pacs/additional_analyses/sstanom6n6
s18090w

aa index for the solar wind (monthly):
ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DATA/RELATED_INDICES/AA_INDEX/
(select AA MONTH)

Cosmic rays: low latitude neutron counts (monthly, Huancayo
and Haleakala stations) odysseus.uchicago.edu

Man-made carbon dioxide from fossil fuels and cement
manufacture (annual):

cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/by_new/bynumber (select NDP030)

Food grain production in India (annual % deviation):
iri.ldeo.columbia.edu/~bhoch/15fig.gif

Clint Eastwood filmography (annual):
uk.imdb.com/Name?Eastwood,+Clint

Other Sources of Data:

Cosmic rays: ionization chamber data (annual) for 1937-94
were presented by H.S. Ahluwalia at the 25th International
Cosmic Ray Conference, Durban, vol.2, p.109, 1997

Siple ice-core carbon dioxide data: -- see Ref. 13, p. 46,
table 1

Bibliographical Note:

The story of the Danish discoveries in Refs. 3 and 4 is
related in Nigel Calder, The Manic Sun (Pilkington Press,
1997). The book is available also in Danish (Den Maniske
Sol, Gyldendal, 1997), in Dutch (De Grillige Zon, Schuyt,
1997) and in German (Die Launische Sonne, Boettiger,
1997).

This is not an advertisement but a statement of fact which,
if not included, would allow critics to say I have a hidden
motive for my research - NC

Contact address:
Nigel Calder
[obfuscated] Road, [obfuscated], Sussex [obfuscated], England
Phone: +44 (0)[obfuscated]
Fax: +44 (0)[obfuscated]
e-mail: [obfuscated]

Cool. It always seemed a little strange to me to blame the current
weather on manmade effects, given the planet's past outrageous history
of ice ages, tropical periods, mini-ice ages, all that. A couple of
degrees C is way, way below the natural noise level.

If orbital, solar, and cosmic-ray effects dominate climate, and CO2
follows, then a whole lot of climatologists can take their "concensus"
papers and stuff them under the doors to keep the chill out.

John

 

[John Larkin]

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 13:22:16 -0500, Keith Williams <krw@att.bizzzz>
wrote:

In article <6dedu0d7jplg892jrels3msu62sedjnmdr@4ax.com>,
jjlarkin@highSNIPlandTHIStechPLEASEnology.com says...
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 21:43:10 -0500, keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 19:09:52 -0800, Paul Hovnanian P.E. wrote:

Richard the Dreaded Liberal wrote:

On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 22:57:11 +0000, Clarence_A wrote:
"Keith Williams" wrote

Sliding down the hills in CA.

You don't see Kofi Annan sending Aid to California, do you!

It's a little hard to work up a feeling of sympathy for idiots who build
three million dollar mansions on top of mudslides.

If you think this is bad, just wait for The Big Earthquake.

Everything east of the San Andreas fault will slide into the Atlantic
Ocean.

Yikes! That's going to ruin the day for the EuroPeons too! *SURF'S UP*!

OTOH, I'd like to visit Ireland.

As far as I can recall, the west coast of Ireland is mainly sheer
cliffs that rise up out of the ocean. The average tsunami would bounce
off.

The tsunami caused by the right 99 and 44/100% of NA breaking off and
falling in the "Atlantic" wouldn't' be your "average tsunami". I'd
guess that the other .56% of NA would feel the earth move too.

Do Liberals float?

John

 

[Jonathan Kirwan]

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 07:44:50 -0700, Jim Thompson <thegreatone@example.com>
wrote:

... not those with a political ax to grind?

And, to you, who might those be?

Jon

 

[Jonathan Kirwan]

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 20:45:46 -0700, Jim Thompson <thegreatone@example.com>
wrote:

Clarence_A wrote...

Your positions are not expressed as opinions but conclusions
which are frequently not even close to reality as I perceive it.

One opinion / conclusion I hold: you are an idiot and a jerk.

Careful there Win, you're "catching up" ;-)

Clarence isn't worth reading, at all. Win is correct in this particular case.

Jon

 

[Winfield Hill]

Jim Thompson wrote...

Heavens! Heavens! Please cancel this post at once! We can't
have any opinions expressed that are opposite to those of the
great leftist leaders ;-)

You love the seven-year-old stuff that supports your position.


--
Thanks,
- Win

 

[Richard the Dreaded Liber]

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 11:28:27 -0800, John Larkin wrote:

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 13:22:16 -0500, Keith Williams <krw@att.bizzzz
In article <6dedu0d7jplg892jrels3msu62sedjnmdr@4ax.com>,
jjlarkin@highSNIPlandTHIStechPLEASEnology.com says...

As far as I can recall, the west coast of Ireland is mainly sheer
cliffs that rise up out of the ocean. The average tsunami would bounce
off.

The tsunami caused by the right 99 and 44/100% of NA breaking off and
falling in the "Atlantic" wouldn't' be your "average tsunami". I'd
guess that the other .56% of NA would feel the earth move too.


Do Liberals float?

Why? Do you want to burn them as witches?

Thanks,
RIch

 

[Richard the Dreaded Liber]

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 11:28:27 -0800, John Larkin wrote:

Do Liberals float?

Of course, unlike neocons who are sunk by the weight of that stone they
have in place of a heart.

Good Luck!
Rich

 

[Richard the Dreaded Liber]

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 21:20:32 +0000, Jonathan Kirwan wrote:

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 07:44:50 -0700, Jim Thompson <thegreatone@example.com
wrote:

... not those with a political ax to grind?

And, to you, who might those be?

"... environmental activists, generously financed by compliant foundations and
by government grants. The White House is putting pressure on civic and
religious groups, and even on corporations, to join the apocalyptic
chorus."
http://www.sepp.org/glwarm/gwlucency.html

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Jonathan Kirwan]

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 23:21:10 GMT, Richard the Dreaded Liberal
<eatmyshorts@doubleclick.net> wrote:

snip

I'm interested in Jim's opinion about his own opinion. He's the only one
qualified to comment on it.

Jon

 

[Jim Thompson]

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 18:55:15 -0700, Jim Thompson
<thegreatone@example.com> wrote:

On 13 Jan 2005 17:19:43 -0800, Winfield Hill
hill_a@t_rowland-dotties-harvard-dot.s-edu> wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote...

[snip]
Science, Dec 2004, Vol 306,
p 1686, which evaluates 928 papers published in refereed scientific
journals between 1993 and 2003, listed in the ISI database with the
keywords "climate change."

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/306/5702/1686.pdf

An excerpt: "This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the
peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of
Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies.
Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the
impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate
scientists, but that impression is incorrect."

[snip]
SOME "Climate scientists have repeatedly tried to make this clear",
but just as many, as Charles Edmondson pointed out, are embarrassed at
all this wild-assed guesstimating.

Face it Win, I'm right (in more ways than one , and you're wrong,
but I will defend, to the death, your right to be wrong ;-)

...Jim Thompson

I should have added... Win, you and I differ sharply on the value of
"peer-reviewed".

I'm of the nuts and bolts school, literally... "mens et manus" after
all

You're immersed in the mass-mess of academia, where you think
"peer-reviewed" has any final value... it doesn't. Ever met a PhD who
could actually provide a workable solution to a problem?

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.

 

[keith]

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 23:06:32 +0000, Richard the Dreaded Liberal wrote:

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 11:28:27 -0800, John Larkin wrote:

Do Liberals float?

Of course, unlike neocons who are sunk by the weight of that stone they
have in place of a heart.

You still haven't defined "neocon".

--
Keith

 

[keith]

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 21:22:17 +0000, Jonathan Kirwan wrote:

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 20:45:46 -0700, Jim Thompson <thegreatone@example.com
wrote:

Clarence_A wrote...

Your positions are not expressed as opinions but conclusions
which are frequently not even close to reality as I perceive it.

One opinion / conclusion I hold: you are an idiot and a jerk.

Careful there Win, you're "catching up" ;-)

Clarence isn't worth reading, at all.

Then *DON't* you fucking moron!

Win is correct in this particular case.

....only because you agree with him.

--
Keith

 

[John Larkin]

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 22:27:15 -0500, keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 23:06:32 +0000, Richard the Dreaded Liberal wrote:

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 11:28:27 -0800, John Larkin wrote:

Do Liberals float?

Of course, unlike neocons who are sunk by the weight of that stone they
have in place of a heart.

You still haven't defined "neocon".

"A Liberal who has been mugged by reality."

John

 

[keith]

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 20:10:28 -0800, John Larkin wrote:

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 22:27:15 -0500, keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 23:06:32 +0000, Richard the Dreaded Liberal wrote:

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 11:28:27 -0800, John Larkin wrote:

Do Liberals float?

Of course, unlike neocons who are sunk by the weight of that stone they
have in place of a heart.

You still haven't defined "neocon".


"A Liberal who has been mugged by reality."

No, when the acrid left uses the term they really mean "damned joo".

--
Keith