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

Guy Macon · Jan 15, 2005

John Larkin wrote:

Reg Edwards wrote:

In the meantime, the Earth's future depends on the
votes of USA gas-guzzling car owners whose only
consideration (the lowest on Earth) is the price of
gasoline.

Just wait until China starts burning coal in earnest. The gas will run
out; the coal won't.

Let's keep some perspective here. Total human contributions
to greenhouse gases account for roughly 0.28% of the greenhouse
effect, and the greenhous effect is on;ly a minor player when it
comes to climate change, most of which is controlled by cyclical
eccentricities in the Earth's rotation and orbit and by variations
in the sun's energy output.

( Source: http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/ice_ages.html )

"We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic
statements, and make little mention of any doubts we may have.
Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between
being effective and being honest."

-Stephen Schneider (leading advocate of the global warming
theory) in an interview for Discover magazine, Oct 1989

Guy Macon · Jan 12, 2005

Richard the Dreaded Liberal wrote:

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

I rather suspect that you will enjoy this paper on that very topic:

Confessions of a Welfare Queen
How rich bastards like me rip off taxpayers for millions of dollars
By John Stossel
(yes, the same John Stossel you see on TV...)

http://www.reason.com/0403/fe.js.confessions.shtml

James Beck · Jan 12, 2005

In article <d04bu01tplkhuluasrfq8id0521211r764@4ax.com>,
jkirwan@easystreet.com says...

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 10:59:21 +0000, Guy Macon
_see.web.page_@_www.guymacon.com_> wrote:

I once asked my lovely and talented wife to stand behing the car
and tell me if the turn signal was working. She said:

"It's working. No it isn't. Yes it is. No it isn't. Yes it is..."

I cannot say I understand your point, so I'll guess at it. You imagine that
climate GCMs need to predict weather? If so, you are sorely mistaken. And not
just a little bit, but entirely so.

Predicting the next flip of a fair coin is very hard. Predicting the average of
the next 10000 coin flips is much easier, Guy. Predicting the weather a month
from now at Astoria, Oregon is hard. Predicting the global mean temperature for
the decade from 2090 to 2100 given an estimate of human greenhouse gas emissions
is much easer.
I think you will find that, given our current understanding of the

dynamics of the global climate system, that you are wrong. I understand
that it is easier to pick trends out of chaotic systems, but the models
they are using to "predict" the future increase in global temperatures
are based upon feedback systems operating in a positive feedback manner
and they have yet to prove they even understand how the feedback systems
work. In other words the models play fast and loose with several
variables and yet are suppose to be taken as fact.

As you should be aware, specific and chaotic transients are harder to model and
predict than the general and steady state.

I hope that makes the issue clearer for you.

Jon

Jim Thompson · Jan 13, 2005

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 01:16:13 GMT, "Clarence_A" <no@No.com> wrote:

[snip]

That's one!

[snip]

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

480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax

Clarence_A · Jan 13, 2005

"Jonathan Kirwan" <jkirwan@easystreet.com> wrote in message
news:tugbu0h99tu41lhhevml6iv3asb8u2t5kq@4ax.com...

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 16:22:35 -0800, Charles Edmondson
edmondson@ieee.org
wrote:

I take it then, that you are not really a climatologist, or
work with
climatologists very much.

I am not. I have worked on instrumentation (on a volunteer
basis) for such
purposes and I do know a few personally, though.

And I have worked professionally on weather observation
Satellites, and the scientists on the program did not feel that
there is any basis in fact for a hypothesis (Note that there is NO
theory yet!) which can support or indicate a possibility of a
continuing trend toward global warming!

In my experience, most of them, at least in
private, are ashamed about the whole global warming scare.

Same here!

Then this is quite different from my own experience. I've no
idea what you are
talking about here. It's not representative of my own contacts.

The data isn't really there.

Dead wrong. What more can I say about it?

YOU can not say anything credible, since you are an advocate of
the position and not a unbiased scientist working in the field!
You can only express a personal opinion and it is worth what we
paid for it!

Don Klipstein · Jan 13, 2005

In <m8bbu05madgemiknhvir9q29samo4qk3o4@4ax.com>, Jonathan Kirwan wrote:

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 22:50:19 +0000 (UTC), don@manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein)
wrote:

If global warming is caused by CO2 in the atmosphere then
does CO2 in the atmosphere also cause increased sun activity?
http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/tempCO2_vs_solwind.html

How did they measure solar wind back in 1865-1870?

See:

Foukal et al., CLIMATE: A Stellar View on Solar Variations and Climate,
Science, October 2004, 306: 68-69.

Abstract:
"Accurate reconstruction of solar irradiance variations is important for
assessing human and natural contributions to climate change. Fluctuations in
the Sun's brightness, measured directly by space-borne radiometry over the past
two 11-year sunspot cycles, seem too small to drive climate. Recent
reconstructions of solar irradiance extending back to the 17th century have
assumed that larger, multidecadal irradiance variations occur, similar to those
detected on other Sun-like stars. In their Perspective, Foukal et al. discuss
the recent retraction of this stellar evidence and of the solar irradiance
reconstructions based on it, which has important implications for the relative
roles of various forcing factors in climate change."

Jon

Not that I can get to a library tonight to find this, but the abstract
sure seems to say enough without giving any clue that solar wind was
actually measurable before the "space age", while

http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/tempCO2_vs_solwind.html

claims solar wind data back to around 1865-1870 or so. Yes, claims data
specifically for "solar wind" as opposed to any other measure of output of
the sun.

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

Don Klipstein · Jan 15, 2005

In <4m49u0tahp3lf0utfl7gluc86trepb04v9@4ax.com>, Jonathan Kirwan wrote:

On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 09:40:16 -0800, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highSNIPlandTHIStechPLEASEnology.com> wrote:

snip
Oh, we're having a dramatic, wet, sorta violent winter here in
California. We had pounding rain, hail, and lightning/thunder last
night, all rare here.

I consider not really unusual for during an El Nino (and a weak one is
in progress) and not impossible when El Nino is absent.

The LA basin is even a bit of a "tornado alley"!
Average thunderstorm incidence (in days per year with one or more
thunderstorms) in coastal California is supposedly 1-2 per year for that
matter - possibly a few per El Nino!

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

John Woodgate · Jan 11, 2005

I read in sci.electronics.design that Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote (in <cs0saq$huf$1@reader13.wxs.nl&gt

about 'When London is
submerged and New York is awash...', on Tue, 11 Jan 2005:

It's a bit different for people who live closer to sea-level, or worry
about the sort of world their kids are going to become senile in.

.....or are NOT going to have the opportunity to become senile in.

The north west of England and south west Scotland have had 18 inches of
rain in 36 hours over the week-end. Now today there are 100 MPH winds in
the north of Ireland. This is not unprecedented but is very rare.

The evidence that climate is changing is pretty convincing. How much is
due to human activity and how much to other effects is much less
certain. But increased CO2 in the troposphere increases the stored
energy, so potentially increases the incidence of stormy weather.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

Clarence_A · Jan 15, 2005

"YD" wrote

keith wrote:
Paul Hovnanian P.E. wrote:
Richard the Dreaded Liberal wrote:
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.
Seeing that CA is faces the Pacific Europe is safe enough.
Australia,
Hawaii, Asia and Africa will be the ones to suffer.

The San Andreas fault is 'rotating' a few inches per decade. Even
with the 'constant' earthquakes (50 to 200 per day) it will take
thousands of years to move enough to make a major change in the
coast line. Erosion of the coast by the sea is a bigger threat to
the coastal areas, with several thousand acres lost in the last
century alone!

The earthquakes worthy of note are shown here for the past week.
Updated daily, or even by event. Earthquake watching is a sport
here, rather like watching the grass grow!

http://quake.usgs.gov/recenteqs/latestfault.htm

Really small quakes are not recorded, since they are difficult to
gather meaningful data from.

Jan 13, 2005

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]

Jim Thompson · Jan 13, 2005

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 ;-)

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]

480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax

John Larkin · Jan 15, 2005

On 11 Jan 2005 03:59:04 -0800, Winfield Hill
<hill_a@t_rowland-dotties-harvard-dot.s-edu> wrote:

"When London is submerged and New York awash, we may look back on 2004
as the year when the water started rising. Observations collected from
both North and South Poles show that the world's ice sheets and glaciers
are disintegrating faster than anyone thought possible."

It has occurred to me that the proponents of catastrophic global
warming are natural pessimists; in other times, they would be
predicting the Apocalypse, the End of Days, great pestilences, and the
other classic (and mythical) catastrophes. The naturally cheerful
people in this group are overwhelmingly inclined to be sceptical about
the likelihood of catastrophic climate change.

It's interesting how one's emotional perspective influences one's
estimation of risk.

Even more interesting: the persistance of the concept of worldwide
disaster as retribution for man's sins.

John

John Larkin · Jan 15, 2005

On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 18:28:13 +0000 (UTC), "Reg Edwards"
<g4fgq.regp@ZZZbtinternet.com> wrote:

90 percent of French electricity is very sensibly produced by clean atomic
power.

Uhuum. That's certainly debatable.

=========================

Face the facts. You read the wrong newspapers. Unable to read the lines
between between the falsehoods.

The newspapers and TV news-commentators are controlled, in effect, by the
multinational corporations, especially by the oil and energy companies, who
have more economic and militrary power, mercenaries and bankers, etc., than
many unfortunate individual countries.

Their influence even on George and Tony is manifestly obvious. That pair are
merely exceptionally well-paid puppets. However there are signs the skids
are under them.

So much for so-called Democracy, invented in Ur and Babylon by the ancient
Iraqis, greatly expanded upon by the ancient Greeks, who must be turning
over in their graves at the anguish of Weapons of Mass Destruction, mainly
relatively recently invented in the USA, but voted into full use by the
innocent brainwashed USA citizens.

Reg.

Goodness, you are in a cranky mood today. I sure hope you're not this
gloomy all the time.

John

Guy Macon · Jan 15, 2005

John Larkin wrote:

Winfield Hill wrote:

"When London is submerged and New York awash, we may look back on 2004
as the year when the water started rising. Observations collected from
both North and South Poles show that the world's ice sheets and glaciers
are disintegrating faster than anyone thought possible."

It has occurred to me that the proponents of catastrophic global
warming are natural pessimists; in other times, they would be
predicting the Apocalypse, the End of Days, great pestilences, and the
other classic (and mythical) catastrophes.

They *did*.

Take a look at the following. It's all there; the Ominous
signs, the Evidence Accumulating Massively, the Unanimous
Meteorologists citing NOAA Data, the small changes in
temperature being highly misleading to the layman, the
Pessimistic Climatologists...

-----------------------------------------------------------

Newsweek
April 28, 1975

The Cooling World

There are ominous signs that the Earth's weather patterns
have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may
portend a drastic decline in food production-- with serious
political implications for just about every nation on Earth.
The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only
10 years from now. The regions destined to feel its impact
are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the
U.S.S.R. in the North, along with a number of marginally
self-sufficient tropical areas -- parts of India, Pakistan,
Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia -- where the growing
season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon.

The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun
to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are
hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have
seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since
1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production
estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. During the same
time, the average temperature around the equator has risen
by a fraction of a degree -- a fraction that in some areas
can mean drought and desolation. Last April, in the most
devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148
twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a
billion dollars' worth of damage in 13 U.S. states.

To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent
the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world's
weather. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent
of the trend, as well as over its specific impact on local
weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the
view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity
for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as
profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting
famines could be catastrophic. "A major climatic change
would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide
scale," warns a recent report by the National Academy of
Sciences, "because the global patterns of food production
and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on
the climate of the present century."

A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a
drop of half a degree in average ground temperatures in the
Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968. According to
George Kukla of Columbia University, satellite photos
indicated a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere
snow cover in the winter of 1971-72. And a study released
last month by two NOAA scientists notes that the amount of
sunshine reaching the ground in the continental U.S.
diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972.

To the layman, the relatively small changes in temperature
and sunshine can be highly misleading. Reid Bryson of the
University of Wisconsin points out that the Earth's average
temperature during the great Ice Ages was only about seven
degrees lower than during its warmest eras -- and that the
present decline has taken the planet about a sixth of the
way toward the Ice Age average. Others regard the cooling as
a reversion to the "little ice age" conditions that brought
bitter winters to much of Europe and northern America
between 1600 and 1900 -- years when the Thames used to freeze
so solidly that Londoners roasted oxen on the ice and when
iceboats sailed the Hudson River almost as far south as New
York City.

Just what causes the onset of major and minor ice ages
remains a mystery. "Our knowledge of the mechanisms of
climatic change is at least as fragmentary as our data,"
concedes the National Academy of Sciences report. "Not only
are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered, but
in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key
questions."

Meteorologists think that they can forecast the short-term
results of the return to the norm of the last century. They
begin by noting the slight drop in overall temperature that
produces large numbers of pressure centers in the upper
atmosphere. These break up the smooth flow of westerly winds
over temperate areas. The stagnant air produced in this way
causes an increase in extremes of local weather such as
droughts, floods, extended dry spells, long freezes, delayed
monsoons and even local temperature increases -- all of which
have a direct impact on food supplies.

"The world's food-producing system," warns Dr. James D.
McQuigg of NOAA's Center for Climatic and Environmental
Assessment, "is much more sensitive to the weather variable
than it was even five years ago." Furthermore, the growth of
world population and creation of new national boundaries
make it impossible for starving peoples to migrate from
their devastated fields, as they did during past famines.

Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will
take any positive action to compensate for the climatic
change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some
of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting
the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or
diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater
than those they solve. But the scientists see few signs that
government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the
simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the
variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections
of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the
more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic
change once the results become grim reality.

-----------------------------------------------------------

Sound familiar?

(Where *was* Winfield Hill in 1975?)

Terry Pinnell · Jan 14, 2005

Winfield Hill <hill_a@t_rowland-dotties-harvard-dot.s-edu> wrote:

<snip>

And this, "The question of what to do about climate change is still
open. But there is a scientific consensus on the reality of
anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists have repeatedly
tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to listen."

There was a gripping edition of Horizon on BBC2 here last night which
strongly supported the reality of man-made climate change. Three main
points stood out for me:

1. What I hadn't realised up until now (to my shame I've only recently
started to take a serious interest in the subject) was the astonishing
effect of 'global/solar dimming'. In just 3 days, Sep 11-13, 2001,
across most of the USA, the average temperature rose by a massive 1
dec C. And that was just as a result of a temporary halt in only *one*
major polluter, airplane contrails.

2. Global dimming has almost certainly indirectly caused the deaths of
a million or so already, mainly children, due to its influencing the
African monsoons.

3. But the scariest prediction arose from the no-win situation we
appear to be in now. Reducing global dimming is essential. But it will
quickly accelerate global CO2 warming. A temp increase of 10 deg C in
UK would result by end of century. Already hot countries (or US
states) would be unable to sustain human life.

--
Terry Pinnell
Hobbyist, West Sussex, UK

Guy Macon · Jan 16, 2005

Jim Thompson wrote:

Excellent!! I'll drink a glass of Chalone Chardonnay to that ;-)

Perhaps *without* quoting 171 lines in order to add 10 words
at the bottom?

Ken Smith · Jan 16, 2005

In article <csc4if$pal$1@sparta.btinternet.com>,
Reg Edwards <g4fgq,regp@ZZZbtinternet,com> wrote:
[...]

You have no alternative but to admit defeat and withdraw your armies from
the region as you did from Vietnam.

No, they don't gotta admit nothing.

--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge

Guy Macon · Jan 16, 2005

Anyone who quotes this entire post without trimming hereby admits to being a moron and a loser.

John Larkin wrote:

Reg Edwards wrote:

John Larkin wrote -

Goodness, you are in a cranky mood today. I sure hope you're not this
gloomy all the time.

John, your response is typical of that substantial bloodthirsty sector of
USA society which imagines USA citizens to be a set of Angels who saved the
helpless Brits from the German language in the now ancient history of the
first and second world wars.

Reason one why I killfiled Reg Edwards; ungrateful.

young innocent, brain-washed, drug-addicted, soldiers

Reason two why I killfiled Reg Edwards; insults US troops.

The USA is slowly heading towards another civil war.
With the 'gun laws' you are already armed to the teeth.

Reason three why I killfiled Reg Edwards; meddles in the laws
of foreign nations.

The Vietnamese and Cambodians, at immense cost and present
suffering were the first to call your bluff.

Reason four through N why I killfiled Reg Edwards; posts
misinformation that can be refuted through a simple web search:
[ http://www.google.com/search?q=democide+cambodia ]

Note to all: the first three results from this search are well
worth reading. If you know me you know that I wouldn't waste
your time unless I thought that you would be very much interested
in what I am asking you to read.

Anyone who quotes this entire post without trimming hereby admits to being a moron and a loser.

YD · Jan 16, 2005

On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 11:30:36 -0500, keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:

On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 08:56:01 -0300, YD wrote:

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.

Seeing that CA is faces the Pacific Europe is safe enough. Australia,
Hawaii, Asia and Africa will be the ones to suffer.

Read it again: If "Everything east of the San Andreas fault will slide
into the Atlantic Ocean", Europe would be in for major hurt. If A then B,
while being an absolutely true statement, doesn't mean A will ever happen.

Oooops, missed that one. Well, whichever side slides under first,
Earth will certainly keep turning without missing a beat.

- YD.

--
Remove HAT if replying by mail.

keith · Jan 16, 2005

On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 15:27:55 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:

On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 13:34:23 -0800, John Larkin
jjSNIPlarkin@highTHISlandPLEASEtechnology.XXX> wrote:

snipped at the request of GM

But their modeling is so much better now; the relationship between
climate change and research funding is now firmly established.

John

Excellent!! I'll drink a glass of Chalone Chardonnay to that ;-)

Aw, shit, all I've got here is a glass of ice water! (did the beer thing
watching the damned Steelers squeak one out over the incompetent Jets)

--
Keith

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

Guy Macon

Guest

Guy Macon

Guest

James Beck

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

Clarence_A

Guest

Don Klipstein

Guest

Don Klipstein

Guest

John Woodgate

Guest

Clarence_A

Guest

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

John Larkin

Guest

John Larkin

Guest

Guy Macon

Guest

Terry Pinnell

Guest

Guy Macon

Guest

Ken Smith

Guest

Guy Macon

Guest

YD

Guest

keith

Guest

Log in

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor