Saturday November 29, 2008, 8:14 am
The graph I present with this article comes from another study which depicts the measurement of 73 tidal guage records and includes the satelite data as well...I use it to put the satelite data into a longer period of time context...

Saturday November 29, 2008, 8:27 am
The mealting of the continental icepacks is toubbeling in two respects...one is this includes glacers which are the only water source for thousands of people and second, as we lose continental ice the reflectivity of the earth is reduced and more heat is absorbed - that is it is a positive feedback loop speeding the warming process...

Saturday November 29, 2008, 1:50 pm
Scandinavian nation reverses trend, mirrors results in Alaska, elsewhere.
After years of decline, glaciers in Norway are again growing, reports the Norwegian Water Resources and Energy Directorate (NVE). The actual magnitude of the growth, which appears to have begun over the last two years, has not yet been quantified, says NVE Senior Engineer Hallgeir Elvehøy.

The flow rate of many glaciers has also declined. Glacier flow ultimately acts to reduce accumulation, as the ice moves to lower, warmer elevations.

The original trend had been fairly rapid decline since the year 2000.

The developments were originally reported by the Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation (NRK).

DailyTech has previously reported on the growth in Alaskan glaciers, reversing a 250-year trend of loss. Some glaciers in Canada, California, and New Zealand are also growing, as the result of both colder temperatures and increased snowfall.

Ed Josberger, a glaciologist with the U.S. Geological Survey, says the growth is “a bit of an anomaly”, but not to be unexpected.

Despite the recent growth, most glaciers in the nation are still smaller than they were in 1982. However, Elvehøy says that the glaciers were even smaller during the ‘Medieval Warm Period’ of the Viking Era, prior to around the year 1350.

Not all Norwegian glaciers appear to be affected, most notably those in the Jotenheimen region of Southern Norway.


But of course alarmist will say this is only temporary and the two winters in a row with below normal temperatures and above average snow does not make a trend. Another point alarmists don’t want you to think about is that clouds as well as ice and snow cover reflect heat back into space. Now I wonder where all that snow covering in the northern hemisphere came from, it couldn’t be clouds could it?

http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=11&fd=28&fy=2007&sm=11&sd=28&sy=2008

Saturday November 29, 2008, 2:55 pm
Not all glacers are doing the same thing, nor is the loss of glacers the only component of loss of "cotentenental icepacks"... The results of this study in a peer reviewd journal indicate that there has indeed been a NET LOSS of contenental icepacks when one puts all the "pluss and minuses" together (for example the Hemalias which provide the water source for many people are declining see http://www.care2.com/news/member/193692282/963974 for example). So the NET EFFECT is less contenental icepacks and thermal expansion causing an INCREASE in sea level.

Saturday November 29, 2008, 10:41 pm
I have also heard that the North Pole is moving... As it moves what effect does this have?

I think I remember seeing a show about Norway and they said for six years, their ice cover increased, but since 2002, it has been shrinking again..

I agree with Chris. It is possible to have isolated instances of increases, while overall the globe is losing ice and warming up.

Sunday November 30, 2008, 9:08 am
Interesting article, and an informative website with all kinds of great topics.

Sunday November 30, 2008, 9:31 am
This quote, from a different climate-related areticle on the same website, is a useful bit of opinion, i feel:

"

"Mr. Schmitt views this from the proper perspective. He states, “The irony in all of this is that I do not subscribe to the theories of climate change when presented in a doctrinaire way. I see climate change as a nonlinear problem of multiple interactive variables with no absolutely proven outcome. These variables include volcanic outgassing, Malankovich cycles, tectonic plate movements, solar variability, meteor impacts, comet tails, albedo, oceanic circulation, topography, a variety of hidden threshold effects, biological evolution and human technology.”

"He also says that computers help sort out the betting odds and concludes that “it is important to listen to the critics.”

"The bulk of the environmental movement has been reduced to repeating their new mantra: ignore the deniers and move on. They either don’t recognize or don’t want to recognize that there are legitimate viewpoints that challenge the current theories without denying that global warming is happening. To that end, they produce article after article that describe the symptoms after glossing over the causes.

"If this attitude continues, the results will be less favorable than they could be. The best results follow the best information. The best information will be culled from a lively debate that includes all sides."
— Ludwig

Sunday November 30, 2008, 9:38 am
We expect sea level to rise. The fact that it is rising is very separate from what is causing it.
It isn't CO2...that much we definitely know.

This is a fascinating site.
The Center for Operational Oceanographic Products and Services has been measuring sea level for over 200 years, with tide stations operating on all U.S. coasts through the National Water Level Observation Network. Changes in Mean Sea Level (MSL), either a rising or falling trend, have been computed at 128 long-term water level stations using a minimum of 30 years of continuous water level observations at each location. These measurements have been averaged to remove the effect of high frequency phenomena, such as waves and tides, to compute a straight sea level trend.
Sea Levels Online
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends.shtml

Sunday November 30, 2008, 9:40 am
Physicist says warming fears 'manipulated by a political agenda with no scientific basis'

Comments sent to EPA by research physicist John W. Brosnahan of Vanderpool, Texas, who develops remote-sensing instruments for atmospheric science for such clients as NOAA and NASA and who has published much peer-reviewed research. Brosnahan has given permission for public release of his statement

As a research physicist who has spent the past 30 years of my career in atmospheric science, I am surprised that government agencies, politicians, and much of the public have been manipulated by a political agenda with no scientific basis, which is the best way to describe the "non-link" between CO2 and global warming. There is virtually NO physical science to support any role of man's generation of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) in climate change. All of this pseudo-science is driven by poorly conceived computer modeling and represents a political agenda that uses science and the public as pawns.

Carbon Dioxide is critical for plant life and therefore to animal life and to regulate it as a pollutant is a total misunderstanding of its role in life and the role that man plays in the environment. Rather than restating all of the scientific arguments I suggest that you contact Senator James Inhofe's EPW Committee staff member, Marc Morano, who has done an excellent job of collecting an overwhelming amount of peer-reviewed science (see: here) that clearly demonstrates that there is no basis for the EPA to regulate Carbon Dioxide.

Since Carbon Dioxide is such a minor greenhouse gas compared to water vapor it would make much more scientific sense for the EPA to regulate HUMIDITY! To regulate Carbon Dioxide empowers the creation of a carbon trading scheme that is, in essence, the trading of hot air. In fact, carbon trading makes even less sense than the trading of derivatives by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

As global temperatures continue to drop I would think that the last thing that the EPA would want to do is to be responsible for another trillion dollar economic disaster. From my perspective, there appear to be many more top scientists who do NOT believe in AGW and CO2 as a critical element in climate change and see that the SUN is the active determinant for climate.http://antigreen.blogspot.com/

Sunday November 30, 2008, 9:46 am
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080403083932.htm

Climate Change Is Not Caused By Cosmic Rays, According To New Research

New research has dealt a blow to the skeptics who argue that climate change is all due to cosmic rays rather than to man-made greenhouse gases. The new evidence shows no reliable connection between the cosmic ray intensity and cloud cover.

Sunday November 30, 2008, 9:56 am
How about both "sides" being willing to sit down and have a discussion about the multiplicity of "conflicting data" instead of just relying on data that merely re-enforces pre-conceived notions and entrenched opinion?

I am a "skeptic" about most things. And that includes "skeptics". I can find LOTS of data from either "side", but it is more rare to find data that acknowledges the other "side" instead of just outright dismissal.

Unfortunately, the Global warming "Alarmists" and the Climate Shift "Deniers" seem so entrenched in their own camps, that there seems to be little hope of educated debate, with just so much biased information muddying the waters and removing the hope of informative, constructive, forward-moving information-exchange.

Sunday November 30, 2008, 9:59 am
Nobody EVER said climate change was ALL due to cosmic rays or the lack of them.
That's called a strawman argument.

In fact the changes seem to be much more related to the cycles of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation

"The PDO not Greenhouse Gases are responsible for changes in Alaska

The PDO has a major influence on Alaskan and for that matter global temperatures. The positive phase favors more El Ninos and a stronger Aleutian low and warm water in the north Pacific off the Alaskan coast. The negative phase more La Ninas and cold eastern Gulf of Alaska waters. The combination of a stronger Aleutian low and warm water off the coast leads to warmer temperatures in Alaska in the +PDO phase and a weakened Aleutian low, colder water, colder temperatures in the negative phase.

The PDO flip in 1977 from negative (which correlated with more frequent La Ninas) to positive (with more frequent El Ninos). More frequent La Ninas and weaker El Ninos followed the recent decline. In Alaska, the sudden Great Pacific Climate Shift (from negative to positive PDO) in 1977 led to a step-ladder warming. "

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Alaskan_Cold_and_Glacial_Advance_Due_to_PDO.pdf

Sunday November 30, 2008, 11:39 am
Walkadelic - Yes, a peaceful discussion would be great. There are obviously MANY factors that effect climate, you listed several above. However, that does not negate the fact that green house gasses ALSO are a factor in climate change nor does it negate the fact that humans dump BILLIONS of tons of green house gasses (CO2, methane, nitrous oxide, several others as well). into the atmosphere each year at ever increasing rates. The supporters of human caused climate change simply state that we are a SIGNIFICANT contributor to the current warming trend - and by most accounts a continued warming trend is not a good thing for the planet. So, the argument is, we need to reduce our contributions to the problem.

Climate change is happening and humans are contributing to it

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/guide/bigpicture/fact1.html

Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions

The skeptic argument...As human CO2 emissions are much smaller than natural CO2 emissions, man's impact on climate is minimal.

What the science says...
Manmade CO2 emissions are much smaller than natural emissions. However, the CO2 that nature emits (from the ocean and vegetation) is balanced by natural absorptions (again by the ocean and vegetation). Human CO2 emissions upsets the natural balance.

details:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm

Also, as has been pointed out many times, addressing the climate crisis (and yes, given the potential problems of not addressing the issue, crisis is the proper term) we asl address MANY other issues - we reduce other pollution (such as mercury from coal burning), we create jobs (California expects many new green jobs in the very near future by addressing this issue), we reduce our dependence on foreign oil (and have greater stability due to that), and protect biodiversity (by stopping deforestation and planting trees). So given the potential negatives of not addressing the issue, and the potential positives of addressing the issue, it would seem more than prudent to be taking action...in my humbel opinion of course.

Sunday November 30, 2008, 11:45 am
Also, Walkadelic, most of the literature I see gives it about a 90% chance that humans are a SIGNIFICANT (NOT EXCLUSIVE) contributor to the current warming trend. That is, there is a 10% chance that we are doing little to effect climate. Given my previous discussions, I would submit, that even if there was only a 50-50 chance that we are a significant contributor to the problem, action (well planned and implimented) would be prudent...angin, in my humbel opinion...

Sunday November 30, 2008, 11:52 am
Yes, but it is WATER VAPOR that is the principle gas involved in the "greenhouse effect", not CO2.

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/data/
A Window on Water Vapor and Planetary Temperature
18 06 2008

Here is some interesting news; according to data from NOAA’s Earth System Laboratory, atmospheric water vapor is on the decline globally.

You’ve probably heard many times how water vapor is actually the most important “greenhouse gas” for keeping our planet warm, with an effectiveness far greater than that of CO2.

It is generally accepted that the rank of important greenhouse gases is:

* water vapor and clouds which causes up to 70% of the greenhouse effect on Earth.
* carbon dioxide, which causes 9–26%
* methane, which causes 4–9%
* ozone, which causes 3–7%

Note the range of uncertainties, on water vapor some say the percentage goes up to 90% with reduced numbers on the other three.

It is absolutely true that water vapor is the gas most responsible for the “greenhouse effect” of our atmosphere. Greenhouse gases let short-wave solar radiation through the atmosphere, but impede the escape of long-wave radiation from the Earth’s surface. This process keeps the planet at a livable temperature: Without a suitably balanced mixture of water vapor, CO2, methane, and other gases in the atmosphere, Earth’s average surface temperature would be somewhere between -9 and -34 degrees Fahrenheit, rather than the balmy average 59 degrees it is today.

This graph then from NOAA’s Earth System Research Laboratory, showing specific humidity of the atmosphere up to the 300 millibar pressure level (about 8 miles altitude) is interesting for it’s trend:
See the rest of the article with graphs @
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/06/18/a-window-on-water-vapor-and-planetary-temperature/#more-1427

Sunday November 30, 2008, 11:53 am
"Since Carbon Dioxide is such a minor greenhouse gas compared to water vapor it would make much more scientific sense for the EPA to regulate HUMIDITY!" - This is an old diehard denialist mantra (repeated over and over by Judy). Here is a bit more reading material to consider:

Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas

The skeptic argument...Water vapour is the most important greenhouse gas. If you get a fall evening and the sky is clear, heat will escape, the temperature will drop and you get frost. If there's cloud cover, the heat is trapped by water vapour as a greenhouse gas and the temperature stays warm. If you go to In Salah in southern Algeria, they recorded at noon 52°C. By midnight, it's -3.6°C. That’s a 56°C drop in temperature in 12 hours. It's caused because there is very little water vapour in the atmosphere and is a demonstration of water vapour as the most important greenhouse gas (source: Interview with Tim Ball).

What the science says...

Water vapour is indeed the most dominant greenhouse gas. The radiative forcing for water is around 75 W/m2 while carbon dioxide contributes 32 W/m2 (Kiehl 1997). Water vapour is also the dominant positive feedback in our climate system and a major reason why temperature is so sensitive to changes in CO2.

details:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas.htm

Also, here are some materials regarding the PDO article (that Judy keeps repeating over and over again from the Icecaps higly biased and contrived "denialist" site):

It's Pacific Decadal Oscillation

The skeptic argument...The Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) is a temperature pattern in the Pacific Ocean that spends roughly 20-30 years in the cool phase or the warm phase. In 1905, PDO switched to a warm phase. In 1946, PDO switched to a cool phase. In 1977, PDO switched to a warm phase. In 1998, PDO showed a few cool years. Note that the cool phases seem to coincide with the periods of cooling (1946-1977) and the warm phases seem to coincide with periods of warming (1905-1946, 1977-1998). (source: The Reference Frame)

What the science says...

The PDO is a climate phenomena found primarily in the North Pacific (as opposed to El Niño which affects mostly the tropical Pacific). It has two phases that it typically alternates between; usually staying in one phase for a significant period of time (as little as 10 and as much as 40 years). However, it's not uncommon for these long periods to be broken by intervals when it switches phases for anything between 1 and 5 years. The phases of the PDO have been called warm phases (positive values) or cool phases (negative values).

details:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Pacific-Decadal-Oscillation.htm

Sunday November 30, 2008, 11:57 am
Climate myths: CO2 isn't the most important greenhouse gas

Is water a far more important a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, as some claim? It is not surprising that there is a lot of confusion about this - the answer is far from simple.

details:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11652

Sunday November 30, 2008, 12:07 pm
Walkadelic - The other "botom line" take home message, is that we are indeed in a long-term warming trend (despite a recent cool period of WEATHER - short-term cooling). Here are five independently derived data sets (inclding satelite data which even Judy holds up as "impecable") ALL showing a 30-year warming trend (the data set for satelites only goes back to 1979, thus the "limited" time scale):

http://www.climate4you.com/images/AllCompared%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1979.gif

Sunday November 30, 2008, 12:26 pm
The response to hard scientific data is DENIAL. A truly amazing performance.

When references like the totally bogus skepticalscience are used to support the denial of reality,while a respected site with fully credentialed scientists contributing to it is called "denialist" shows the paucity of the arguments.

That water vapor is THE most important gas has NEVER been in dispute. The question is how much, not if.

The fact that the IPCC dismissed its role and addressed ONLY CO2, speaks volumes about the scientific scam being perpetrated.

As for the PDO, the last place I would look for information on it is an old article from a warmist magazine where the editor was replaced because he upheld scientific inquiry.See:
Nigel Calder http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1363818.ece

Sunday November 30, 2008, 12:42 pm
"When references like the totally bogus skepticalscience are used to support the denial of reality,while a respected site with fully credentialed scientists contributing to it is called "denialist" shows the paucity of the arguments."

Again, you show your inability to READ the articles and FOLLOW THE LINKS provide within that lkead to the original literature. Skepticla Science is simply a good summary point for information - well documented with links for fact checking and written by a pysisiscist.

"The fact that the IPCC dismissed its [water vapor]role and addressed ONLY CO2, speaks volumes about the scientific scam being perpetrated." -- You are MAKING THAT UP..they do indeed address ALL components to climate change. Saying they considered ONLY CO2 is one of those "strawman arguments" you spoke about - and completely un true at that...

"As for the PDO, the last place I would look for information on it is an old article from a warmist magazine where the editor was replaced because he upheld scientific inquiry" ... Yes, of course, exhibiting again and inability to look at linked materials provided for fact chcking purposes...Also note, HE IS NO LONGER AN EDITOR FOR THE PUBLICATION so his "background" is MEANINGLESS. Also, this is a funny statement comming from a person who used Icecaps as a source of information - which is a higly contorted denialist BLOG which was founded and run by Joseph D’Aleo who is tied to other oil influenced groups - do a search on him).

Sunday November 30, 2008, 12:58 pm
now..you wanted something more up to date?? OK ...

Carbon Dioxide Levels Already In Danger Zone, Revised Theory Shows

If climate disasters are to be averted, atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) must be reduced below the levels that already exist today, according to a new study by a group of 10 scientists from the United States, the United Kingdom and France.

details:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/11/081108155834.htm

Sunday November 30, 2008, 1:08 pm
The last post I made is a Science Daily article summarizing a new jurnal publication on the subject of CO2. Here is the citation and link to the actual publication if you would like details:

Journal reference:

Target Atmospheric CO2: Where Should Humanity Aim? Open Atmospheric Science Journal, Volume 2, 217-231 (2008)

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2008/TargetCO2_20080407.pdf

Sunday November 30, 2008, 1:16 pm
"which is a higly contorted denialist BLOG which was founded and run by Joseph D’Aleo who is tied to other oil influenced groups - do a search on him)."

This is something you have already been shown to have stretched beyond credibility, because as you know, there is nothing on him.

"Climate disaster" would seem to be in the eye of the beholder since
temperatures have gone down while CO2 levels have gone up.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/MSUCRUvsCO2.jpg

The article arbitrarily says a 350 PPM level of CO2 is "optimum"...on what grounds?

We do have the record of 90,0000 measurements of CO2 from
180 YEARS OF ATMOSPHERIC CO2 GAS ANALYSIS
BY CHEMICAL METHODS
Ernst-Georg Beck
Dipl. Biol. Ernst Georg Beck, 31 Rue du Giessen, F 68600 Biesheim, France
ABSTRACT
More than 90,000 accurate chemical analyses of CO2 in air since 1812 are
summarised. The historic chemical data reveal that changes in CO2 track changes in
temperature, and therefore climate in contrast to the simple, monotonically increasing
CO2 trend depicted in the post 1990 literature on climate change. Since 1812, the CO2
concentration in northern hemispheric air has fluctuated exhibiting three high level
maxima around 1825, 1857 and 1942 the latter showing more than 400 ppm.
Between 1857 and 1958, the Pettenkofer process was the standard analytical
method for determining atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, and usually achieved an
accuracy better than 3%. These determinations were made by several scientists of
Nobel Prize level distinction. Following Callendar (1938), modern climatologists
have generally ignored the historic determinations of CO2, despite the techniques
being standard text book procedures in several different disciplines. Chemical
methods were discredited as unreliable choosing only few which fit the
assumption of a climate CO2 connection.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/EE_18-2_Beck.pdf

Danger zone my eye!

Sunday November 30, 2008, 1:21 pm
Thanks for the article Chris
As for Scandinavia, I can tell that lately 'winters' have been really mild here (last year we had barely winter at all). Glaciers in Norway grow because of increased precipitation during warm winters.

Sunday November 30, 2008, 1:42 pm
All from Icecaps again...seeing a pattern here???

"Climate disaster" would seem to be in the eye of the beholder since
temperatures have gone down while CO2 levels have gone up.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/MSUCRUvsCO2.jpg

Why do they only ues 6 years worth of data here? That is called cherry picking. They chose a SIX YEAR (short term trend which is WEATHER not CLIMATE). The data set goes much further back - but if they used the whole data set then there would be a clear WARMING TREND shown (how inconvinient for their dogma). Again, look at the long-term (CLIMATE) trend of the Hadley and MSU data (and THREE additional data sets) - ALL show WARMING THRENDS:

http://www.climate4you.com/images/AllCompared%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1979.gif


"The article arbitrarily says a 350 PPM level of CO2 is "optimum"...on what grounds?"

Well, first, this paper is in contrast to others which indicate that we have not reached 400 ppm of CO2 for over 800,000 years (see citation following). Second, do read the article again (Target Atmospheric CO2: Where Should Humanity Aim?) which showes that there is a reason the TEN scientists say that 350 ppm is optimal (not "arbitrarily" as YOU - with no credentials at all - claim). Third, even IF we had reaced 400 ppm at 3 points in recent history as your article claims that does NOT mead that was a good thing. If you read the current literature you can see plainly that "bad things" are going on as we speak - so ovbiously 400 ppm is NOT a safe level based on current problems we are having ar 395 ppm (our current level - again read the article). Now, as I said, your ONE article caliming that we have recently reached 400 ppm is the MINORITY opinion, here is an article which indicated otherwise.

Greenhouse Gases Highest For 800,000 Years-Study

http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/48353/story.htm


"anger zone my eye!" - More scientific analysis by YOU Judy - with no scientific credentials? Funny, I guess you are more of an authority that a paper written by TEN scientistis in the field, eh???

Sunday November 30, 2008, 1:47 pm
Sorry typo we are at 385 ppm not 395 ppm currently... and "anger zone" should be "danger zone" (though in Judy's case obviously both would be applicable).

Sunday November 30, 2008, 2:06 pm
Pekka - Yes, that is consistent with peredictions made by climate scientists regarding climate change due to a warming planet - some areas will receive more snow fall due to more moisture being present in the air (i.e. CO2 causes warming, which leads to more warer vapor, which leads to more clouds, which leads to more snow). However, as indicated by the original article submission (hope people are actually reading that LOL), the NET result of the current warming trend has been the LOSS of continental icepacks.

Sunday November 30, 2008, 2:07 pm
I use material from Icecap because it is the most current from wide ranging sources. The site is pristine clear...no oil there....even if one allowed that oil money was a factor in skeptical argument.

Ice cores are a notoriously unreliable proxy anyway
http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/

Astronomical Influences Affect Climate More Than CO2, Say Experts
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
By Kevin Mooney, Staff Writer

(CNSNews.com) – Warming and cooling cycles are more directly tied in with astronomical influences than they are with human-caused carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, some scientists now say.

Recent observations point to a strong link between “solar variability” – or fluctuations in the sun’s radiation – and climate change on Earth, while other research sees the sun as just one of many heavenly bodies affecting global warming in the later half of the 20th century.

Contrary to what has been stated in a “Summary for Policymakers” attached to the United Nation’s International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report -- and in subsequent press coverage of the report -- there is scant evidence in favor of human-caused global warming, according to geologists, astrophysicists, and climatologists who have released updated studies.

The IPCC report was issued most recently in February 2007.

An examination of warming and cooling trends over the last 400 years shows an “almost exact correlation” between all of the known climate changes that have occurred and solar energy transmitted to the Earth, while showing “no correlation at all with CO2,” Don J. Easterbrook, a geologist with Western Washington University in Bellingham, Wash., told CNSNews.com.

The isotopes located in Greenland’s ice core, along with layering features, make it possible to date and track some of the climate changes that have occurred, he explained. Consequently, he has identified about 30 warming and cooling cycles that have taken place reaching back over the past several hundred years.

“Only one in 30 shows any correlation with CO2,” he said. “So if you’re a baseball player with 30 at bats, that’s not a very good average.”

The ice core records also show that after the last Ice Age ended, temperatures rose for about 800 years before CO2 increased, Easterbrook pointed out in a recent paper. This demonstrates that “climatic warming causes CO2 to rise, not vice-versa,” he wrote.

“There is no actual physical evidence you can point to that would say CO2 is causing climate change,” he said in the interview. “If CO2 was causing global warming, you would be able to detect this warming in the lower part of the atmosphere (called the troposphere) but there is no warming here, so the answer for some is to look the other way.”

Unfortunately, the media at large is reticent to report on any evidence that contradicts human-caused global warming because there is a lot of money and political influence tied up with the theory, Easterbrook said.

Meanwhile, other scientists are beginning to attach themselves to the idea that the sun, not mankind, is primarily responsible for driving global warming.

Dr. Bruce West, the chief scientist of the U.S. Army Research Office’s mathematical and information science directorate, sees a strong link between the dynamics of the sun and the Earth’s ecosystem.

In the March, 2008 issue of Physics Today, West wrote, “The Sun could account for as much as 69 percent of the increase in Earth’s average temperature.”

Although it was long assumed that the sun was a constant star, one that did not experience any variability in its irradiance, this is not the case, Fred Singer, an atmospheric and space physicist, pointed out in an interview.

Solar variability – fluctuations in the sun’s radiation – directly affects climate change on Earth, in his estimation. Unfortunately, the IPCC has overlooked some of the most important factors concerning solar activity, Singer argued.

There are some significant solar changes involving solar wind, for instance, that have ramifications for Earth’s climate, but those solar changes are de-emphasized in the IPPC studies, he said.

Singer co-authored and edited a report released earlier this year entitled “Nature, Not Human Activity Rules the Climate” in which he challenges some the assumptions made by IPPC and elaborates on some of his alternative theories. The report was produced on behalf of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC).

“By disregarding or ignoring the very much larger changes of solar ultraviolet or of the solar wind and its magnetic-field effect on cosmic rays and thus on cloud coverage, the IPCC has managed to trivialize the climate effects of solar variability,” Singer’s non-government report states.

Singer, in concert with some of his colleagues on the report, have identified cosmic rays as a primary factor driving climate change on Earth. Cosmic rays are high-energy particles of extraterrestrial origin that collide at almost the speed of light with atoms in the upper atmosphere of the earth.

The hypothesis is underpinned by the idea that variations in the sun’s irradiance – electromagnetic energy emitted by the sun that reaches earth’s surface – translate into climate changes on Earth in two key ways: 1) cosmic rays create either more or fewer low, cooling clouds in our planet’s atmosphere; and 2) ozone changes driven by solar activity in the stratosphere create varying degrees of heating in the lower atmosphere.

(Ozone refers to oxygen atoms that protect the planet from harmful ultraviolet radiation. Ozone occurs naturally in the stratosphere, which is the upper atmosphere.)

Willie Soon, a climate scientist based in Massachusetts, agrees that natural forces are largely responsible for driving climate change on Earth, but he has some reservations about the cosmic ray theory. Instead, he sees a mix of astronomical influences that include the sun and other heavenly bodies.

“It’s a beautiful idea and I’m open-minded about it, but in the end I don’t think cosmic rays are the ultimate answer,” he said. “For me what works is to look at the powerful phenomenon attached to how the earth goes around the sun. Very slight changes [in the orbit] can lead to changes in the seasons.”

Soon credits a mathematician named Milutin Milankovic from Yugoslavia (now Serbia) who formulated the “orbital theory of climate change” back during the World War II era for offering up an explanation that remains salient and relevant to this day.

“So the way this theory works, we do not look at the energy of the sun itself,” Soon said. “Instead we look at the way our earth is being pulled and tugged by bigger planets, including the sun and the most massive gas giants. This is how our orbit is changing. Seasons can be changed slightly and yet significantly by orbits being pulled and tucked.”

From this larger astronomical perspective it also is possible to measure warming and cooling cycles that impact Earth’s nearby neighbors, most notably Mars, Soon suggested.

There is data going all the way back to 1976 that show Mars has also experienced global warming. The Martian ice cap has been melting during the same time period that human-caused emissions have been identified as the culprit behind global warming on Earth, he said.

Soon acknowledges that the astronomical data is limited and that more research is required. Even so, for the moment, it is difficult to disprove the idea that heavenly influences are largely responsible for the warming trends over the past few decades, he added.

As it turns out, this warming trend could be over anyway, according to Easterbrook, the geologist from Washington State. A slight cooling period that began to take hold in 1998 could endure for the next 30 years, he forecasts.

A phenomenon known as the “Pacific Decadal Oscillation” (warming and cooling modes in the Pacific Ocean) points the way, in his view.

“It’s practically slam dunk that we are in for about 30 years of global cooling,” he said. Not something you will read about in the media.”

http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=35857

Sunday November 30, 2008, 2:16 pm
Wow, no wonder there is globle warming. With all that hot air coming out of all thoses mouths, Why dont you all just shut your mouths and fix it. One way or another. Talk is cheap, but action costs.

Sunday November 30, 2008, 2:24 pm
Yes, the sun is A FACTOR in climate...just as humans contributions of greenhouse gasses is A FACTOR TOO - we have covered this topic 30-40 times (as for EVERY topic you have raised so far in this thread, you have said NOTHING new)...

Solar activity & climate: is the sun causing global warming?

What the science says...
The correlation between sun and climate ended in the 70's when the modern global warming trend began.

details:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm


Climate myths: Global warming is down to the Sun, not humans

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11650

Sunday November 30, 2008, 2:27 pm
I am trying to Bob ... that is why I have a Climate Change Action Group here on care2...and why I post so many action items ... maybe you could look at some of my submisissions or check out the group and TAKE SOME ACTION :)

Sunday November 30, 2008, 2:36 pm
What We Can Do To Stop Global Warming

http://www.care2.com/c2c/group/StoppingGlobalWarming

If you are interested :)

Sunday November 30, 2008, 2:49 pm
I find both judy's and chris' post informative about 83% of the time. That is, I enjoy most of the links and enjoy doing my own research with the provided links as a jump-off. Unfortunately, too many of us fall back into name-calling and character assassination which really only serves to solidify us in our respective camps.

Thanks, Judy, and Chris, for providing much fodder for thought. My opinion, as a skeptic at large, is that that Climate CHANGE is an obviously serious issue. I see it every day. In addition, I would love to see more emphasis on a Powering Down by developed countries, as we begin to just USE LESS nuclear, coal, and hydro energy. Of course, the people who make trillions off of those industries have a lot at stake in making sure our energy policy is based on consumption (as our president said, "we need an energy policy that encourages consumption"). I think a lot of the skepticism around the so-called "hysteria" of the ill-titled "global Warming" is that it seems to be used as a platform to encourage a Liberal government intervention, a concept that leaves a very bad taste in many peoples mouths, mine included. Obviously this is a complex issue, with many nuances, but that is certainly my reason for not wanting to see a lot of government programs to "combat" global warming. but that is also my bias.

Again, I think Global Climate Change is a far more accurate term.

I think a lot of the dialogue about "Global Warming" is used as a justification to power down and/or switch to other big industries like Wind. Personally, I would like to see more of a discussion about powering down, regardless of our opinions about CO2 and the like. All I know, as a farmer and gardener, is that the seasons are acting very strange in the last 8 years or so. In addition, it seems obvious to me that power plants are built to encourage profit from a hihg-energy use. This is obviously unsustainable, in my perspective. I know there is a lot of potential out there for small-scale, regionally appropriate energy technology (like solar, small-scale wind and hydro, etc) that would allow communities to have enough power to enjoy the luxuries and necessities of energy consumption without relying on nuclear waste and mountain-top removal (search-engine that if you want to see some horrible ish).

So I also agree with Bob. Just do what you need to do to make your world more sustainable.

Sunday November 30, 2008, 2:57 pm
That's all I am shooting for Walkadelic - just trying to get people to take action - plant trees, stop deforestation, move away from fossil fuels (and towards renewables), create green jobs and become more energy efficient, ya know, those "evil" things that "warmists" are promoting LOL

I do hope that you look at all the information...that is all I ask of others...just want folks to make an informed decision...and hopefully take action :)

Sunday November 30, 2008, 3:16 pm
Good article, good comments, good links... lots to take in.
Thanks Chris.

Sunday November 30, 2008, 3:42 pm
If that were all you were doing, you and I would be in agreement chris.

BUT you keep insisting that CO2 changes climate....that is our bone of contention because that IS the scam!

Monday December 1, 2008, 12:20 am
also the weather modification programs have a lot to do with allowing certain light thru and traps others making this a hot house and man is doing it with wargames please read up on weather modification chris

Wednesday December 3, 2008, 1:19 pm
John W Brosnahan: Founder of Signal Hill Research.
http://www.signalhill.com/overview.aspx
Scope there clean energy and green technology.

One has to wonder if the following is part of the same organization.
http://www.shpi.net/
Signal Hill Petro:

Really Judy, you should check your sourcing, for conflicts of interst.

Wednesday December 3, 2008, 2:20 pm
I have to tell you that the East River in New York has a higher sea leve. Now that's something. Hi Judy. Been missing you.
Louise B.

Wednesday March 11, 2009, 10:57 am
"BUT you keep insisting that CO2 changes climate....that is our bone of contention because that IS the scam!"

How can it be a scam when the heat retaining properties of CO2 have been widely understood since the 1900s, over a century ago? That's a looooooooooooooooooooooooooong time to be running a scam! Therefore, I concluded long ago that you were simply lying Judy. I keep challenging you to do your own experiments to test whether or not CO2 is truly opaque to heat, as greenhouse gases are supposed to be. Instead, you just copy and paste denialist propaganda. That's not doing science! So either you do actual science, or listen to those that do. Flawed analysis of data by cranks will never do.