Thanks Laura!

Svensmark, by the way, is currently doing additional research to address the concerns of those atmospheric scientists that disagree with his experiment. What is interesting is that his theory DOES explain the presence of sulphuric acid formation in the upper atmosphere.

Indeed more food for thought.

The rate of global warming will slow in the next 20 years? B-b-b-but I thought the earth had a fever? I thought that the mild December was evidence that we are rapidly headed for disaster? I thought that since we evil humans caused this, that only we can slow it down? Now I ask you panic mongers out there. If a global warming advocate does a complete about face on his radical view and takes a more acceptable approach that doesn't involve the government intervening, don't you think that something is just a little bit amiss with your rantings? And your wanting to interfere with the lives of the American people and suppress capitalism? Hmmm???.....

Hi Guys,

Now they start to get it. Cosmic Rays are part of the puzzle along with the ocean current oscillations and many other factors. To say we now know everything and the debate is over is rubbish. Just see how many "believers" are now "deniers" because they look at the actual science and it doesn't hold up. This is the scientific process, you provide a theory and it is debated, tested and scrutinized.No one wants thier funds cut off and can study eveything from tree frogs to polar bears as long as you put a GW spin on it. I 1988 the US government spent around $170 million on climate research it has spent $16 billion in the last 5 years, go figure why no one wants this to stop. Here are some links about cosmic rays and the sun.

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/10may_longrange.htm
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/02/11/warm11.xml

Take EVERYTHING with a grain of salt...

Let me first offer kudos to Laura for offering a thread from a skeptic straight-up. This is, in my view, the best way to approach these issues.

I agree that the "a" part of AGW is the most open to criticism. I also agree that the current strategies of reducing carbon emissions (such as the various carbon trading schemes) appear to have limited, at best, effectiveness.

In my view, the "GW" part of AGW remains an established fact. The primary bone I pick with the deniers (and David Evans does not fit this criteria) is the claim by many that the warming is not taking place, is not significant, and can be ignored. The happy platitudes about lower heating bills and longer growing seasons. Farmland in Greenland.

In my view, several facts remain -- facts that I hope will drive investigators like Mr. Evans to continue their work:

1. The global climate is warming, dramatically.

2. The impacts of this warming are likely to have serious and even devastating consequences, especially for the third-world.

3. Those cultures, like our own, who have the resources to study and develop mitigation strategies to address these impacts surely have a moral (if not self-serving) obligation to do so.

4. Any anthropogenic contribution, large or small, is additive to whatever non-anthropogenic factors are at play, and is far more subject to human intervention.

Svensmark's original peer reviewed article studies the effect of shining UV radiation into a chamber and how new aerosol particles are produced. But note - in his study is no atmospheric modelling, historical measurements of cosmic rays or solar magnetic fields. In fact, not a peep about climate change or global warming to be found in the study.

But what Svensmark did next was release a non-peer reviewed "press release" after the original article was published. It makes a huge leap from the original study's conclusions to a cause of global warming, bypassing a number of causality steps required to prove the link. It concludes with the grandiose conclusion - "The recent discovery by our team in Copenhagen of the chemical mechanism of cosmic-ray action on cloud formation thus brings to a climax a scientific quest that has lasted two centuries."

This is misleading and unethical science - particularly when people start citing his work as proof that global warming is caused by cosmic rays. There is a long way to go to prove a link between cosmic rays and cloud formation. But even when the science is more fully understood, there is one big flaw in the cosmic ray theory. According to Neutron Monitor measurements stationed across the globe, cosmic radiation has shown no trend over the last 50 years. So even if cosmic rays are linked to cloud formation, all they'll find is the cloud formation 50 years ago is the same as it is now and has little to no impact on global warming today.

1. Is this warming a natural trend, that from papers cited here on this blog has been going on for centuries at about the rate cited by the IPCC? True the oldest measurements are not "global", but do show the same trends as currently. In fact, "global" measurements are a very recent item.

2. How do we know this? Changes in weather patterns are possible, but how severe will they be and what will be the cost to adapt to them? Is this prediction assuming that the current hot cycle will continue indefinitely instead of cooling as in the past (as some indicators arguably show)?

3. Sure, but when we cannot agree on the direction and magnitude of the change, let alone the causes, what should we develop? Should it be a crash development a la the Manhattan Project or the Apollo program or should it simply be the continuing and accelerating improvement in alternate power technologies? Another issue is that coping solutions fall into the "everybody has to do it" area and if a few don't, then the effort is wasted. Well, it might make some people feel good.

4. Are the anthropogenic contributions relevant? What effects on the anthropogenic changes in methodology that have modified the raw data to produce a greater warming delta over the last century? You are now moving into the cost analysis area, which a hardcore proAGW scientist testified to Congress with Al Gore about, with the conclusions that there were far more efficient ways to alleviate human suffering and death than pouring crippling amounts of treasure down a rathole for statistically insignificant changes in global warming in the most catastrophic AGW scenarios. A strong case could be made for investing proposed carbon "offset" money into programs that would help cope with the changes from global warming for greater efficiency. Would you support an enhanced nuclear program in the US? Simply write laws to override the mass trivial lawsuits that make nuke plants unprofitable to build, designate a national reserve for waste products and to heck with the microenvironment in that area.

"He doesn't deny carbon dioxide is playing a role in global warming, but believes it may be far smaller than climate scientists believe it is." http://www.oism.org/pproject While all the signatories of this Petition are not "Climate Scientists" a good many of them are. I believe your statement is incorrect. Many "Climate Scientists" side with Evans on this matter, not necessarily agree with the UV theory, but that CO2 is not the cause of GW.

"The alternative he offers, Henrik Svensmark's cosmic ray/clouds theory, is not accepted by mainstream climate science." I'm glad to hear that science is now dictated by fad. "Mainstream Climate Science". We all know that mainstream indicates fact rather than opinion. Just ask Galileo or Giodorno "Burnt at the Stake" Bruno.

BT,
You were correct, couldn't pass up responding.
1. The Global Climate is warming, DRAMATICALLY. Really? One degree increase after a One degree decrease during the Little Ice Age. How dramatic. You may want to take something for that anxiety, a net zero increase in temp over the last 500 years is not something to be alarmed about.
2. The impacts of this warming are likely to have serious and even devastating consequences, especially for the third-world. Really? Net Zero temp increase.
3. Those cultures, like our own, who have the resources to study and develop mitigation strategies to address these impacts surely have a moral (if not self-serving) obligation to do so. Really? Like what? Regulate CO2 emissions that do not contribute to GW in any significant way? How about making people who are upset about a NET ZERO increase in temp over the last 500 years hold their BREATH.
4. Any anthropogenic contribution, large or small, is additive to whatever non-anthropogenic factors are at play, and is far more subject to human intervention. Profound! Similar to farting in a hurricane. It must be stopped or we are all DOOMED!

Hi Guys

JC - Thanks for at least bringing some sort of rebuttal rather than just name calling. But the fact of cosmic rays and x-rays effect on air molecules is widely known just go to any nuclear research site and you should find it. As for deviation if you look at the link from NASA that I posted it clearly shows much deviation in the last 50 years. As for his paper it is a theory and is currently being researched. This is how its done and not just dismissing it out of hand.

Here is the Moberg Temp graph from NASA
http://junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Moberg2005.html

Here is the CO2 concentrations from the south pole very linear
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/trends/co2/siple2.013

JC, Using the word "trend" is misleading. This isn't a hodgepodge of data points with no clear discenible phenomenon at work, there is a cyclical pattern present with regards to cosmic rays. What's missing is an overlay of the mean global temp on the cycle.

You also say, "But note - in his study is no atmospheric modelling, historical measurements of cosmic rays or solar magnetic fields. In fact, not a peep about climate change or global warming to be found in the study."

It's because his experiment isn't about warming it's about a mechanism of aerosol/cloud formation. Also, please read his study. The UV is only there to start the process and mimic UV radiation effects on the atmosphere. As for Comsic rays, please see the following excerpt from his article:

"The ions were produced in the chamber by the naturally occurring galactic cosmic radiation and the decay of the natural abundance of radon (monitored with a Durridge RAD7 instrument). In addition to this, the average production of ions could be enhanced to ionization levels relevant for the atmosphere (1-60 ion pairs cm-3s-1), with two 35 MBq Cs-137 gamma sources, placed on either side of the chamber at a distance that ensured the entire chamber was irradiated with the additional ionization. It was also possible to reduce the number of ions via an electric 'clearing' field (0-12000Vm-1). This was achieved by applying a voltage drop across two acid proof stainless steel plates (1.71.7m2) mounted within the chamber on the opposing walls. The field strength could be varied over a range of voltages corresponding to ion lifetimes of ca 1-200s. "

It therefore is indeed relevant to the atmosphere and his conclusions aren't that far fetched, though he ackowledges the models shortcomings in his paper.

Einstein spent the last 25 years of his life trying to disprove Quantum theory. Of course he failed. At a certain point we have to accept the bad news and move on. I worked at ORNL from 1950 to 71. It was well known at the Lab then that If CO2 pollution of the atmosphere continued, we would experience drastic climate change. Scientists were also talking about peak oil. In 1974 ORNL Director Alvin Weinberg discussed CO2 linked global warming in an article in Science, and in1 1975 he testified about global warming before congress. How long have we known about global warming? Over a generation! It is time to move on and begin solving the problem.

JC,

"This is misleading and unethical science" So is every theory that blames GW on CO2. Causation and Correlation are two very different things. The Milankovitch cycles explain this warming very well. I have yet to hear any argument that dismisses that theory. CO2 levels holding steady over the last 2,000 years (up till 1800's) with temp increases and decreases casts huge doubt that CO2 is the culprit of today's warming, which BTW is not DRAMATIC as BT says but rather insignificant when looking at temp increases and decreases over the last several hundred thousand years. We are in the warmest period between major glacial periods and a ONE degree increase after the ONE degree decrease during the Little Ice Age is no reason to become alarmed. Temps have risen over 14 degrees and sea levels have risen 400 feet since the last Ice Age.

The IPCC is set to be the next Major Church. There will be inquisitions, forced tithing, allegiances with certain governments, fanatical followers, and likely a reformation when things cool down. This bothers me a great deal more than a NET ZERO increase in temps over the last 500 years. This is little different than Christians forcibly converting Native Americans. They thought they were doing them a favor at the time, probably still do.

And the skepticism continues, even from a Government Bureaucracy!

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=10571499

GASP!, and look! It's a story from NPR too? Now that is astonishing! How did that get by the censors? Ya think it will be mentioned on Brian Williams, Katie Couric, or Charlie Gibson tonight? My guess is, fat chance!

Charles,
You are half right. Most experts back in the late 60s through late 70s believed that most of made made pollution caused a "dimming" of insolation, and that CO2's postive feedback mechanisims were not strong enough to offset the negative feedbacks of high levels of sulfuric dioxide. That is, if anything, we would continue to cool.

What climate scientists didn't know back then was the existence and influence of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and its affect on ENSO events. By the late 70s, the Northern Hemsiphere had some of its most bitter winters since the 1880s; yet, as a whole the earth was already warming. The PDO went from a 40 year negative phase to a positive phase beginning in 1974. We have been in a positive phase PDO ever since.

One thing to keep an eye on is the Eastern and Central Pacific SSTs. One can also use Indonesian and Austrailian precip trends as a proxy. The severe 6 year Austrailian drought reflects the relatively warm Pacific SSTs of the last 6-10 years. Since last fall, these temps have begun to fall, and this cooling of SSTs has spread eastward. The persistance of this change in Central Pacific SSTs since November, and an unusual cooling of Northern Pacific SSTs indicate that perhaps the PDO is turning from positive to negative. It is still early to tell. The last switch began in 1974 and ended in 1976.

Seems like the deniers are having trouble keeping their stories straight. As I wrote above, I do not include Mr. Evans in that category. I think Oiznop and the good Dr. Griffen do a rather good job of exemplifying the group that DOES deserve the label.

Here's what Dr. Griffen says in the interview cited above by Oiznop:

I'm aware that global warming exists. I understand that the bulk of scientific evidence accumulated supports the claim that we've had about a one degree centigrade rise in temperature over the last century to within an accuracy of 20 percent. I'm also aware of recent findings that appear to have nailed down � pretty well nailed down the conclusion that much of that is manmade. Whether that is a longterm concern or not, I can't say. (Emphasis mine)

Ok, so this one agrees that the evidence strongly supports the claim of AGW. He follows this by saying, in effect, "I'm just not sure I care."

This is what qualifies him as a denier.

In the next paragraph, he says:
I have no doubt that � a trend of global warming exists.

So again he agrees that it's happening. He follows with:
I am not sure that it is fair to say that it is a problem we must wrestle with.

I think the pattern is pretty clear -- Dr. Griffen says "It's happening, but we don't have to worry about it."

He then follows this with another classic arrow drawn from the quiver of the deniers, the red-herring/strawman:
And second of all, I guess I would ask which human beings � where and when � are to be accorded the privilege of deciding that this particular climate that we have right here today, right now is the best climate for all other human beings. I think that's a rather arrogant position for people to take.

I don't know of any climatologist, politician or AGW proponent who claims that "this particular climate that we have right here today, right now is the best climate for all other human beings."

Dr. Griffen apparently feels that it is "rather arrogant" for some of us to suggest that starvation, drought, disease, and dislocation for millions of the world's least advantaged people might be something that he and we, who are among humankind's MOST advantaged people, might contemplate mitigating.

If this is arrogance, I plead "Guilty as charged."

Dr. Griffen apparently feels that it is "rather arrogant" for some of us to suggest that starvation, drought, disease, and dislocation for millions of the world's least advantaged people might be something that he and we, who are among humankind's MOST advantaged people, might contemplate mitigating.

If this is arrogance, I plead "Guilty as charged."

REPLY: Yep, because that is what you and your crowd is all about, Tom. Guilt, Guilt, Guilt, and more Guilt. With more Government to come along to make us "feel good" and take away the Guilt. Guilty because we are the most prosperous country on this earth, that others envy because they are not smart enough to see that the only solutions to the human condition are freedom and liberty allowing one to prosper. Guilt because we are "the reason for other's oppression" which is a crock. Because it's ok for certain people to be the chosen ones to preach, yet at the same time are the biggest abusers. This is why you alarmists are so full of it. The day is going to come when those with a brain are no longer going to buy into your guilt garbage and phoniness. Your honor, the deniers plead NOT GUILTY. Here's hoping for a long tedious trial!

Love and Kisses,

Your favorite Denier

Funny how uplifting words like "freedom" and "liberty" are so readily put in the service of pure self-serving greed by some.

I wonder what the deniers will have to say about small government when the entire LA basin runs out of potable water because of AGW-induced changes in precipitation patterns.

By the looks of the way things are quickly shaping up for the dollar, and homeland terrorism, folks in the U.S. will be placing AGW on the back-burner to try to figure out how to maintain an average lifestyle and not spiral into becoming the next third world, war-torn country.

Start placing some energy into solutions to prevent what's on our doorstep right now, that will be affecting us all in the very near future. AGW in the news is only distracting us from the real threat to humanity.

Find out how our government is feverishly passing laws to prepare for and deal with imminent catastrophic events within our own borders. If this sounds alarmist, it is. AGW does exist, but is not the worst threat hovering over us now.

Global warming will allow you the time to have grandchildren. This threat may not.

Jim Arndt, thanks for the kind comments - I'm a strong believer that the question of whether global warming is man caused is a purely scientific question so all the political name calling is distracting and unhelpful.

I don't dispute the effect of cosmic rays on air molecules - that's been proven in a lab. I just question Svenmark's approach in calling a press release to announce "a climax to a scientific quest that has lasted two centuries" before he'd proven the causality between aerosol particles created by UV radiation and global warming. And even if in the fullness of time, he does prove cosmic rays cause cloud cover, there is the matter of cosmic radiation trends.

That NASA article (which I found fascinating - thanx for the link) was talking about sunspot numbers (which do correlate somewhat with cosmic radiation). But the falling trend they're talking about (sunspot numbers falling) is actually forecast 20 years into the future. Eg - the solar peak in 2022 will be smaller than recent peaks. The next solar peak in 2011 is actually predicted to be more intense than usual (so brace yourself for a heatwave in a few years time).

To get direct measurements of cosmic radiation, go to http://ulysses.sr.unh.edu/NeutronMonitor/Misc/neutron2.html. Cosmic radiation has been cyclical but no long term trend which would be required to have an impact on global warming.

Funny how uplifting words like "freedom" and "liberty" are so readily put in the service of pure self-serving greed by some.

REPLY: Greed, Guilt, Greed, Guilt, Greed, Guilt..You guys never change your tune, do ya?..That is of course it lines your pocket with $$$$, then it's a whole different ballgame...Sorry, Charlie, the jury still finds the deniers NOT GUILTY. And you can't do anything about it! Not even control the weather! Oh, and for the record, that was my initial guilt post up there (big surprise). I don't know what Laura is doing with this "Anonymous" thing here, but I distinctly remember puting my user ID on that post. Just a little note to all, including the thread moderators that I have nothing to hide when I express myself on this board (gee really?).

I could not agree more. All this fuss about a mere 2 degree rise in temperatures caused by only 430ppm of co2 in the atmosphere. It has caused the Gulf Stream to slow by 35% over the last 15 years. But hey, the very thought that only a rise in co2 is responsible for this is a bit simplistic.
A slower gulf stream fails to churn up nutrients from deep water and starves the co2 absorbing plankton. Severe weather fuelled by a warming atmospheric climate engine increases the chlorides manufactured in the ocean surf causing the Ozone hole to widen regardless of claims that CFC no longer thin the solar shield. A thinner shield leads to more warming as its lethal effect causes tree die back to become a global forest threat. All this while sun spots increase solar radiation?? and ice cover lost at both poles and from mountain glaciers darken land and sea scapes to absorb more heat.
The problem is that we still argue about AGW and GW continues, so I�ll concede, its GW!! What the heck?
I�ll concede because it no longer matters, the oceans have become acidic and are dissolving limestone coasts, this means new sources of global warming gas is coming from nature as well. The Permafrost is not holding out any longer, its melting and is releasing a gas that is 24X more powerful than industrial co2. Methane hydrates are bubbling to the surface from oceans as well as tundra .
So no your all right, global warming gas does not just come from human activity, it is not exclusive, global warming was always happening caused by a variety of natural events and co2 was always in the air.
There use to be 70percent more forests than there are now and the oceans are now too warm to absorb co2 so a lot has changed since the little ice age.Its just that now human activity has turbo charged the natural system,so now both AGW and GW cannot be managed, slowed and lets face it even stopped.
The man bet $6000, what a cheap skate, it is a bet he will never have to lose, I don't think anyone will be interested in his dollars by then.

$6000 will be worth nothing after we experience another decade of record temperatures, late seasons, droughts insect death, forest fires, plagues, severe weather and American wars for more fossil fuels.