http://www.schulphysik.de/klima/landscheidt/iceage.htm

Solar activity is responsible for 98% of global temperature change. It is irrationally audacious to believe that man can effect global temperature change through any activity save nuclear holocaust.

"According to the ICCC, David Archibald is a scientist operating in the field of cancer research, climate science and oil exploration."

Oil exploration? Gee, I'm sure this was an objective study...LOL!

BTW, Brett, I think about half of my posts over the past couple weeks have never been posted. I'm sure some of it is the spam issue. I made a post last night, which never made it.
Reply: Mark, do you know around what time?

Hi Brett,
Congrats on the new bundle of joy! Newborns are great even at the 4:00 AM feeding.

On the spam problem - my company uses Barracuda to control spam and very little gets through. It's a little pricey but does work fairly well.

Here is a link to their web site if your IT people are interested:
http://www.barracudanetworks.com/ns/?L=en

Reply: Thanks Rick!

A PERSONAL ATTACK WARNING IS IN EFFECT FOR THIS BLOG FOR THE DURATION OF ITS #1 POSITION.

ATTACKS ON THE AUTHORS SCIENTIFIC CREDENTIALS, POLITICAL AFFILIATION, AND PERSONAL INTEGRITY AND EVEN HIS SANITY CAN BE EXPECTED ALONG WITH TANGENTIAL ATTACKS ON THE BLOG OWNER AND ANYONE EXPRESSING AGREEMENT OR SUGGESTING CIVIL DISCUSSION ABOUT THE ARTICLE.

ATTACK WARNINGS ARE POSTED WHENEVER COMMON SENSE IS APPLIED TO COMPLEX PROBLEMS AS IT IS NORMALLY DESCRIBED AS BEING SIMPLISTIC OR NAIEVE.

All the the best.

Aaron

Whew Boy!

Wait till the AGWers get a load of this. Betcha, he will be vilified, tarred, feathered, and put away wet.

I must say, that is a unique group of studies though, cancer, oil and climate.

So, how do you compare this with Hansen's space and climate?

I sure hope his prediction of cooling fails to come through, talk about a REAL problem.

Since I just made an entry on a previous blog several days back about the benefits of carbon dioxide in greenhouses to enhance the growth and productivity of plants I was elated to hear Mr. Archibalds conclusions. It would be the ultimate irony if coal ends up to be our savoir not only for our energy security but to provide free fertilizer (CO2) to help feed a growing world population.

Nice to see someone doing actual research, instead of basing their entire belief system on climate modeling hearsay - which seems to be the norm in climate science.

I doubt there are more than a handful of climate scientists in the world who have any first hand information about the accuracy or correctness of the climate models. Maybe even less.

David Archibald a question for you! You stated Dr. hansen made an idiotic statement that 350 PPM C02 in our atmosphere is the upper safe limit.
How do you know it isn't the safe upper limit? In fact Mr. Hansen may realize that if we get to 2000 PPM C02 in our atmosphere we may cease to exist. According to YOUR graph 150 million years ago where C02 levels were at 2000 PPM C02 in the atmosphere man wasn't even here according to all fossil records I have seen. Did you ever consider why that is so?

Now if we were to build my "Tunnels" C02/PMM in our atmosphere would drop weel below current levels.

I have been working in engineering in glacial geology terrain for almost 30 years now. The scope and breadth of continental glaciation is something that I think the average person can't even comprehend.

It is clear that there have been multiple galical periods with interglacial periods. It is also clear that mankind had nothing to do with these coming and going. It is also clear that the total temperature changes in ice age cycles dwarf anything that the climate change people have been talking about. These changes also appear to happen quite quickly with the ability to melt most of a continent's ice sheet in a few thousand years. The current glaciation on the planet looks like the snows on Mt Kilimanjaro compared to what the world looked like 20,000 years ago or so when most of Canada, Russia, and northern Europe were covered by ice sheets.

I think that the climate change discussion has to be structured within discussions of climate change over timeframes of hundreds of thousands of years before it will be clear than any current trends can be viewed as anything but noise. Even random patterns show lots of distinct patterns over relatively short periods.

The earth is very complex. I find it hard to believe that a single factor at a scale much smaller than the fundamental heat engine (the sun) can make huge differences without running into lots of complex feedback loops.

Brett: I saw your general message above and apparently that explains things. Most people think my e-mails are spam anyway...:-)

Archibald also has a study: The Past and Future of Climate
http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/Conf2007/Archibald2007.pdf

As usual it is simply a difference in data analysis, 1000 ppm is still lower than times in the distant past, so how does Hansen come up with his 350 ppm? Is this accurately set forth in a study?

ANY prediction of earth climate to 2030 has about a snowballs chance in hell of being accurate, though we can set our sights on 2009 and see if it begins as predicted. I for one think this has a much better chance of coming about than AGW's 'continually increasing temperatures' notwithstanding.

A VERY interesting article by Mr. D'Aleo:
Snow World - What a Year for Snow in Unusual Places

http://intellicast.com/Community/Content.aspx?a=124

Interesting article but color me skeptical of the cosmic ray mechanism. There have been studies done to verify the cosmic ray cloud level hypothethis that seem to refute it.

What's especially interesting about the lengthening solar cycle = lower temps is that his prediction of rapidly falling temperatures is falsifyable on a very short timeframe.

I have reall problems with the IPCC positive exponential feedback mechanism for CO2 levels that produces their 'runaway' temperature rise. Note that during most of the Earth's history there have been NO polar caps and much higher CO2, not the miniscule amount the IPCC is freting about.

"(...) a scientist operating in the field of cancer research, climate science and oil exploration."

Ah, the purest of crackpottery. But certainly he's at least as qualified as Bastardi.

Hi Mark,

Oil is key to keeping your life functional. Without it our society would collapse into Armageddon in a matter of weeks. On the other hand - Hansen, Gore, Ban, and Lovelock could all disappear off the face of the earth and it would be months before anyone even knew they were gone. The reason being that they don't do anything useful.

If your were truly concerned about the corrupting influence of money, then you would also ignore the billions of dollars of research funded by organizations who exist primarily to promote the idea of "climate change."

Anthony Watts' and Steve McIntyre's sites have also been under attacks by spammers.
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/04/07/apologies-to-commenters/#respond

Probably not a coincidence - environmental terrorists are out to save the earth, after all.

Well I'm sure this will story will heat up the Global Warmers. I thought by the year 2030 I would be eating my neighbors, that is if their not under water from the sea level rise, wait they might turn to jerky if I don't get to them soon enough from the horrible drought. I forgot no joking so in all seriousness though I am glad to see a story like this. Because this would give more of a reason for the past climate changes before there was all the c02, but I'm sure there will be a strong apposing side here as well but as I was accused on the last blog there will be no one to prove evidence supporting the other side. But really thinking about trying to warm the earth might be the key to our survival for when the earth does cool, everything happens for a reason and perhaps this is our hope to offset Global Cooling. Co2 might be our saving grace, think about it....

Everyone has an opinion and it's clear that there are fanatics on both sides of the Global Warming debate. It has become increasingly so that there isn't 1 productive comment on the blogs to the 2 scolding and negative. When did we all stop being scientists and become cheerleaders, lawyers, hypocrites and hate-filled mongerers interested in everything but the pursuit? We're gotten off track here people, and lately that's all we seem to do. Let's discuss the science again and leave the politics, innuendo and scrap out there. Don't bring it here, where our collaboration might be the most valuable tool we have in our search for truth.

Mr. Cyclonebuster,

Uh, 150 million years ago was at the end of the Jurassic. Life at that time included Diplodocus, Brachiosaurus and Apatosaurus. Other herbivorous dinosaurs of the Jurassic included the plated stegosaurs. Predatory dinosaurs of the Jurassic included fearsome carnosaurs such as Allosaurus, small, fast coelurosaurs, and ceratosaurs such as Dilophosaurus. The Jurassic also saw the origination of the first birds, including the well-known Archaeopteryx.

Believe it or not, Patrick, but these creatures were oxygen-breathing just like we are. Even as recently as the Paleocene, carbon dioxide concetrations were as high as 1,000 ppm and there were plenty of mammals around then.

Just an FYI.

There are always contrarians with good scientific credentials who present anti-establishment views.

There is clear scientific consensus that the HIV virus causes AIDS. But two highly respected scientists, Kary Mullis,(Nobel Prize for PCR)and Peter Duesberg (Member NAS for oncogenes) to this day dispute the HIV-AIDS link. They have reasoned arguments.

David Archibald is not quite as famous as Mullis and Duesberg (No wikipedia page!). He makes some common errors (temp. decline since 1998, that CO2 is the limiting factor in plant growth, Medieval Ice age was a climate not regional weather event, elevated CO2 and temp never has happened with 6.5 billion humans around, etc.)

The point is that it is normal for people to look at overwhelming data and say it isn't so. Only danger is if such mistakes are tragic.

1000 PPM of CO2 is an acceptable level for indoor air quality per ASHRAE Standard 62.

"Dr. James Hansen (head of NASA GISS) believes the maximum safe level for CO2 is 350 ppm."

Maximum safe level is 350ppm? What nonsense. Consider that the EPA states 980ppm is "safe" for idoor air quality. CO2 just reduces the amount of oxygen that we absorb. 0.065 is insignificant. It could be 750 ppm outside, and other than a guage telling us, we would-never-know the difference. We would have no negative effects. Even with 900ppm, we would still be be breathing in 21% oxygen. Perfectly safe. The EPA does not even list CO2 as indoor air pollution. Listed are;

Asbestos, Biological Pollutants, Carbon Monoxide,
Formaldehyde/Pressed Wood Products, Household Cleaning and Maintenance, Personal Care, or Hobbies, Lead, Nitrogen Dioxide, Pesticides, Radon, Respirable Particles, Secondhand Smoke/Environmental, Tobacco Smoke, Stoves, Heaters, Fireplaces, and Chimneys.

To insist that anything above 350 ppm CO2 is "unsafe," is just stupid. The gospel according to Hansen. He gets way too much recognition.

Steve Rowland,

The snow cover stories that Mr. D'Aleo has brought up numerous times this winter season, while interesting, they were mostly being portrayed on the ICECAP web site as more evidence of global cooling. I will have a comment on that later.

Mr. D'Aleo used in a lot of the following graph in his earlier stories during the past winter to emphasize how much the snow cover was above normal this winter. In particular during the late January and early February time periods. However if you look at the graph there are a couple of noteworthy features that were ignored by him once winter was over:

http://moe.met.fsu.edu/snow/nhtime-1year.png

If you look at the two curves from October into December and the period from late Feburay through the present, you will notice that snowcover was basically below normal. So if I am to use this exact same chart that Mr. D'Aleo was continually pointing out during the heavy snow cover period and relate to the overall northern hemisphere snow cover season, there was one a month and a half of above normal snow cover while the remaining 4 months were at or much below normal.

The signature of global warming is a late winter and an early spring season, which is what this graph appears to indicate. The short period of above normal snow does not a winter make (except sensational stories on the ICECAP site) and does not provide evidence of global cooling.

Since you like to quiz Mr. D'Aleo with my comments, I would like to know why he has simply ignored the much below normal data when he did his snow cover story.

The point of heavier snow cover has no direct relationship to global cooling, in fact global warming would explain it better for typically colder areas of the country. As you warm temperatures up you will have more available moisture in the air (higher dew points). The more moisture you have in the air and again if temperatures are warmer but still below freezing you will get snow. Anyone with a grade school education can tell you that physcial relationship.

This past winter where most of the heavier snow cover occurred over the eastern U.S. also had above normal temperatures:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2008/feb/Last3mTDeptUS.png

Mr. D'Aleo mentioned specifically the following locations: Johnsbury, VT: Spokane, WA; Stowe, VT; and during the winter season he made special note of the heavy snowfall record in Madison, WI.

As you can see from that attached temperature anomaly map above, most of these places (except for Minnesota and Wisconsin) had near or above normal temperatures. But the fact that they average temperatures were still below freezing, I don't think it is all that remarkable that they had snow as the main storm track remained in the PAC NW and over the Ohio Valley NE into Quebec in a typical La Nina winter.

On a previous subject, somebody made the comment that the alarmists need to blame global warming on something specific believing they can alter the cause enough to stop the warming. So the culprit needs to be CO2, something linked to activities man uses. The idea that climate change occurs all by itself and there may not be a darn thing we can do about any impeding ice age, or warming trend is difficult to swallow. I like to believe the earth can adapt and will. If the earth warms will that not result in more clouds? If so, won't that limit global heating?

Pretty much every summer since I have lived in the midwest our summers have had long stretches of drought. In the beginning, I watered the heck out of our vast yard in an attempt to save it. I should not have done that and caused more damage than good. By watering all this yard I was in fact causing the roots to remain to shallow and thus the minute I stopped the continuous watering the grass died - forever. Now I just let it look like it died and when it begins to rain again it all comes back looking great.

I resist the strong inclination to "help" mother nature and frankly this is why I panic at the thought of our governments deciding that they know best how to "cure" the global warming.

Patrick Cyclonebuster:
Safe CO2 level?
The international standard for safe exposure to CO2 for an 8 hour work day is 5000ppm.
2000 is not going to kill anyone.
It will just make crops grow a lot better.

Brett: We use Microsoft Frontbridge to filter spam. It is a subscription service, quite reasonable and very effective. Microsoft Hosted Services. Another option.

What I don't get is why Archibald's findings don't make sense. Based on extensive reading and review of basic physics, I actually find nothing new here, but it is nicely tied together and that is nothing to sneeze at.

Bumping CO2 to 1000 PPM might be great if we could actually do it without wasting fossil fuels which are so good for energy production. (Assuming we continue to improve the technologies to cut out the pollutants (NOx, SOx, Hg, particulates) leaving the clean CO2 and H2O.

Note: Health research is needed, if it doesn't already exist (Navy diving data?), on when Co2 does start being harmful. I believe it can start to affect blood acidity as the partial pressure increases. I don't recall data on that. I might go look.....

Research on some other means of releasing Co2 perhaps from the ocean sediments might make sense, but CO2 increase has a marginal effect on temperature anyway, so it would probably be much more effective to pursue technologies to reduce high (?) cloud formation during (or before) cooling periods to mitigate cooling related damage, especially to the undeveloped world.

I do believe that the climate models will in the next 5-10 years become reasonably accurate to be able to predict 5-20 year regional forecasts which should then be very useful for policy and strategy decisions, such as when to start changing crops from wheat to potatoes like what happened (much to late) in the little ice age in the early (?) 1980's in Europe.

Last but not least, climate science is complex and I wish many would spend some more time reading a range of articles on this subject. The idea that we will understand, with continued research (and debate) the regional variations is very intriguing.

I just hope that the passion and energy generated can be refocused to really protecting and improving the environment and especially the l