Prof.Saumitra Mukherjee
School of Environmental sciences
Jawaharlal Nehru University
New Delhi-110067
INDIA

The article quotes Terry Sloan with "The IPCC has got it right, so we had better carry on trying to cut carbon emissions." While I haven't had a chance to digest this paper, I get real concerned when IPCC and right are used in the same sentence because I've heard too many problems about how they do science.

There is a chance that pressure to have a sensible scientific dialog will greatly increase, at the very least, we may be entering a the best period since the Dalton Minimum to see what impact solar activity has on climate.

While this study says the Cosmic Ray theory is wrong, Svensmark's SKY experiment is quite interesting, and CERN's upcoming CLOUD experiment will be moreso. Even better, perhaps, are predictions and evidence that the Sun is entering decades of reduced activity.

The only catch is that the Dalton Minimum was not a pleasant time even before volcanic eruptions made things worse. From reports around the world about this winter (I saw a Chinese report yesterday – they're still having major problems) and the recent downturn in global temps climatology is becoming exciting.

I recently wrote a web page that reviews how science should be working and takes a brief look at both CO2 and
Solar forcings. I hope it will help Ian O'Neill avoid getting "big, scary anger" when he writes on the subject.
See "Science, Method, Climatology, and Forgetting the Basics" at http://wermenh.com/climate/science.html

We must all do our bit to look after the environment and recycling has the effect of reducing CO2 and reducing the amount of raw ore processed.

Certainly recycling is a big issue in the UK with households soon to be fined for not recycling their rubbish. BUT we still have the situation where businesses DO NOT, and their are no plans to make them, have to recycle anything!

We have lots of huge high street stores throwing out cardboard, cans, tins, bottles and plastics. They ALL go into landfill without being sorted because there is no legislation to make them.

If saving the planet was that important, don't you think business would have to do their bit as well.

If you look at my previous posts you will see that I believe GW is a natural phenomena. I also believe it has been hijacked by government as a money making scam. Hence the pressure on ordinary citizens to do all the work while business continues on regardless.

Chris: You say that NASA's GISS temp data tells us that the five hottest years were 1998/2007, 2002, 2003, 2005. Really? You forgot about 1934. I checked the NASA GISS site at http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/. They say that 1934 was technically the warmest year in their records, although 1934, 1998 and 2005 were essentially tied. Even the IPCC admits that supposed anthropogenic influences in GW only go back 30 years. How do you explain 1934?

The reality is the Global Climate has always been and always will be in a state of change. Surely you do not deny the Medieval Warm Period (a time when temperatures were much warmer than they are today) or the Little Ice Age (1700s). Global temperature has never been static for any significant duration. These events prove that there are much larger forces in play in determining global climate. Man's increases in CO2 emmisions are insignificant when compared those from oceans (by far the largest), volcanos, and the biosphere (plants, animals). The IPCC refuses to adequately account for natural causes of global warming. It is simply ludicrous to believe that anthropogenic causes are soley or largely to blame.

As for your claim that there is no science backing up the belief that anthropogenic factors are insignificant to climate change in the grand scheme of things – you're joking, right? The National Post has an excellent set of articles describing the works of various well-respected scientists around the world that are poking all kinds of holes in the AGW rantings. http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/posted/pages/climate-change-the-deniers.aspx

A must read in this collection is the article "IPCC too blinkered and corrupt to save".
You must also ready the report from the NIPCC – the Non Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The NIPCC is a parallel panel to the IPCC formed by scientists frustratrated by the lack of proper scientific rigour exhibited by the IPCC. Their report is at http://heartland.temp.siteexecutive.com/pdf/22835.pdf
The scientific reality is that the sun is the single greatest influencing factor on the earth's temperature (both through direct radiation and its affect on cosmic radiation). It's radiation levels vary in three well known cycles. Oceanographers know that the worlds oceans are by far the single greatest CO2 emitter/sink. When the oceans temp goes up, they emit more CO2 (this is not scientifically disputed). They also know that that oceans have an 800 year memory (ie. it takes about 800 years before global temperature changes are are reflected in deeper ocean temperatures). What that means is that our oceans are currently reacting to temperatures from about 1200 AD …right in the middle of the Medieval Warm Period. As a result, they are emitting a lot of CO2. Ice core studies – the same ones incorrectly interpreted by Al Gore in his film – show that throughout history global CO2 levels have lagged temperature by about 800 years.
The IPCC is a politically corrupt organization that quite remarkably has hijacked the environmental agenda. We should be more worried about exhausting our fresh water supplies, and striving towards a clean, safe replacement for fossi fuels (as we have only about 100 years supply left of conventional oil).

I am puzzled now.
Ian knows it and if he reports it to us it cannot be wrong.

He is reporting everything the truth, the progress, the unknown and the undiscovered. A frontrunner at the edge of knowledge.

All for our education and his monetary benefit.
Lets pray to our high priest of technobabble.
Thanks for the truth.
Thanks for the insight.
Thanks for the ingenuity

I'd also say that maybe what *really* burns the deniers is the realisation that when it comes to AGW, the left/liberals were right all along. The denialist idiots are so irredeemably stupid that rather than admit this, they'll repudiate the scientific consensus that forms what the IPCC is reporting, what thousands of working climate scientists around the world are saying, and what every authoritiave national scientific body on the planet tells us.

Remember how the deniers all cheered when some goose announced there had been no warming since 1998 … er … except that Nasa's GISS temp data tells us the five hottest years are:

1. 2005
Tie 1998/2007
4. 2002
5. 2003

The warming trend looks pretty clear to me.

But clutching at any straw (no matter how thin) to support their dishonest rantings I'd now expect them to start droning on with the usual FUD about how and why GISS is wrong, Hansen's work can't be trusted etc, ad infinitum, ad nauseum.

I find it pretty strange that the deniers could think like that when they've got no robust published science that backs them up. None. Zip. Zero. Nada. Kinda creepy really.

Eric

By the way, polar ice has disappeared numerous times before man's existance. Gore is wrong. The IPCC is a joke and has its own motives and agenda. Those are facts.

R. Clarke

Oil will not last forever as won't other materials we take for granted now, and certainly, after we run out of them, we'll have lesser influence on nature. Most probably it won't matter if you're left or right winged then…

We must do everything to understand what are the vectors that influence our living environment.

It's not wise to dismiss Cosmic Rays as an important influence, but, let's face it, we can do little about them.

It's not wise to disimss our own contribute as an "environment changing vector" either… And maybe we can do something about that vector.

Keep watching the skies people!
Keep learning about the Universe!
Keep on with curiosity!
Keep being scientific!

BTW: I'm NOT leftish.

Nuno

No matter how much we don't want to change our lifestyle – we are causing global warming. Thats a fact. You're clearly an intelligent guy – I think political prejudice is affecting your judgement.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, the melting of the polar caps is not a natural event. Some of this ice is a million years old long enough for polar bears to adapt to live there.

The probability that the polar cap melts 150 years after the industrial revolution is statistically highly unlikely. By how much would the Polar cap have to melt before you admitted GW was real? 50%? 80% 100%??

Re. Your comment about CO2 levels 600,000 years ago: Nobody denies that there are other ways that CO2 levels can change – or that climate change is natural over long periods of time… but we are seeing climate changes occurring over timescales comparible to a human lifespan. Records are being broken every year where extreme weather is concerned.

If you don't bellieve Gore – believe the vast majority of the scientific.

Until industrialization Man cut out some areas of forest over a period of thousands of years for agriculture purposes. Other than that, We didn't do much to disturb natural equilibrium.

After industrialization (two centuries at most), Man started injecting all sorts of materials that were at rest in nature. We destroyed habitats and species. We are responsable for rapid erosion in some areas. We alterered the composition of the atmosfere.

…And, for some reason (human nature?) there are a number of us that still think that we have no responsability with accelerating climate changes, present and future…

Has my post started: There are several variables influencing climate… one of them is Man.

Nuno

And UkMan first phrase goes exactly for the contrary. Most manmade GW proponents are leftish who can't suffer the loss of paradigmas, and with it they got something to blame on capitalism… in fact, you can interchange their phraseology with any anti-occident speech of the 60's.

But, for the sake of scientific discussion… manmade GW proponents cry that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is the higher in 600 000 years. Well, then, two questions:

1) The world rise in temperature in that epoch came before or after the increase in CO2?
2) Anyway, who is to blame for that increase en CO2? Tourist ETs, maybe?

C'mon, fellows, Gore and friends are just money-eager opportunists.

The train of thought of the denier typically goes something like this:

1. Deny GW is happening. Continue to burn fossil fuels.

2. Admit GW is happening – but put it down to something other than human influence. Continue to burn fossil fuels.

3. Admit GW is caused by humans – but say its too late to do anything. Continue to burn fossil fuels.

The motivation of GW deniers usually fits into one or more of the following catagories.

Refusal to change their own lifestyle
Refusal to accept responsibility
Fear of the consequences of GW
Cynicism – automatically disbelieving
Political prejudice

Our children will pay the price for out selfish attitude.

One question I would like to pose if a chunk of ice melts in a glass of water the level does not go up much, so when a iceberg melts whats the fuss about sea level rising?