Message in the CLOUD for Warmists: The end is near?

You’ve probably all heard of Svensmark and the Galactic Cosmic Ray (GCR) to cloud cover modulation theory by now. Lot’s of warmists say it is “discredited”. However, CERN in Switzerland isn’t following that thinking, and after getting some encouraging results in the CLOUD06 experiment, they have funded a much larger and more comprehensive CLOUD09 experiment. I figure if it is “discredited”, a bunch of smart guys and gals like CERN wouldn’t be ramping up the investigation. There’s also word now of a new correlation:

Kirkby_slide_siberianclimate

Correlation recently reported between solar/GCR variability and temperature in Siberia from glacial ice core, 30 yr lag (ie. ocean currents may be part of response)

I get so many tips now it is hard to choose, but this one is a gem. If you look at nothing else this month, please take the time to download the slide show from CERN’s Jasper Kirkby at the end of this article.

He does a superb job of tying it all together. I found Kirkby’s slide show quite interesting, and I’ve grabbed some slides for our WUWT readers. He proposes a GCR to cloud droplet mechanism, which to me, makes sense meteorologically. He also touches on the possibility that the Inter-Tropical Convergence Zone (ITCZ) may have been shifted due to GCR modulation during the LIA/Maunder Minimum. This ties in with Willis Eschenbach’s theories of the ITCZ being a “thermostatic mechanism” for the planet with some amplification effects. – Anthony

Norm Potter writes in Tips and Notes for WUWT with this-

The end is near for the warmists, I suspect. This month, Jasper Kirkby of CERN explained the Centre’s CLOUD experiment, which is moving forward:

“The current understanding of climate change in the industrial age is that it is predominantly caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gases, with relatively small natural contributions due to solar irradiance and volcanoes. However, palaeoclimatic reconstructions show that the climate has frequently varied on 100-year time scales during the Holocene (last 10 kyr) by amounts comparable to the present warming – and yet the mechanism or mechanisms are not understood. Some of these reconstructions show clear associations with solar variability, which is recorded in the light radio-isotope archives that measure past variations of cosmic ray intensity. However, despite the increasing evidence of its importance, solar-climate variability is likely to remain controversial until a physical mechanism is established.

“Estimated changes of solar irradiance on these time scales appear to be too small to account for the climate observations. This raises the question of whether cosmic rays may directly affect the climate, providing an effective indirect solar forcing mechanism. Indeed recent satellite observations – although disputed – suggest that cosmic rays may affect clouds. This talk presents an overview of the palaeoclimatic evidence for solar/cosmic ray forcing of the climate, and reviews the possible physical mechanisms. These will be investigated in the CLOUD experiment which begins to take data at the CERN PS later this year.”

I found this side on page 29 to be plausible from a meteorological standpoint:

Kirkby_slide_page29-mechanism

Click for larger image

Here is a slide showing the ITCZ shift he’s proposing:

Click for larger image

Click for larger image

And here is the data and some conjectures, obviously more data is needed. However what is seen so far certainly seems far from “discredited” as some warmists say.

Kirkby_slide_page34

Click for larger image

In the conclusions of his slide show, Kirkby outlines the state of knowledge and areas of investigation:

• Climate has continually varied in the past, and the causes are not well understood – especially on the 100 year timescalerelevant for today’s climate change

• Strong evidence for solar-climate variability, but no established mechanism. A cosmic ray influence on clouds is a leading candidate

• CLOUD at CERN aims to study and quantify the cosmic raycloud mechanism in a controlled laboratory experiment

• The question of whether – and to what extent – the climate is influenced by solar/cosmic ray variability remains central to our understanding of anthropogenic climate change

More info, see: http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1181073/ – the CERN Colloquium

Download Kirkby’s Slide show (Large 7.8 MB PDF, be patient)

http://indico.cern.ch/getFile.py/access?resId=0&materialId=slides&confId=52576

Backup Copy on WUWT server: Kirkby_CERN_slideshow09

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
hunter

How dare those denialist pseudo scientists at CERN challenge AGW? The science is, afterall, settled.

Douglas DC

I’ve held the GCR theory to have merit.Now it’s is becoming obvious as a failed
corn crop..

gary gulrud

Seminal series of posts on this subject. Digesting, but expect it will not take certain parties long to ascertain ‘da Truth’.

arch stanton

Svensmark’s hypothesis faces the challenge of several papers that could not produce correlations similar to the ones he seemed to find. For this reason (and others) it is not widely accepted as a prominent driver of 20th century climate change. However there is a chance that it does have some minor influence on the climate. As pointed out in the Nature opinion piece on this topic (2007?) quantifying whatever effect it may have is a worthy endeavor.

Robinson

Fascinating stuff. I’ve long thought on intuition alone that Svensmark’s was a more plausible hypothesis than CO2 (of course, a combination of the two is always possible). Obviously it requires some real physics and experimentation to verify, which is presumably why the statistical ticklers over on realclimate would turn their noses up at it.

Antonio San

Anthony, you should REALLY read Marcel Leroux as his work ties meteorology and climatology in a soild, cartesian way. “Global Warming: Myth or Reality” Springer Praxis 2005.
The slides provided on this post would be very well explained by Leroux’s work.

Svensmark is a fascinating fellow, for sure.
I posted a five-part video series on his work several months ago, and it is here…
http://algorelied.com/?p=316
Here’s an interesting Svensmark quote from the video:
“Instead of thinking of clouds as a result of the climate, it’s actually showing that the climate is a result of the clouds, because the clouds take their orders from the stars.”
Whether or not Svensmark’s hypothesis is correct, his work is mind-expanding stuff 🙂

Stefan

AGW is still believed to be “consistent” with observation.
I wonder how believable is the cosmic ray cloud connection, were it granted an equal degree of “consistent.”

Annette

I have what is probably a very simplistic question and this may not even be the appopriate place to ask, but I’ll do it anyway. I’ve read in various places that solar radiation varies only by .1% and that CO2 has increased from 280 ppm to 360ppm or so. That means that CO2 composition in the atmosphere has gone from .0028% to .0036%; a change in atmospheric composition of only .008%, yet this is responsible for warming and solar radiation variation of .1% is not responsible.
Granted, I am no scientist nor statitician, just an admin assistant in Western Washington who loves to read so the answer may be very obvious and I’ve just missed it.
Annette in W WA

Flanagan

Note that, as can be seen in the first figure, Eichler et al actually show that since 1850 the contribution of the solar forcing to the temperature change has been decreasing rapidly, i.e. the two curves separate.
http://www.agu.org/journals/gl/gl0901/2008GL035930/
Any explanation to this? I mean, if it’s natural forcing, then why hasn’t it happened before?

JaneHM

The caption to the Eichler et al graph says “… temperature in Siberia from glacial ice core …” but the recent 20th century temperatures and isotopic data can not be from ice cores. What is the most recent date the ice cores give values for?

John Galt

The end is near for the warmists, I suspect. This month, Jasper Kirkby of CERN explained the Centre’s CLOUD experiment, which is moving forward:

Sadly, that’s wishful thinking. That crowd decides what is a ‘fact’ and what is not. Science, logic, reasoning have nothing to do with this debate.
The squeaky wheel gets the grease. There is an ‘iron curtain’ on science which contradicts the AGW orthodoxy. Most people will never hear about these results and if they do, it will be in the form of a ‘Grist’ (disinformation) debunking.

Flanagan

Hello Annette,
CO2 is supposed to act on climate because it is a greenhouse gas, which means it can absorb some radiation emitted by the earth (the infrared radiation). Most of the molecules in the atmosphere (such as oxygen and nitrogen) cannot do that, except for H2O (which is responsible for most of the greenhouse effect) and trace gases.
Si although it is only 0.0028% of the atmosphere, it is responsible for almost 10% of the greenhouse effect.

Antonio San

As a follow up to my brief comment, Leroux shows how the ITCZ which comprises the Meteorological Equator -both the Vertical and the Inclined ones- moves with the seasons and during the rapid and slow modes of circulation. In particular the Kirby slide showing the displacement of the ITCZ makes perfect sense.
Also Leroux’s seminal paper:
“Copyright © 1993 Published by Elsevier B.V.
II. Atmospheric, hydrologic and oceanic changes
The Mobile Polar High: a new concept explaining present mechanisms of meridional air-mass and energy exchanges and global propagation of palaeoclimatic changes
Marcel Leroux
aLaboratoire de Géographie Physique-CNRS URA 260, Professeur Université J. Moulin – BP 0638, 69239 Lyon 02, France
Received 12 December 1991; accepted 8 July 1992. Available online 22 April 2003.
Abstract
Air-mass and energy transportation is chiefly made by large lenses of cold air, the Mobile Polar Highs, the key factor of meridional air exchanges, which organize migratory units of circulation in troposphere low levels. Mobile Polar Highs (MPHs) originate in the downwards airmotion in high latitudes. The cold air injection organizes a dipolar vortex of very large size (2000/3000 km), the anticyclonic side of this vortex (precisely the MPH) is thin, about 1.5 km thick, by reason of cold air density. Mobile Polar Highs migrate roughly eastwards, with a meridional component towards the tropical zone, through the middle latitudes where they are responsible for weather variability and for rain-making conditions. Their own thermo-dynamic evolution and relief divide them into fragments, and they supply the low-layer of the trade circulation, and eventually the monsoon (previously trade) circulation of a cross-equatorial drift. Eastwards movement and disposition of relief govern the MPHs paths and determine distinct aerological domains; in one of these domains, China is precisely located at the eastern Asian exit of MPHs, stopped by the Himalaya/Tibet range, on their southern side during their eastwards migration. Power of the MPH, connected with its density, as observed in winter in the present conditions, is a function of the initial temperature, namely of the polar radiative conditions. It is precisely in the high latitudes that radiation balance and temperature changes are the most important, at all scales of time, from the seasonal to the palaeoclimatic scale, while in tropical latitudes the changes are comparatively always weak. Two modes of troposphere general circulatin are a result of this mechanism: (1) A rapid mode of circulation, connected with acold situation in polar latitudes, is characterized by strong and extended MPHs and strong wind at all latitudes and all levels. (2) A slow mode of circulation, connected with a warm situation in polar latitudes, is characterized by weak and less extended MPHs, and weak winds at all latitudes and all levels. Insolation and surface boundary conditions of high latitudes are the key control of MPHs dynamics, and therefore the key control of palaeoclimatic changes.”

Bill Yarber

Flanagan
I think you have a factor of 10 error. CO2 is not responsible for 10% of the green house effect. more like 1%. Water vapor is approx 3000 ppm, or 75 times O2’s concentration. Water vator is also recognized to be three times as potent as CO2 as a green house gas. Do the math and you will find CO2 very close to .6 % of the green house gas effect, not 10%. That’s why few if any of us beleive that CO2 has a measurable impact on Earth’s climate.
Remember, CO2 has been as high as 7000ppm, or 150 times today’s concentration, in past epochs. Earth’s temperature was about 12F greater than today, so 450ppm for CO2 is not a tipping point. People who forget or ignore the past are doomed to repeat it or make other drastic mistakes.

Squidly

Hey Flanagan, throw another dart … you keep missing!

This experiment looks like a great place to dump a pile of stimulus money to speed it along. Thanks for the great work Anthony. Fun read.

Robert Wood

Annette, You framed your question well; it is asked by unbelievers. The AGWers response is a mystical positive feedback mechanism and a lot of arm waving and arm twisting.

Chris

Annette,
On its own, CO2 can only increase global temps by about 1 C this century. The key to a 4-7 C increase in global temps this century has to do with indirect positive feedback loops that are triggered by CO2. None of these loops have ever been proven, only assumed by climate modelers. Since global temps have cooled since 1997 (11+ years) when the models say temps ought to have increased by 0.5-1.0 C suggest that these positive feedback loops do not exist. Yet, there has been a measurable temperature rise this past century (actually since the Little Ice Age). How so? Thus, the current controversy.

Robert Wood

Every US congressman should be forced to watch this. A most compelling talk; is his actual slide show available?

Paul Hildebrandt

Flanagan (08:45:51) :
Si although it is only 0.0028% of the atmosphere, it is responsible for almost 10% of the greenhouse effect.
Really? Silicon (Si) is responsible for almost 10% of the greenhouse effect? Now that’s something I had never heard before. Verrrrryy interesting!!

If I didn’t know any better, I would say that the red curve since 1900 is significantly above the GCR curves thus clearly indicating that fossil fuels [or man’s activities] are responsible for the extra warming…
The 14C curve shows that levels around 1800 were the same as in the 1980s, while temperatures now are ~1.5 degrees higher. This plot should really make the AGW crowd happy as it plays straight into their hand.

Vincent

Annette,
Interesting question. There is a linear relationship between a change of intensity of solar radiation output and the change in radiation reaching the earth. Eg, 0.1% increase in solar ouptut would result in the same increase in radiation reaching the earth (this is ignoring indirect effects on the earths climate). However, the relationship between CO2 concentrations and temperature forcings is non linear. It is in fact logarithmic which means that in order to get the same linear increase in forcing you have to double CO2 concentration. So for concentrations going from say 1ppm to 2ppm you get y amount of forcing. But to get 2y of forcing you need to double to 4ppm, 3y needs 8ppm, 4y needs 16ppm, 5y needs 32ppm all the way up to 9y needing 512ppm. It should also be clear from a logical analysis, that the changes in forcing have no relationship to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere (apart from where absorption bands overlap). What I mean is that, eg, going from 1ppm to 2ppm has the same forcing as going from 256ppm to 512ppm, but in the second case the percentage change in the whole atmosphere is a lot more. Hope that helps.

Very much appreciate this high-quality post with excellent graphics. I had been worried that once Svensmark had been courted off to CERN, we would hear very little for years until some day his cloud nucleation hypothesis was verified, but long after ‘son of Kyoto’ had been agreed. It is heart-warming to find senior scientists putting out such clear expositions.
Still, I would rather have seen those European Space Agency millions devoted to more exhaustive analysis of cloud patterns, ocean cycles, correlations to solar data etc., than to mechanisms that, at the end of the day, defenders of the faith will deny are relevant because a cloud chamber is not a natural atmosphere.

pochas

Annette (08:36:06) :
You’re aware of the political atmosphere at present which holds that it has been scientifically proven that carbon dioxide is causing global warming which will unavoidably cause harmful effects too numerous to mention. This idea took hold back in the ’90 s when both global temperatures and carbon dioxide concentrations were increasing, and some naturally placed themselves in a position to profit financially. But since about 2001 temperatures are no longer increasing, although carbon dioxide has continued to increase. This confounds the theory. Carbon dioxide cannot be the whole story.
The problem is that we simply do not know what the story is. And so there are many doing scientific research to find out more about what influences climate (and possibly avoid unnecessary economic impacts) and there are many who vigorously defend the Anthropogenic Global Warming paradigm for their own reasons.

Hope not so late, dear Anthony, because as far as global warming goals are reached any scientific results against global warming will be irrelevant even if “the day after tomorrow” would be really tomorrow…

Peter

Flanagan:
“Any explanation to this? I mean, if it’s natural forcing, then why hasn’t it happened before?”
How can you be so sure that it hasn’t?

Evan Jones

Leif: Well, that’s the point, isn’t it? But even stipulating that it is man’s activities, one has to consider that fixing CO2 is a hundred times as expensive (or more?) as fixing any other cause. So one must make darn sure it is CO2 and not, say, Arctic soot, land use, deforestation, or other causes.
If it were cheap, simple to limit CO2, we would do so without a second thought, even if the theory was considered likely to be wrong. But it’s neither cheap nor simple, so the normal parameters of the precautionary principle are exceeded, and cost-benefit assessment clicks in.

Robert Wood

Ignoring the question of correlations and which came first, an eternal argument, the clearest message I received from this is that our current climate and variations are nothing at all unusual.

Aaron Wells

Leif,
The steepest rise in the red curve occurred long before CO2 increases occured(pre-1900). In fact, almost all of the rise since 1850 occurred prior to 1950, while the biggest increases in CO2 occurred since 1950.

Jakers

In the first graph, temperature sometimes leads the isotope values, and sometimes it lags the isotope values – about half and half. Sure there is a correlation, but causation?
Also, is it just me, or does anyone else think the temperature curve is odd, showing it significantly warmer the last 150 years than any time in the past…?

Benjamin P.

Oh Be10, lots of assumptions in using that as a proxy. When I was in grad school, a fellow student of mine did a lot of work with Be10 and glacial erratics.
Best hope their sample localities were not in the shade.
Ben

Tom in Florida

Leif Svalgaard (09:35:59) : “If I didn’t know any better, I would say that the red curve since 1900 is significantly above the GCR curves thus clearly indicating that fossil fuels [or man’s activities] are responsible for the extra warming…
The 14C curve shows that levels around 1800 were the same as in the 1980s, while temperatures now are ~1.5 degrees higher. This plot should really make the AGW crowd happy as it plays straight into their hand.”
That was my first impression also. So I better find a reason why it couldn’t be man’s activities. Perhaps it’s proof that the current temperature measuring system is recording too high temps as per Anthony’s project.

bill

I was going to point that out Leif, but too scared of the lashing you will now receive!
There are many other anomalies in that plot
1. Siberia is warming(!!!), but where in siberia is this magical core taken that will give valid temperatures over the last few hundred years.
2. Sometimes temperature lead sometimes lags sometimes misses changes in Be
3. Pity it stops in 1990(?) (the paper was written in 2009)
4. What is the ratio of CCNs generated by GCRs compared to the “dust” CCNs normally floating about up there (low level clouds are the active ones I believe)?
5. Not much medieval warm period (800–1300) showing pre 1300
6. Seems abit warm in the middle of the LIA (1400–1850)
7. A 30 year lag would remove any of the 11 year cycles from the FFTs of temperatures. But of course it would average the variation in TSI as well. ie 1365.6 min. to 1366.0 max. (From Leif’s page http://www.leif.org/research/TSI%20(Reconstructions).xls ) And average the variation of GCR reducing their difference by possibly 2.

UK Sceptic

I actually understood some of that slide show although a sizeable slice did go over my head when it came to the maths and technical jargon. This place must be rubbing off on me a little bit. 😀

rbateman

Flanagan (08:40:35) :
Look at the chart again.
It separates many times.
In warmer periods, the temp is above (less cloud cover)
In colder periods, the temp is below (more cloud cover).
That separation should be 1870’s for the modern period, long before the CO2 levels really took off.
Let me give you an excerpt of historical note (Literary record):
“Sat Jun 4, 1884
Never were there so many showers known in this portion of Calif. as there have been in the present spring. During the past week we have had a shower every evening. Old settlers inquire ‘is our climate changing?’ , apparently so”
“Sat Jun 18, 1884
Rained every day of the week”
This much was apparent in 1884 to original Calif. Settlers: The climate was changing, and it did.
Separation reached max in the 1930’s (surprise, surprise)
Separation is doing what now, opening or closing?
Where was the C02 forcing in 1884?
What were the GCR’s doing in 1884?
Enter the CERN experiment.
We need answers from experiments, not models.
AGW is not an experiment.
Svensmark did experiments.
CERN is going to do some more.

timetochooseagain

Leif Svalgaard (09:35:59) : Well surely you know that there are a myriad of factors to be accounted for (they probably would rather ignore that) which might, er, confound the attempt to explain any discrepancy between one factor and the temps with AGW!

George E. Smith

“”” • The question of whether – and to what extent – the climate is influenced by solar/cosmic ray variability remains central to our understanding of anthropogenic climate change. “””
I would suggest that solar/cosmic ray variability adds precisely nothing to our understanding of anthropogenic climate change; humans do not emit cosmic rays.
“”” Annette (08:36:06) :
I have what is probably a very simplistic question and this may not even be the appopriate place to ask, but I’ll do it anyway. I’ve read in various places that solar radiation varies only by .1% and that CO2 has increased from 280 ppm to 360ppm or so. “””
Annette; that 0.1% (roughly) is correct, that is about the extent of the peak to peak change in the “Solar Constant” of about 1366 Watts per square meter; Total Solar Incidence. If that radiation fell on a quite passive “black body”, the change in temperature of that body would only be 1/4 of that 0.1% or 0.025%. That is because the energy and the temperature are related by the Stefan-Boltzmann 4th Power Law; energy (absorbed or emitted) is proportional to the fourth power of the temperature.
So for earth (which is NOT a passive black body), the mean temperature is allegedly about 15 deg C or about 288 Kelvins. 0.1% of that is 0.288 deg (C or K), and 1/4 of that is only 0.072 deg C.
That is one reason why people say that the sun is not the cause. The earth is also not passive and it reacts to that TSI change in a variety of ways; one of which could be a slight change in cloud cover; which would actually suppress, much of even that small 0.072 deg change.
So if the sun is having an effect, it is not simply due to changes in the sun’s energy output.
As for the CO2 which has gone from around 280 ppm to now about 385 ppm over the last 100 years or so; there simply isn’t any reliable observational data showing the earth’s temperature as responding to those CO2 changes. The temperature seems to wander up and down; and doesn’t track the CO2 at all; and currently it is in a down mode.
The same non passive response of the earth to that 0.1% solar radiation change, also reacts to those CO2 changes and any physical effects they might have, and compensates for that too.
So whether the source of the increased CO2 is human caused, or natural, or both; it doesn’t really matter, because the earth is constantly correcting for it; and that controlling mechanism is water evaporation, cloud formation, and precipitation; a natural feedback cycle that keeps the earth’s temperature in a comfortable range (well somewhere between a low of about -90 deg C in the coldest places to about +60 deg C in the warmest places)
I think we can all tolerate a change of 0.072 deg C out of a total extreme range of 150 deg C. People have learned how to survive over that entire extreme range; we’ll figure out the 0.072 deg problem somehow.
There aren’t any silly questions Annette; only the ones you don’t ever ask; so don’t stop asking.
George

Kath

Here’s how to get your climate bill passed. Buy a congressman:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jul/01/sweetener-helped-sway-vote-on-house-climate-bill/
“They finally secured the vote of one Ohioan, veteran Democratic Rep. Marcy Kaptur of Toledo, the old-fashioned way. They gave her what she wanted – a new federal power authority, similar to Washington state’s Bonneville Power Administration, stocked with up to $3.5 billion in taxpayer money available for lending to renewable energy and economic development projects in Ohio and other Midwestern states. ”
This is all about taxes, power and money. Climate seems to be only a cover story, and because of this, I doubt that any appeal to politicians about lack of global warming will make a difference. Ethics =/= politics

Pierre Gosselin

Klockarman,
Thanks for the excellent link. I was not aware of that one.

Dan Lee

@John Galt and Jeff Id,
Partly because of that ‘iron curtain’ and partly because of the budget cutbacks demanded to pay for all those stimulus packages, I’m nervous that funding to carry out this study will be a prime target for some politician’s paring knife. I’ll be biting my nails until it is actually completed.

For those people every thing is debunking their idea on AGW has been “discredited”. Few weeks ago, I decided to participate in a debate at CR because a blogger, by aka “questioner”, said the next formula has been “discredited” because it was a corruption of Stephan-Boltzmann formula:
Δq/A = h (σ) (T1^4-T2^4)
Could you believe it? Well… It happened. 🙂

Gino

Annette (08:36:06) :
To follow on to Annette’s question, is there a difference between Solar Radiation and the strength of the suns magnetic field? I’ve seen that ‘.1% variation” thrown out a lot, but I have been under the impression that the GCR theory has more to do with the strength and activity of the sun’s magnetic field and how it interacts with the earths field. Am I off the mark?

Robinson

Really? Silicon (Si) is responsible for almost 10% of the greenhouse effect? Now that’s something I had never heard before. Verrrrryy interesting!!

Paul, indeed the figure is more like 100%, if you take into consideration the silicon based technologies running the GCMs ;).

In their GRL paper, near the end, Eichler etal say that about 50% of the warming in the last 100 years is due to solar influence.

D. King

“Lot’s of warmists say it is “discredited”. However, CERN in Switzerland isn’t following that thinking…I figure if it is “discredited”, a bunch of smart guys and gals like CERN wouldn’t be ramping up the investigation.”
True science is like a cockroach… you just can’t kill it!

George E. Smith

“”” evanmjones (09:56:29) :
Leif: Well, that’s the point, isn’t it? But even stipulating that it is man’s activities, one has to consider that fixing CO2 is a hundred times as expensive (or more?) as fixing any other cause. So one must make darn sure it is CO2 and not, say, Arctic soot, land use, deforestation, or other causes.
If it were cheap, simple to limit CO2, we would do so without a second thought, even if the theory was considered likely to be wrong. But it’s neither cheap nor simple, so the normal parameters of the precautionary principle are exceeded, and cost-benefit assessment clicks in. “””
Evan; what is this obsessive preoccupation that some people have with “fixing things” ?
What does the “precautionary principle” say about leaving things well enough alone that you don’t understand; and have no control over either.
We know from our astronomer friends that sooner or later, the earth is going to get hit by one of those close encounter asteroids.
So why don’t we all spend some time and effort, and a great deal of money to move this planet to some safer place; away from those near miss objects that might some day hit us.
Does it occur to anybody that sequestering CO2 in perpetuity, as is being promoted by some very powerful people including some big energy companies is actually doing more harm than good, by depleting the atmosphere of both the food needed to grow the increasing amount of plant food that the increasing global population is going to need; and also depleting the Oxygen that they are going to need to breathe.
This planet is beginning to demonstrate, that Homo sapiens sapiens is probably just too stupid to survive; intelligence as we define it, is proving to be a failed experiment in survival by Mother Nature. Gaia has about had it with us. Maybe earth will be just fine when the non meddling termites take over from us.

Dave D

Just wanted to say how much I enjoyed the video. This is actually how I am aware of scientific endeavors taste, look and feel. The Climate Change Science which sprouted up fully mature, with no room for questions or disputes in as little as 30 years is wholly unbelieveable. My guess is that this will yield fruit to a theory in another few years and then be subject to the rigors of skepticism and further empirical testing. Dr. Kirkby is my idea of a professional scientist! Thanks, Anthony!

Henry chance

By Jeremy P. Jacobs
Posted: 07/01/09 11:52 AM [ET]
Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), a major player in the climate-change legislation that passed the House last week, was hospitalized on Tuesday, The Associated Press reports.
Waxman was not feeling well and checked into the Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, his spokesman told the AP. There, he received “routine testing” and is “feeling much better now.”
Has to be heat related. I am glad this is before Obamascare kicks in. He would have to be on a wait list.
Great slide show on this thread. Hope people can see it. Those that had no time to read Waxmans legislation and multi hundred page revisions.

Bruce Stewart

Leif,
“while temperatures now are ~1.5 degrees higher”
… in Siberia, which (due to latitudinal variation) would correspond to a much smaller increase (perhaps one-tenth?) in global temperature (assuming this particular location is not anomalous).
Leaves the door open for some AGW influence, but hardly a trump card for warmers.