http://www.skepticalscience.com/cosmic-rays-and-global-warming.htm

Which notes among other things :

..a comparison of neutron monitor measurements, Beryllium 10 and Carbon 14 isotopes (both proxies for cosmic radiation) with global temperatures found that cosmic rays “have been in the opposite direction to that required to explain the observed rise in global mean temperatures” (Lockwood 2007). Regardless of whether cosmic rays help form clouds, the trend in cosmic radiation is opposite to that required to cause warming.

See also this Youtube clip by Potholer54 :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PoSVoxwYrKI&feature=results_video&playnext=1&list=PLA4F0994AFB057BB8

with the cosmic ray section starting at about the 6 minute 40 seconds mark.

@64. Orsonne Brown :

BTW even if humans are changing the climate by “greenhouse gas emissions” it’s a runaway train and the world is not going to reduce the emissions if anything the emissions are going to expand for the forseeable decades as the rest of world prospers and the population expands.
So deal with it.

How do you suggest we – the world – deal with it exactly?

Human Induced Rapid Global Overheating (HIRGO) has some pretty appalling consquences as far as prosperity and population growth go. The poorest nations will be among the worst effected and the least able to cope.

There’s a videoclip I’d advise you to watch on that too :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5NJEouqefis&list=PL029130BFDC78FA33&index=46&feature=plpp

A world that’s been artificially overheated that has more severe droughts, more famines, less stable and reliable water supplies, rising seas, diseases such as maleria spreading to new areas and populations, worse storms and soon will likely be a world with lots more wars and human suffering too.

How do we deal with that?

Well, the first step is understanding what’s happening, accepting the reality rather than pretending it’s just not happening and then thinking ahead and preparing accordingly. Doing that may well save lives and prosperity or at least mean our economies suffer less and fewer people die.

Please seriously consider that for a while.

Aug 2011 Sea Ice Extent ends ABOVE 2007 level both for the average of the month AND at the End of the month. Funny how for the past few years there have been more ice than 2007 but that is swept under the glacier.

That’s not quite right. Ice area may have been slightly more – note the emphasis upon “slightly” there – but the volume of ice was less.

See :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2nruCRcbnY0&list=PL029130BFDC78FA33&index=60&feature=plpp

& also :

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Has-Arctic-sea-ice-recovered.htm

for more info and explanation of this.

Also swept under the glacier is the undisputed fact that the Antarctic Sea Ice is not just stable but has been expanding since 1979…

Where did you hear that? Unfortunately, that’s just NOT the case – see :

http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice.htm

Aside from the collapse of several ice sheets – as (#65.) Nigel Depledge has mentioned earlier; Antartica is losing ice mass on land too.

BTW even if humans are changing the climate by “greenhouse gas emissions” it’s a runaway train and the world is not going to reduce the emissions if anything the emissions are going to expand for the forseeable decades as the rest of world prospers and the population expands.

So deal with it.

OK, where do you suggest the entire population of Bangladesh relocate to? Where do you suggest we relocate London to? Or Manhatten? Or New Orleans? Or, come to think of it, any of the dozens of other coastal cities that are very close to the current sea level?

Where do you suggest the UK relocates the entire population of East Anglia? We’re already the second- or third- most densely-populated country in the world. We don’t have any spare land on which to build houses and grow crops, so what is your proposed solution?

BTW, even if GW isn’t caused by human activity, it still makes more sense to address it and do something about it than not.

Aug 2011 Sea Ice Extent ends ABOVE 2007 level both for the average of the month AND at the End of the month. Funny how for the past few years there have been more ice than 2007 but that is swept under the glacier.

And every year since 2007 has still had less Arctic ice than every year before 2006. Why do you think your statement might mean something?

Does the concept of the record low in 2007 escape your understanding?

Also swept under the glacier is the undisputed fact that the Antarctic Sea Ice is not just stable but has been expanding since 1979…

Antarctic Sea Ice? What, like the Ross Ice Shelf that lost at least a third of its area a few years back?

That “Antarctic sea ice is expanding” is the very opposite of an undisputed fact – it is a lie.

Also swept under the glacier is the undisputed fact that the Antarctic Sea Ice is not just stable but has been expanding since 1979…

BTW even if humans are changing the climate by “greenhouse gas emissions” it’s a runaway train and the world is not going to reduce the emissions if anything the emissions are going to expand for the forseeable decades as the rest of world prospers and the population expands.

So deal with it.

For example in 2010 the following vehicles were produced: Cars: 60,343,756 LCV: 13,370,432 HCV: 3,510,681 Heavy Bus: 518,993

China ALONE manufactured more than 18 MILLION vehicles worldwide production was almost 78 MILLION

China’s dramatic air travel expansion:

China is home of the world’s fastest-growing aviation market. By one estimate, air passenger traffic in China is projected to expand by nearly 8 percent annually for the next 20 years. The country plans to build 70 airports by 2020. [Source: David Pierson, Los Angeles Times, November 13, 2010]

In 2009, China became the world’s largest purchaser of passenger jetliners, spending twice as much as the U.S. did on passenger planes. Until then China was the world’s second largest aviation market after the United States. The number of air travelers rose from 3.4 million in 1980 to 16 million in 1990 to nearly 50 million in 1995 to 67.2 million in 2000 to 85.9 million in 2002 to 120 million in 2004 to 160 million in 2006 (compared to 658 million in the United States). In 1988, 95 percent of the air passenger in China were foreigners. Today 95 percent are Chinese.

Also swept under the glacier is the undisputed fact that the Antarctic Sea Ice is not just stable but has been expanding since 1979…

So – it’s okay to question scientific theories, but those who question this one are “deniers”?

Wrong. This is a strawman.

Since you are apparently hard-of-thinking, let me explain:

It is indeed OK to question the methodology, the statistical analyses and the conclusions of the world’s climatologists, provided this is done from a position of informed understanding and honest enquiry.

The denialist camp, however, is using the dishonest pretence of questioning the science to delay the taking of any action to combat AGW. Either the questioners do understand the science and have some agenda of their own (e.g. anyone who is sufficiently remunerated by the fossil-fuel industries), or they do not understand the science and are simply manufacturing doubt (or propagating doubt manufactured by others) to preserve the status quo.

Since (very roughly) 2000, the case that AGW is real has been so strong that it is no longer rational to doubt it.

Of course at this time of year they are getting round the clock sunshine (or near enough), and an Arctic summer is quite warm’.

True The sun still shines for roughly 14-15 hours a day now on the artic circle but they are losing 10 minutes every day the suns angle is dropping , by the autumn/fall equinox it will be 12 hours and then its all downhill. At the same time the suns angle is dropping, the shadows are lengthening and producing very little heat , you then rely on the sea continuing to melt the ice from below or warm winds blowing up from Canada or Asia to give a temporary shot.
The minimum artic ice extent has occurred as early as September 3, and as late as September 22. The average date is September 10th so not long! .

The questions asked are trivially easy to find answers for with a few simple Google (maybe even Bing) queries and a willingness to read and understand the answers. Global Warming is a guaranteed fact. Anthropogenic Global Warming (often called Climate Change) is nearly guaranteed (as in 99.999% sure). The questions should no longer be, “Is it happening?” They should be, “What can we do?”

Go ahead and keep questioning the science, but as long as we can tell skeptics aren’t listening to the answers, we won’t take them seriously.

jbs

Of course at this time of year they are getting round the clock sunshine (or near enough), and an Arctic summer is quite warm.

The jet stream has sent a succession of low pressure cells scudding across the north of the UK, bringing cool cloudy and often windy weather to the UK, Scandinavia France and Germany.
So forgive the 200 million who live in Western Europe of not taking a particular interest in the heating up of the Artic at the moment unlike our American cousins who have been frying (except on the west coast of course). In fact many in the UK have been turning on their central heating as ground frosts threaten at night – all adding to global warming of course.

Which would mean, by definition, that eras when there were no polar ice cover did not have higher sea level than eras of large polar ice cover.

Not really. Antarctic ice cover (or lack thereof) has a direct effect on sea level.

Similarly, the amount of snow and ice on high mountain ranges will affect sea level.

Matt (27) said:

Still going with the alarmism, eh? The climate changes. It always has and always will.

And this is relevant how?

A significant contributing factor to the rise of modern human civilisation is the relative stability of the climate over the last 10,000 years.

Even then, the present rate of warming is – as far as anyone can tell – unprecedented. Oh, and how does nature normally deal with substantial changes of climate? Oh yeah, mass extinctions. There’s a real possibility that human activity has already started a mass extinction, and AGW is likely only to make that worse. And that’s a completely separate issue from the impact that AGW will have on our civilisation.

…but then there’s no money to be made from that.

WTF? Seriously, are you still clinging on to the “climate scientists have fabricated the whole thing to get more grant money” lie?

Climatology – as an “industry” – is probably less profitable than selling hand-made carpets (or any other handicraft you care to mention). There isn’t big money to be made from science unless you discover a new wonder-drug or invent the successor to the silicon chip. Certainly, climatologists don’t make more than a modest living from their profession. If scientists were in it for the money, they’d all have become doctors or lawyers instead of scientists.

Your insinuation really is too tiresome.

What we’re really talking about here is the business aspect of AGW and a scientific community that will see funding cut dramatically if the research isn’t twisted to reach a predetermined outcome. Let’s face it, there’s no such thing as “truth” when it comes to climate research these days. …only consideration for how any new set of findings might impact one’s political or financial situation. Pretty sad when you think about it.

What’s sad is that you have such a low opinion of scientists as people, and that you have allowed yourself to reach a conclusion based on nothing more than wishful thinking and political hot air. All of the climate data indicate that AGW is real, and the models all indicate that its impact will be bad for us. Exactly how bad varies from model to model, but even the most optimistic ones suggest that it would be a good idea to do our best to mitigate the impact of AGW.

Didn’t NASA prove recently that most climate models are bogus because far more heat is escaping into space than previously thought?

No.

What about the recent CERN research demonstrating the impact of solar radiation on cloud formation?

What about it?

A greater understanding of cloud formation does not change the fact that mean global temperatures are rising, nor does it change the fact that it is mostly our fault. Unless we can make enough clouds to reflect a substantial proportion of insolation back to space, this is irrelevant.

Why is any and all evidence discrediting AGW being swept under the rug?

Erm … it’s not. It simply doesn’t mean what you wish it did mean.

To some extent, I sympathise. I don’t want fuel prices to carry on rising (petrol proces in the UK are now in the vicinity of US$8 per US gallon). I don’t want my car tax to continue to rise year-on-year unless I change my car for a hybrid or a small-engined diesel car. And so on.

20 years ago, I did not accept AGW. The evidence I have seen reported in the science press since then has convinced me. There are glaciers in the Alps that are several hundred metres shorter than they were 80 or 90 years ago. Antarctic glaciers are moving faster than ever previously recorded. Arctic sea ice is setting new records for minimum summer extent. Sea level is on a rising trend. And so on.

…just follow the money. It’s true that the oil companies have spent millions to fund research questioning AGW.

Erm … that’s probably an order-of-magnitude underestimate. When your profits are in the billions or tens of billions, you can spend tens or hundreds of millions annually on “research” and PR campaigns and not really feel the pinch.

But politicians have spent many BILLIONS more than that funding research where the only acceptable finding is for AGW to be found a credible threat.

What utter rubbish!

Sure, it might amount to billions over the last 20 years, but on an annual basis, it’s almost certainly no more than a few hundred million dollars globally. And most of that would, I imagine, go on equipment and travel (plus, of course, the fee that a university charges its staff for lab space and utilities, which can often amount to more than a quarter of a research grant). Certainly, the amount of money from each grant that goes to the actual researchers as salary or living stipend (for a student) is a pretty small proportion of the grant as a whole.

The amount of money that tenured climatologists actually take home is not even small change compared to the oil-company execs; similarly, the scientist-on-the-ground would earn far more working for an oil company than they ever will at a university.

Ask yourselves who profits most from that.

No, why don’t you ask yourself who profits from it? But, instead of your fantasies, take on some realistic ideas about what happens to a research grant. Rather than just imagine where the money goes, why don’t you actually go and find out where it goes?

This image at the National Snow and Ice Data Center is updated daily. A good one to put in your daily links.

Thanks. I’ve bookmarked that.

@8. Meng Bomin : “Yipee! New shipping lanes.”

&

@ 9. Chris :

@8 Meng : Not necessarily a good thing. Just imagine an oil tanker taking a short cut and running aground. It’d be a major disaster especially since how the heck do you get the clean up crews and equipment up there.

Three words : Exxon & Valdez & spill. Click on my name for the wikipage. Imagine that happening even further north and even less accessible.

(AGW deniers please note this is not a valid refutation of human-induced rapid global overheating. HIRGO. A pronounceable acronym!)

I like that acronmyn and will – if that’s okay with you adopt it for future use. May its meme take off.

@48. Cedric Katesby :

Co2 is plant food. It’s vital to plants. Plants love Co2.
Water is plant food. It’s vital to plants. Plants love water.
(…..pause for effect…..)
Now let’s talk about the little known scientific concept of….”flooding”.
Climate denier talking points: If you think about them logically for more than half a second, they self-destruct all on their own.

Yup. That does happen so often for so many of their talking points – well put.

Flogging a dead horse but I’ll add that “plants” include weeds as well as crops.

@43. Wzrd1 :

@ Messier #10, erm, WOW! I thought *I* had suggested the nuclear winter to counter global warming trends a few years ago.
Did you steal my “suggestion”? Or did someone else? Or was it parallel thinking of absurd suggestions?

Independent invention I think. I don’t recall seeing anyone else mention the idea before – was a weird and gallows humour notion which I mentioned a long time ago in another thread on this. Not that it matters.

@1, @2, and @3: Melting ice doesn’t “effect” the sea level. Melting ice *affects* the sea level. Bad spelling distracts from otherwise worthwhile statements.

Ooh, good catch, I didn’t even spot that; and I’m usually the biggest grammar-nazi here!

Did you have something you wanted to say?

Anybody know what the extent of ice was in the 12th century?, 9th, 5th B.C.?

Which part of “on record” did you not understand?

Besides, the mean sea level and extent of Arctic sea ice were next to irrelevant when the human population of the entire planet was a handful of millions (less than 50 million in the 12th century, IIUC). People had the option to migrate when conditions got bad for them (well, except for serfs, who were forbidden from leaving their lord’s land but if there was no-one there to enforce this law, they would move), plus they had very little infrastructure to worry about.

Now, things are completely different. We have several huge cities that lie close to mean-sea-level (London and New York being just two examples), and we have very little room to relocate these sorts of numbers of people. Add to this the amount of arable land that is within a few metres of sea level and the rising sea levels alone are a potential disaster. AGW is also predicted to cause major shifts in rainfall patterns, which would cause continent-wide famines as crops fail on a hitherto-unprecedented scale.

Next time you feel like commenting, please think about what you want to say before you post it.

(…..pause for effect…..)

Now let’s talk about the little known scientific concept of….”flooding”.

Climate denier talking points: If you think about them logically for more than half a second, they self-destruct all on their own.

Here’s the problem, the ingredients created did not form enough particles to account for the number of clouds formed in the atmosphere. What was found was that the number of particles formed, could only account for a tenth to a thousandth of the rate that’s observed.

So, the climate deniers grasp at the fact that the CERN experiment produced particles. But, totally ignore the second part of the requirement. Enough particles to produce the observed number of clouds.