Re: When London is submerged and New York is awash...

From: John Larkin (jjlarkin_at_highSNIPlandTHIStechPLEASEnology.com)
Date: 01/13/05 

Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 10:18:28 -0800

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 06:13:38 +0000, invalid@example.com wrote:

>
>>The Carbon Dioxide Thermometer and the Cause of Global Warming;
>>Nigel Calder,-- Presented at a seminar SPRU (Science and
>>Technology Policy Research), University of Sussex, Brighton,
>>England, October 6, 1998.
>
>>Someone appears to have quoted text from a paper at
>>http://www.climatechangedebate.org/archive/10-27_11-07_1998.txt
>>Which I reformatted to 60 columns and will post as a reply to this post.
>>It is labeled "To be published" and thus may be a preliminary version.
>
>Here it is:
>
>From: Richard A. deSousa [m1aport@pacbell.net]
>Sent: Friday, October 30, 1998 11:24 AM
>To: globalwarming@joshua.law.pace.edu
>Subject: Nigel Calder's Hypothesis on CO2 and Global
>Warming
>
>To view the referenced illustrations, graphs, etc., visit:
>http://www.microtech.com.au/daly/calder/calder.html
>r.desousa
>
>The Carbon Dioxide Thermometer and the Cause of Global
>Warming
>
>by Nigel Calder
>
>(To be published in `Energy and Environment')
>
>This material was presented at a seminar at SPRU (Science
>and Technology Policy Research), University of Sussex,
>Brighton, England, on 6 October 1998
>
>Note: the use of non-standard characters, for the correct
>spelling of El Nino etc., is here avoided for the sake of
>electronic transmissibility.
>
>Note from John L. Daly: - In line with this website's
>practice of `open review' of online guest papers, reactions
>to Nigel Calder's paper have been presented on a separate
>page and can be viewed here
>
>Abstract:
>
>Natural agents of climate change, and especially the cosmic
>rays, control the concentration of carbon dioxide in the
>Earth's atmosphere. Man-made emissions of carbon dioxide
>have no perceptible effect. The carbon cycle acts as a
>natural thermometer and year-by-year increments in carbon
>dioxide measure temperature deviations similar to those
>reported by man-made thermometers. By calibrating the
>natural carbon dioxide thermometer to global temperature
>deviations, a carbon dioxide history is inferred, which
>intersects ice-core data showing elevated carbon dioxide
>concentrations before the 20th Century. The variable
>year-by-year increments of carbon dioxide can also be
>accounted for, without reference to temperature, by the
>combined effects of cosmic rays, El Nino and volcanoes. The
>most durable effect is due to cosmic rays. The aa index of
>the solar wind, used as a long-term proxy for the cosmic
>rays, gives a carbon dioxide history similar to that
>inferred from the global temperature deviations.
>
>Introduction:
>
>Confirmation in 1974 that the rhythm of the ice ages is
>controlled by the Earth's behaviour in orbit via the
>Milankovitch effect [Refs. 1, 2] encouraged the search for
>similar forcing agents to explain climate changes over
>shorter timescales. To account for the global warming of the
>20th Century, there were two main candidates: observable
>variations in the behaviour of the Sun, and a hypothetical
>greenhouse effect of man-made additions of carbon dioxide
>to the air. Among various discoveries favouring the solar
>explanation of global warming, two are conspicuous. The
>first, in 1991, showed a striking inverse relationship
>between the length of the sunspot cycle and the deviations
>in temperature in the Northern Hemisphere [Ref. 3]. The
>second, in 1996, revealed a phenomenon unknown to
>meteorologists, namely that the Earth's cloud cover varies
>according to the intensity of galactic cosmic rays [Ref. 4].
>
>As the influx of cosmic rays is diminished by a strong solar
>wind, and as the solar wind has freshened during this
>century, a sufficient explanation for global warming is now
>available (Fig. 1). Nowadays the Sun is so active, and the
>solar wind so vigorous, that the maximum intensity of cosmic
>rays during recent sunspot cycles was no greater than the
>minimum levels of cosmic rays experienced early in the
>century. Fewer cosmic rays mean fewer clouds and a warmer
>Earth.
>
>Note that most of the warming occurred in the first half of
>the century. It was partly reversed in the 1960s, and then
>it resumed. The hesitant history never made any sense in the
>greenhouse hypothesis, because the use of fossil fuels rose
>steadily throughout the period. The pattern accords very
>well with the fickle behaviour of the Sun. The rising level
>of carbon dioxide in the air since 1959 is also shown in
>Fig. 1, where the increase plainly coincides with the most
>recent rise in temperature. The reason for the rise in
>carbon dioxide needs to be reconsidered in the light of the
>solar results.
>
>The discovery about cosmic rays and clouds reported by
>Henrik Svensmark and Eigil Friis-Christensen [Ref. 4] is a
>Rosetta Stone that decodes the climate. The microphysical
>processes by which cosmic rays contribute to cloud
>formation have still to be clarified [Ref. 5]. Nevertheless
>the phenomenon is plain and it offers practical benefits in
>climate forecasting. For example predictions of India's
>grain harvest, traditionally based on a negative
>correlation with El Nino, improve if cosmic rays are taken
>into account (Fig. 2).
>
>Evidence in support of the greenhouse hypothesis remains
>extremely sketchy [Ref. 6]. Hubert Lamb, the founder of
>modern climate science, warned of this outcome in 1977, when
>he wrote that "the effect of increased carbon dioxide on
>climate is ... probably much smaller than the estimates
>which have commonly been accepted" [Ref. 7]. An axiom of
>the greenhouse scenario is that the increase in carbon
>dioxide in the air is due to increases in man-made
>emissions, chiefly from fossil fuels. The opposite view,
>that carbon dioxide in the air has increased because the
>Earth is warmer has often been proposed, but seldom heeded
>[Refs. 8-10].
>
>This paper brings together the proposition that cosmic rays
>are the arbiter of climate change, and the proposition that
>carbon dioxide follows climate change rather than leading
>it. The conclusion is that the concentration of carbon
>dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere is controlled by the solar
>wind.
>
>The Cause of Carbon Dioxide Increases:
>
>The carbon dioxide concentrations in the air, recorded on
>Mauna Loa since 1958, combine a rising trend with an annual
>cycle peaking every May (Fig. 3).
>
>The gains between successive May peaks vary a great deal,
>but they correspond approximately with the intervening
>June-May temperature deviations in the Southern Hemisphere
>as compiled by the University of East Anglia. The agreement
>with man-made instruments is close enough for carbon dioxide
>to be considered as a natural thermometer.
>
>The similarities were clearest between 1971 and 1989. There
>was no gain in carbon dioxide in 1963-64, when the Southern
>Hemisphere experienced its coldest deviation of the period.
>That episode illustrates the existence of a critical
>temperature, below which the carbon dioxide in the air can
>be expected to fall rather than rise. After the Pinatubo
>eruption of May 1991, the carbon dioxide thermometer
>registered a larger fall than did the man-made thermometers
>represented in the East Anglia data. The carbon cycle is
>evidently hypersensitive to volcanoes.
>
>The match between carbon dioxide gains and temperature
>cannot be explained by the enhanced greenhouse hypothesis,
>with carbon dioxide causing the changes in temperature. The
>total carbon dioxide has never fallen during this period,
>but the temperature and the carbon dioxide increments have
>done so repeatedly. The temperature deviation associated
>with an additional 1 ppmv (part per million by volume) in
>the year-by-year increment is an order of magnitude greater
>than the increase in temperature predicted for the enhanced
>greenhouse effect of the increment (~0.01 deg. C/ppmv). The
>match between carbon dioxide and temperature is far too
>close for the greenhouse.
>
>The trendline shows the year-by-year increments doubling
>from 0.8 ppmv/yr around 1960 to 1.6 ppmv/yr around 1995.
>During this period, man-made emissions from fossil fuels and
>cement manufacture rose faster, by 150 per cent (from 2.6
>to 6.4 gigatonnes of carbon per year, Ref. 11). An
>increasing part of the supposed man-made contribution of
>carbon dioxide to the air is therefore disappearing into
>non-atmospheric sinks such as trees. This is the opposite of
>what one would expect if the man-made contribution were
>overwhelming the ability of the Earth system to manage
>carbon dioxide by its own natural rules. On the contrary,
>the Earth system appears to be unimpressed by man-made
>inputs, which are only a few per cent of the natural trade
>in carbon dioxide between the surface and the atmosphere,
>said to be about 150 gigatonnes of carbon per year [Ref. 6,
>p. 77].
>
>Year-by-year variations in the man-made input also fail to
>appear in the year-by-year gains in the carbon dioxide. A
>headline result appears in cartoon form in Fig. 4 a, whilst
>Fig. 4 b explains the use of time-sensitive correlations to
>guard against spurious linkages. In the period 1960-1990,
>variations in man-made emissions had no more influence on
>carbon dioxide gains than did the number of motion pictures
>completed each year by Mr Clint Eastwood. Instead, the gains
>in carbon dioxide were closely linked to variations in the
>temperature in the Southern Hemisphere in April. Another
>month or season would give a similar result but, as a poet
>foresaw, April is the cruellest month for the greenhouse
>hypothesis, with a correlation between carbon dioxide and
>temperature of 0.77 over 31 data points.
>
>The conclusion that temperature governs the increments and
>therefore the total concentration of carbon dioxide in the
>atmosphere, and has nothing to do with man-made inputs, is
>unsurprising. A larger increase in atmospheric carbon
>dioxide (from about 190 to 260 ppmv) occurred at the end of
>the last ice age. The human beings then alive had no
>significant fossil-fuel industries. As the carbon dioxide
>gains lagged behind the temperature gains, they were an
>effect, not a cause [Ref. 12].
>
>Calibrating the Carbon Dioxide Thermometer:
>
>A more detailed view of the operation of the natural carbon
>dioxide thermometer comes from comparisons between the
>carbon dioxide gains and seasonal temperature deviations in
>the Southern Hemisphere. They show patterns of
>time-sensitive correlations too reasonable and orderly to be
>due to chance (Fig. 5).
>
>At the start of the new carbon dioxide accounting year, in
>June, the southern winter temperatures (June-August) echo
>the climatic influences in the preceding summer and autumn,
>and know little about changes to come in the following
>months. Their best match is therefore to the carbon dioxide
>gain up to the recent May. By the following autumn,
>March-May, the carbon dioxide thermometer is finalizing its
>verdict on the year, and conventional thermometers have
>responded to the same climatic wobbles. As one should
>expect, the correlation peaks in March-May.
>
>Temperature deviations in the Northern Hemisphere match the
>carbon dioxide gains less closely and the 12-monthly
>temperature of the Northern Hemisphere correlates better
>with last year's carbon dioxide gain than with this year's
>(Fig. 6). The reason is that the most strongly correlated
>season is the summer (June-August) immediately following
>the end of the previous accounting year for carbon dioxide.
>
>The calibration of the carbon dioxide thermometer to global
>temperature deviations, expressed in degrees C, is
>illustrated in Fig. 7. The relationship is assumed to be
>linear. With increasing temperature, the solubility of
>carbon dioxide in the ocean diminishes (the warm champagne
>effect) and biochemical reactions proceed faster (the warm
>beer effect). No opinion is offered on the mechanism here,
>although the assumption of linearity may implicitly prefer
>a physical effect.
>
>To convert a carbon dioxide increment into degrees C,
>multiply the increment in ppmv (parts per million by
>volume) by 0.23 deg. C and subtract 0.22 deg. C. That gives
>a carbon dioxide temperature analogous to the global
>temperature deviations (relative to the mean for 1961-1990)
>as compiled at the University of East Anglia.
>
>The coefficient 0.23 comes by matching the slope of the
>trendline of the carbon dioxide increments to the slope of
>the trendline of the global temperature deviation from 1959
>to 1991, omitting the Pinatubo perturbation. The other
>number, -0.22, represents the critical global temperature
>deviation below which carbon dioxide diminishes instead of
>increasing. The number comes from the global temperature
>deviation in 1964, when the carbon dioxide gain was zero.
>For a match to Southern Hemisphere temperature anomalies
>the corresponding numbers are 0.29 and -0.29.
>
>In principle one can also infer the critical temperature
>from the calibration graph. This would give -0.27 for the
>globe and -0.36 for the Southern Hemisphere. The natural
>calibration of the critical temperatures in 1964 seems
>safer to use. Regression analysis offers yet another method
>of calibration. For the globe it delivers a coefficient of
>0.17 and a critical temperature of - 0.20. I reject this
>pair of numbers because it gives a rate of increase in
>total carbon dioxide that is too fast to match the Mauna Loa
>data.
>
>The calibrations describe the ability of carbon dioxide to
>track temperatures. They imply that the atmospheric
>abundance was on a roller-coaster in past centuries,
>according to whether temperatures were generally above or
>below the critical level. The global temperature data
>offered by the University of East Anglia go back to about
>1856. Using the global calibration of the carbon dioxide
>thermometer, one can very easily calculate the expected
>annual changes in carbon dioxide in the air, and sum
>(integrate) the changes to infer a history of total carbon
>dioxide. The result suggests that carbon dioxide went
>through a minimum in the 1920s, after the cold start to the
>20th Century, but was well above the minimum in the latter
>half of the 19th Century (Fig. 8).
>
>The graph intersects carbon dioxide data from air bubbles
>trapped in Antarctic ice at Siple [Ref. 13]. It does not
>follow the rising trend indicated by the air bubbles.
>Nevertheless, as the graph comes from the simplest possible
>assumptions, its readiness to thread its way through the
>data points is gratifying. One wonders if the scientists
>concerned were wise to shift the Siple data by an arbitrary
>83 years, to join them to the Mauna Loa graph, in the
>belief that any elevated levels of carbon dioxide must be
>due to man-made emissions [Refs. 13, 14].
>
>Also shown in Fig. 8 is an alternative history inferred from
>the Southern Hemisphere calibration of the carbon dioxide
>thermometer, and the Southern Hemisphere temperature
>anomalies. The match is neither very good nor very bad. A
>minimum appears at about the same time, though higher. Again
>the graph reaches the Siple data, though it droops a
>little. To make a closer match by adjusting the calibrations
>would be easy, but that would run counter to the simplicity
>and transparency preferred here.
>
>The analysis up to this point uses interpretations and data,
>most of which have been available for about 10 years. Its
>purpose has been to dislodge the unhelpful hypothesis that
>carbon dioxide changes are due to human activity, in order
>to open the search for the natural controller of carbon
>dioxide levels.
>
>Natural Influences on Carbon Dioxide Variations:
>
>The next step is entirely independent of what has gone
>before, because there is no reference to global or
>hemispheric temperature deviations. Instead, the
>year-by-year gain in carbon dioxide is treated as an index
>in its own right. If thinking of it as a temperature reading
>is an aid to understanding, so be it, but the only part
>that notion plays in the analysis is in the choice of sign
>(+/-) for the likely effects of natural agents of climate
>change.
>
>In Fig. 9, the vertical scale is graduated to the increments
>in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and other data are
>scaled to suit it [Ref. 15]. The series of graphs explores
>directly the relationship of carbon dioxide gains to
>natural agents of change, in a climatic striptease.
>
>The record of cosmic rays from the Galaxy, as modulated by
>the solar wind, appears first in the series because they
>are the prime candidate to be in charge of events [Ref. 4].
>Fewer cosmic rays imply fewer clouds and better conditions
>for a gain in carbon dioxide, so the readings are inverted.
>As the counts of cosmic rays have fallen since the 1960s,
>the top graph shows a long-term rising trend.
>
>The graph of year-by-year gains in carbon dioxide also shows
>a long-term rising trend. Otherwise the match to cosmic
>rays is at first sight poor, because other natural agents of
>climate change confuse the picture.
>
>A much clearer match appears at once between the carbon
>dioxide gains and El Nino, as gauged by temperatures in the
>equatorial zone of the Eastern Pacific Ocean (Cold Tongue
>Index). Several peaks and troughs are immediately
>recognisable. El Nino plays such an obvious role in
>controlling carbon dioxide gains from year to year that,
>even if this were the only correlation under consideration,
>it would raise grave questions about the credibility of the
>greenhouse hypothesis.
>
>To help to reveal what else is going on, the next graph
>subtracts the effect of El Nino from the carbon dioxide
>gains. The result begins to look like a record of volcanic
>effects. Besides the Pinatubo dip there is, for example,
>another corresponding with the El Chichon eruption in 1982.
>
>At the same time the match to the solar effect in the cosmic
>ray graph improves, and that influence remains in place. In
>any case, it is unlikely that either El Nino or volcanoes
>can provide an upward trend sufficient to explain the
>increase in year-by-year carbon dioxide gains.
>
>The last step is to refine the graph of the volcanic
>influence by subtracting the cosmic ray graph, as well as
>the El Nino graph, from the carbon dioxide gains. Some easy
>identifications of individual eruptions are labelled.
>
>Any enhanced greenhouse effect, due to the rising total of
>carbon dioxide, is lost in the noise of volcanic eruptions.
>Subtracting a rising greenhouse trendline from the graph of
>carbon dioxide gains would simply tilt the graph of
>inferred volcanism downwards to the right, making the
>influence of Pinatubo even more remarkable.
>
>Critics who doubt the control of carbon dioxide by natural
>agents must explain why the wiggles of El Nino look so much
>like the wiggles in carbon dioxide gains. They must also
>show that the inferred volcanic graph is seriously wrong.
>As existing volcanic indices are contradictory, that may be
>hard for the critics to do. Conversely, uncertainty about
>volcanoes makes the analysis difficult to verify, or to
>refine by adjusting the arbitrary conversion factors used
>here.
>
>If the climatic striptease of Fig. 9 approximates to
>reality, it illustrates an apparent role of El Nino as a
>thermostat. El Nino (warming) and La Nina (cooling) events
>seem to counter the warming and cooling effects of changes
>in cosmic rays and of volcanic eruptions, so reducing their
>impact on the global climate. Whether or not that
>interpretation is correct, the confusions due to El Nino and
>volcanoes show why the solar effect has taken nearly 200
>years to pin down, since the astronomer William Herschel
>noted a link between sunspots and wheat prices, in a paper
>published in 1801 [Ref. 16].
>
>How the Sun Controls Carbon Dioxide Levels:
>
>The dramatic effects of volcanoes and El Nino come and go,
>but they probably average out over a few decades and the
>atmosphere forgets them. What it remembers best, in its
>rising inventory of carbon dioxide, is the reduction in
>cosmic rays during the recent period. That change in the
>cosmic rays is due to high activity in the Sun and a
>freshening solar wind.
>
>While the year-by-year increments in carbon dioxide provide
>the signals from the carbon dioxide thermometer, the total
>level of carbon dioxide in the air is a counter of cosmic
>rays on timescales of decades. This dual role for carbon
>dioxide as a natural measuring device is only to be
>expected, if the cosmic rays control global temperatures in
>the long run.
>
>Carbon dioxide can be seen counting the cosmic rays quite
>efficiently, in Fig. 10. This compares the rising level of
>carbon dioxide (i.e. the sum of all the annual gains) with a
>cumulative count of cosmic rays (i.e. the sum of all the
>annual counts) during the period 1959-94. As before, the
>cosmic ray data are inverted, because fewer cosmic rays
>imply more carbon dioxide in the air. For cosmic rays as for
>temperatures, there is a critical level where carbon dioxide
>gain changes to carbon dioxide loss. Here that level is
>chosen to produce zero gains around 1964.
>
>The correlation between the cosmic ray graph and the levels
>of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as measured at Mauna
>Loa is 0.99, for the 38 data points where the series
>overlap. Such a high correlation should perhaps be taken
>with a grain of salt because the cosmic ray data have been
>processed, albeit it in a very simple way, with the aim of
>producing a match.
>
>What is more persuasive is that short-term errors, the
>differences between the cumulative totals from man-made
>ionization chambers and from the carbon dioxide cosmic ray
>counter, are readily explicable. For example the
>over-reading of carbon dioxide compared with cosmic rays in
>the late 1980s reflects a strong El Nino, while the
>under-reading of the early 1990s coincides with the Pinatubo
>event. Despite the closer match of El Nino to carbon
>dioxide increments on a year-by-year basis, a cumulative
>graph matching the recent accumulation of carbon dioxide
>cannot be constructed by the same method from the El Nino
>time series.
>
>Routine monitoring of cosmic rays and their variations began
>only in 1937, and in the 19th Century no one knew they
>existed. Their variations over centuries and millennia,
>recorded in the form of radiocarbon and radioberyllium
>atoms created by cosmic ray impacts, nevertheless give a
>vivid picture of ever-variable solar activity [Ref. 17].
>
>The changes in cosmic rays are due to changes in the solar
>wind. A strong solar wind means fewer cosmic rays reaching
>the Earth, but more magnetic storms. A monthly series of
>data on magnetic storms observed simultaneously in England
>and Australia, called the aa index, dates back to 1868. For
>technical reasons related to the orientation in space of
>the Earth's magnetic field, it is better to exclude aa data
>close to the spring and autumn equinoxes.
>
>Here the aa index is used as a proxy for the cosmic rays, to
>infer a carbon dioxide history (Fig. 11). Like Figs. 9 and
>10, the main graph in Fig. 11 is derived without reference
>to temperature, only to a direct relationship between
>cosmic rays and carbon dioxide. The graph shows a carbon
>dioxide history derived by the simplest possible
>assumption, namely that carbon dioxide increases whenever
>the aa index is above its mean for 1858-1997, and falls
>when it is lower. Gains and losses are deemed to be
>proportional to the difference from the mean. The only other
>assumption is that the resulting history should be anchored
>to the Mauna Loa carbon dioxide data.
>
>The surprising outcome of this bravado is a graph of carbon
>dioxide levels very similar to the graph inferred from
>global temperatures, repeated from Fig. 8. The latter graph
>was generated by a completely different route, via the
>calibration of the carbon dioxide thermometer to global
>temperatures measured conventionally. Their similarities
>speak for themselves.
>
>Conclusions:
>
>In summary, I am led by two different routes to the
>following unfashionable opinions:
>
>The increases in carbon dioxide in the air from year to year
>are a result, not a cause, of climate change. The carbon
>dioxide changes are related to temperature, and not to human
>activity. El Nino and volcanoes strongly influence the
>year-by-year carbon dioxide changes, but the Sun is in
>charge of decadal trends. The Sun sets the level of carbon
>dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere by the cumulative effect
>of variations in the galactic cosmic rays reaching the
>Earth, as modulated by the variable solar wind.
>
>The pictures given here, of carbon dioxide acting as a
>thermometer and as a counter of cosmic rays, come from
>comparisons of carbon dioxide data with well-known data
>series: the global and hemispheric temperature deviations,
>the Cold Tongue Index for El Nino, the aa index for the
>solar wind, and cosmic rays measured at ground level. The
>uses of the data are simple, straightforward and
>transparent, and time-sensitive correlations (Figs. 4-6)
>guard against spurious links. The method of incremental sums
>(Figs. 8, 10 and 11) was employed successfully in the first
>formal confirmation of the Milankovitch effect [Ref. 1].
>Although the details and some interpretations offered here
>will surely be improved, the overall impressions are
>probably secure.
>
>A great deal of climatology is represented in this paper and
>in back-up studies not included here. Thanks to the
>discovery of the role of cosmic rays, climatology will
>become an exact science, in which for example the recent
>warming can be analysed in terms of solar, oceanic and
>volcanic effects, month by month and region by region.
>
>Hubert Lamb always expected that the variations in climate
>would turn out to have palpable physical causes.
>Philosophically that may be greatest benefit of the new
>results. Natural changes will no longer be confused with
>the chaos, sometimes dubbed "natural variability", that
>appears unbidden in computer models of the climate.
>
>
>
>References:
>
>1. N. Calder, "The arithmetic of ice ages," Nature, vol.
>252, pp. 216-218 (1974)
>
>2. J.D. Hays et al., "Variations in the earth's orbit:
>pacemaker of the ice ages," Science, vol. 194, pp. 1121-1132
>(1976)
>
>3. E. Friis-Christensen and K. Lassen, "Length of the solar
>cycle: an indicator of solar activity closely associated
>with climate," Science, vol. 254, pp. 698-700 (1991)
>
>4. H. Svensmark and E. Friis-Christensen, "Variation in
>cosmic ray flux and global cloud coverage: a missing link
>in solar-climate relationships," Journal of Atmospheric and
>Solar-Terrestrial Physics, vol. 59, pp.1225-1232 (1997);
>the essence was announced at COSPAR 96, Birmingham, England,
>July 1996
>
>5. J. Kirkby et al., proposed CERN experiment, CLOUD
>(personal communication)
>
>6. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Working Group
>1, Climate Change 1995 (Cambridge University Press, 1996)
>
>7. H.H. Lamb, "Climate: Present, Past and Future", vol. 2
>(Methuen, 1977) p. 666
>
>8. C. Kuo et al. "Coherence established between atmospheric
>carbon dioxide and global temperature," Nature, vol. 343,
>pp. 709-913 (1990)
>
>9. Z. Jaworowski et al., "Atmospheric CO2 and global
>warming: a critical review (second edition)", Norsk
>Polarinstitutt, Oslo Meddelelser No. 119 (1992) and
>references therein
>
>10. Z. Jaworowski, "Ice core data show no carbon dioxide
>increase," 21st Century Science and Technology, vol. 10,
>No. 1, p.42-52 (1997) and references therein
>
>11. See Internet data source for "Man-made carbon dioxide"
>(above)
>
>12. J. Jouzel et al., "Vostok ice core: a continuous isotope
>temperature record over the last climatic cycle," Nature,
>vol. 329, pp. 403-408 (1987)
>
>13. A. Neftel et al., "Evidence from polar ice cores for the
>increase in atmospheric CO2 in the past two centuries,"
>Nature, vol. 315, pp. 45-47 (1985); repositioned Siple data
>also appear in Ref. 6, p. 16, Fig. 1
>
>14. Z. Jaworowski, "Reliability of ice core records for
>climatic projections," in J. Emsley (ed) The Global Warming
>Debate (ESEF, 1996)
>
>15. Conversion factors used to compare other data with the
>carbon dioxide increments: ionization chamber datum
>(arbitrary units) is divided by 10; Cold Tongue Index datum
>(in hundredths of deg. C) is multiplied by 0.0065
>
>16. W. Herschel, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal
>Society, vol. 91, pp. 265-283, 1801
>
>17. C.P. Sonett et al. (eds) "The Sun in Time" (University
>of Arizona, 1991)
>
>Sources of Data on the Internet (personal credits appear at
>the sites):
>
>Mauna Loa carbon dioxide (monthly):
>cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/by_new/bynumber (select NDP001)
>
>East Anglia Northern and Southern Hemisphere temperature
>deviations (monthly):
>daac.gsfc.nasa.gov/CAMPAIGN_DOCS/FTP_SITE/INT_DIS/readme/tmp
>_dev
>
>Cold Tongue Index for El Nino (monthly):
>tao.atmos.washington.edu/pacs/additional_analyses/sstanom6n6
>s18090w
>
>aa index for the solar wind (monthly):
>ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DATA/RELATED_INDICES/AA_INDEX/
>(select AA MONTH)
>
>Cosmic rays: low latitude neutron counts (monthly, Huancayo
>and Haleakala stations) odysseus.uchicago.edu
>
>Man-made carbon dioxide from fossil fuels and cement
>manufacture (annual):
>
>cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/by_new/bynumber (select NDP030)
>
>Food grain production in India (annual % deviation):
>iri.ldeo.columbia.edu/~bhoch/15fig.gif
>
>Clint Eastwood filmography (annual):
>uk.imdb.com/Name?Eastwood,+Clint
>
>Other Sources of Data:
>
>Cosmic rays: ionization chamber data (annual) for 1937-94
>were presented by H.S. Ahluwalia at the 25th International
>Cosmic Ray Conference, Durban, vol.2, p.109, 1997
>
>Siple ice-core carbon dioxide data: -- see Ref. 13, p. 46,
>table 1
>
>Bibliographical Note:
>
>The story of the Danish discoveries in Refs. 3 and 4 is
>related in Nigel Calder, The Manic Sun (Pilkington Press,
>1997). The book is available also in Danish (Den Maniske
>Sol, Gyldendal, 1997), in Dutch (De Grillige Zon, Schuyt,
>1997) and in German (Die Launische Sonne, Boettiger,
>1997).
>
>This is not an advertisement but a statement of fact which,
>if not included, would allow critics to say I have a hidden
>motive for my research - NC
>
>Contact address:
>Nigel Calder
>[obfuscated] Road, [obfuscated], Sussex [obfuscated], England
>Phone: +44 (0)[obfuscated]
>Fax: +44 (0)[obfuscated]
>e-mail: [obfuscated]
>
>

Cool. It always seemed a little strange to me to blame the current
weather on manmade effects, given the planet's past outrageous history
of ice ages, tropical periods, mini-ice ages, all that. A couple of
degrees C is way, way below the natural noise level.

If orbital, solar, and cosmic-ray effects dominate climate, and CO2
follows, then a whole lot of climatologists can take their "concensus"
papers and stuff them under the doors to keep the chill out.

John