We got it wrong: UN climate change scientists admit error over Himalayan glacier report

We got it wrong: UN climate change scientists admit error over Himalayan glacier report

www.dail ymail.co.uk

The UN's panel of climate scientists, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), claimed in 2007 that the Himalayan glaciers would vanish by 2035 if melting continued at its present rate.

But today the panels chairman admitted that the figure quoted in the report was wrong and would now be reviewed.

(visit the link for the full news article)

There was a thread found here: www.abovetopsecret.com...
which was done by Iamonlyhuman in which it was first reported that the claim that the Himalayan glacier would melt completely by 2035 was wrong, but several members, AGW fans, kept claiming "this is another lie by the oil, and coal companies....

Today the head of the IPCC panel is admitting that the dates reported and which the IPCC used without checking were wrong and he reported that this will be reviewed.

I know that some AGW die-hards in the other thread were claiming, once more, that this was just another lie from the "coal/oil industry kooks" which of course is nothing more than a lie concocted by people who do not like to admit they were wrong, and they jumped in the bandwagon without checking the lies they believed.

The scientist who today just admitted that the IPCC was wrong is no other than Rajendra Pachauri head of U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

But of course now we are going to get some people AGW religious fanatics claim that this man, who was making alarmist claims at the Copenhagen meeting not too long ago, is now being paid off by the oil and coal industries....

People should admit it. The IPCC was wrong, and this is not the only thing they have been wrong about.



www.dail ymail.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)


[edit on 20-1-2010 by ElectricUniverse]

Thread reopened upon further review

[edit on 20-1-2010 by burdman30ott6]

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


well made point there my friend. i believe there is a lot the IPCC is hiding/ covering up... considering that they are a "political" body. and as im sure you'll agree, thats what our governments do best.

reply to post by expressyourself


Thanks. Sooner or later this man had to say something about it, but you know what is funny? I saw this same man, head of the IPCC, claim on the Copenhagen sumit that something must be done to stop Climate Change.

He was regurgitating the same propaganda that the AGW proponents have been claiming.

Global taxes and other scams are not going to "save the planet" they are going straight to the pockets of the rich elites.

Elite bashing Illuminati bashing Carbon Tax bashing let us in.
So sorry only on the internet for now.
Until more agents are hired or internet is disconnected.
I was just reviewing tales of ancient earth and saw something
about the 1700s still had ice age remnants and the mammoth
was around till 400 AD.
Its Earth stupid not man melting the ice
I'm sure the think tanks have determined this long ago
or alternative free energy would have cleaned up man's
pollution a long time ago. But what do the Illuminati do,
make you pay them for catalytic converters that wastes
energy from CO that can be burned in a engine and send
our more green house gas CO2. That how the Illuminati
makes the clean air laws work.

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


They were wrong, and the way this error slipped through the cracks definitely needs to be addressed in the next report.

But I find this part of your post pretty damn ironic:

I know that some AGW die-hards in the other thread were claiming, once more, that this was just another lie from the "coal/oil industry kooks" which of course is nothing more than a lie concocted by people who do not like to admit they were wrong, and they jumped in the bandwagon without checking the lies they believed.

I wasn't one of the AGW-die hards claiming this was a big oil lie, so can't really comment for whoever said that - but regardless how does it change the fact that a lot of the fanatical claims you guys make are based on oil industry propaganda? I mean it's already been proven here countless times but instead of ever admitting you're wrong (where'd you go on the 32,000 scientist thread ElectricUniverse?), you just move right along and start tugging away on the next loose end you can find.

As if that somehow erases all your mistakes and proves unequivocally AGW is in fact a scam. There is such a ridiculous double-standard around here on this whole issue, and I think most people on ATS are just sick to death of it altogether.

The fact is everybody makes mistakes, even these evil IPCC know-it-alls - and what shouldn't be lost in this particular incident is it was discovered and exposed by the AGW proponents themselves, NOT the skeptics:

Patrick Michaels, a global warming skeptic and scholar at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, called on the head of the IPCC, Rajendra Pachauri, to resign, adding: "I'd like to know how such an absurd statement made it through the review process. It is obviously wrong."

However, a number of scientists, including some critics of the IPCC, said the mistakes do not invalidate the main conclusion that global warming is without a doubt man-made and a threat.

The mistakes were found not by skeptics like Michaels, but by a few of the scientists themselves, including one who is an IPCC co-author.

Source

So ultimately this incident reinforces the IPCC peer-review process, because it was still eventually caught by it. Furthermore, the fact that glaciers are melting has never changed - so it's not like they just made that all up.


P.S. As for you using the incident to dismiss the issue of big-oil connections amongst deniers - please note the article above mentions Pat Michaels' involvement with the CATO institute. Michaels is by far one of the most well-known and outspoken climate critics - so what a surprise these are the people funding his "research":

The Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank based in Washington DC, was founded in 1977 by Edward Crane and Charles Koch, the billionaire co-owner of Koch Industries, the largest privately held oil company in the U.S.

Cato Institute Factsheet

Originally posted by mc_squared
I wasn't one of the AGW-die hards claiming this was a big oil lie, so can't really comment for whoever said that - but regardless how does it change the fact that a lot of the fanatical claims you guys make are based on oil industry propaganda?

Sorry but that is BS... I have alongside other members posted peer-reviewed data which shows AGW is nothing more than a scam for years in these same boards.

We also have the leaked emails which corroborate the fact that the main scientists which include Michael Mann, Jones, et al were hiding data, erasing research that refuted their SCAM, they talked about using legal, and illegal ways to keep people in the dark and to not release their original data, and programs even if people used the FOIA... they even made jokes "don't tell them we have a FOIA in the UK" as if the fact that they are hiding evidence is something to joke about.. They also clearly stated that they would use any tactics to discredit anyone who dare question them, and the AGW scam, and to even change the peer-review process if necessary...

Then WITHIN A WEEK of learning about the leaked emails we found out that these same people ERASED most of the raw data for global temperatures for the past 150 years..... but of course this is only a coincidence to someone like you....


Yet despite all this, and despite the fact that more, and more evidence is coming forth that AGW is nothing more than a scam people like you claim this is nothing but "oil company propaganda"?....

Originally posted by mc_squared

I mean it's already been proven here countless times but instead of ever admitting you're wrong (where'd you go on the 32,000 scientist thread ElectricUniverse?), you just move right along and start tugging away on the next loose end you can find.

BS, what has been proven time and again is that people like you keep tyring to claim all the evidence that refutes the AGW scam are just lies from the oil companies....

BTW, where were you in all the threads we have had that show that in at least two of the largest scientific groups which were claimed "all scientists agreed with the AGW scam, that this was nothing more than lies... The council of AGU which consists of about 16-18 scientists backed the AGW scam without asking for the opinion of their 50,000 member scientists....

Then the editor in chief of the largest scientific organization in the world decided to back the AGW scam claiming that his entire organization agreed with it. Again the man got hundreds of responses from the scientists members and most of them disagreed with his claims....

Then we have the fact that the "thousands of scientists of the IPCC agreed" was again another lie... there were only about 50-60 real scientists who had any knowledge on Climate Change, the rest were policy makers, environmentalists and representatives of countries which only agenda was to push for AGW to benefit their countries or the groups they represented...

Originally posted by mc_squared

As if that somehow erases all your mistakes and proves unequivocally AGW is in fact a scam. There is such a ridiculous double-standard around here on this whole issue, and I think most people on ATS are just sick to death of it altogether.

It is not just this... It is the fact that we got the leaked emails which show AGW is a scam.... The other things i mentioned above, plus the fact that there are hundreds of peer-reviewed research that refutes the AGW claim...

Then we have another fact that Hansen, another AGW alarmist, was caught at least twice using erroneous data which he accepted just because it showed a large increase in temperatures, but it was later found out to be errors...

So tell me, where were you when we were discussing all those threads?...

ALL OF IT shows it to be a SCAM.... and yes, I am certain that people are getting tired, and are sick to death of those like you who keep trying to make excuses to keep the AGW SCAM alive...

Originally posted by mc_squared
The fact is everybody makes mistakes, even these evil IPCC know-it-alls - and what shouldn't be lost in this particular incident is it was discovered and exposed by the AGW proponents themselves, NOT the skeptics:

This is more than just mistakes... Too many things put together show that this was an intentional SCAM.

Originally posted by mc_squared

The mistakes were found not by skeptics like Michaels, but by a few of the scientists themselves, including one who is an IPCC co-author.

Oh, so now you are going to believe those scientists?.... MANY IPCC scientists have been stating for YEARS that the IPCC has politicized Climate Change, and they have stated many times in the past, the real scientists that is, that the IPCC has not been listening to them for years...

The following is just ONE of many scientists who are, or were part of the IPCC and have been telling what the IPCC is all about...

An Open Letter to the Community from Chris Landsea.

Dear Colleagues,

After some prolonged deliberation, I have decided to withdraw from participating in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). I am withdrawing because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns.

With this open letter to the community, I wish to explain the basis for my decision and bring awareness to what I view as a problem in the IPCC process. The IPCC is a group of climate researchers from around the world that every few years summarize how climate is changing and how it may be altered in the future due to manmade global warming. I had served both as an author for the Observations chapter and a Reviewer for the 2nd Assessment Report in 1995 and the 3rd Assessment Report in 2001, primarily on the topic of tropical cyclones (hurricanes and typhoons). My work on hurricanes, and tropical cyclones more generally, has been widely cited by the IPCC. For the upcoming AR4, I was asked several weeks ago by the Observations chapter Lead Author Dr. Kevin Trenberth to provide the writeup for Atlantic hurricanes. As I had in the past, I agreed to assist the IPCC in what I thought was to be an important and politically neutral determination of what is happening with our climate.
.............

www.tsaugust.org...

Like him there have been several "real scientists" who have been saying the same thing, and not policy makers, or environmentalists which are trying to pass as Climate Change experts...

BTW, many other scientists are waking up recently, and some others have known it for a long time.

Here is another article, a recent one in which hundreds of scientists are abandoning the AGW SCAM, because that is what AGW is...

Scientists abandon global warming 'lie'
650 to dissent at U.N. climate change conference

WASHINGTON - A United Nations climate change conference in Poland is about to get a surprise from 650 leading scientists who scoff at doomsday reports of man-made global warming - labeling them variously a lie, a hoax and part of a new religion.

Later today, their voices will be heard in a U.S. Senate minority report quoting the scientists, many of whom are current and former members of the U.N.'s own Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

About 250 of the scientists quoted in the report have joined the dissenting scientists in the last year alone.

In fact, the total number of scientists represented in the report is 12 times the number of U.N. scientists who authored the official IPCC 2007 report.
.......

www.globalresearch.ca...

I love it how convinient it is for people like you claim "the 32,000 scientist were not all scientists experts in Climate change" even though you are grasping at straws because it is only a few meanwhile the mayority of the "thousands of scientists of the IPCC" WAS THE REAL LIE since most of them were just environmentalists, policymakers, and politicians representing their countries, or their groups and trying to make use of the AGW SCAM...

But hey, you go ahead and keep backing the AGW SCAM....


[edit on 23-1-2010 by ElectricUniverse]

Originally posted by mc_squared
.............
Furthermore, the fact that glaciers are melting has never changed - so it's not like they just made that all up.
........

For crying out loud..... Glaciers are ALWAYS either melting, or increasing in size... that does not corroborate the AGW SCAM......

Hormes, A., Beer, J. and Schlüchter, C., 2006. A geochronological approach to understanding the role of solar activity on Holocene glacier length variability in the Swiss Alps. Geogr. Ann., 88 A (4): 281–294.


Abstract — We present a radiocarbon data set of 71 samples of wood and peat material that melted out or sheared out from underneath eight present day mid-latitude glaciers in the Central Swiss Alps. Results indicated that in the past several glaciers have been repeatedly less extensive than they were in the 1990s. The periods when glaciers had a smaller volume and shorter length persisted between 320 and 2500 years. This data set provides greater insight into glacier variability than previously possible, especially for the early and middle Holocene. The radiocarbon-dated periods defined with less extensive glaciers coincide with periods of reduced radioproduction, pointing to a connection between solar activity and glacier melting processes. Measured long-term series of glacier length variations show significant correlation with the total solar irradiance. Incoming solar irradiance and changing albedo can account for a direct forcing of the glacier mass balances. Long-term investigations of atmospheric processes that are in interaction with changing solar activity are needed in order to understand the feedback mechanisms with glacier mass balances.

The Role of Solar Activity on Holocene Glacier Length Variability in the swiss Alps

Then we have dozens of peer-reviewed research, like the following three that shows GCMs (Global Circulation Models) from which the AGW SCAM is based of, which show that GCMs are flawed to a fault...

Orographic cloud in a GCM: the missing cirrus
Journal Climate Dynamics
Publisher Springer Berlin / Heidelberg
ISSN 0930-7575 (Print) 1432-0894 (Online)
Issue Volume 24, Numbers 7-8 / June, 2005
DOI 10.1007/s00382-005-0020-9
Pages 771-780
Subject Collection Earth and Environmental Science
SpringerLink Date Monday, May 02, 2005


PDF (702.7 KB)HTMLFree Preview

Orographic cloud in a GCM: the missing cirrus
S. M. Dean1 , B. N. Lawrence2, R. G. Grainger1 and D. N. Heuff3

(1) Atmospheric Oceanic and Planetary Physics, Clarendon Laboratory, University of Oxford, Oxford, Oxfordshire, UK
(2) British Atmospheric Data Centre, Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Chilton, Oxfordshire, UK
(3) Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand

Received: 13 September 2004 Accepted: 25 February 2005 Published online: 27 April 2005

Abstract Observations from the International Satellite Cloud Climatalogy Project (ISCCP) are used to demonstrate that the 19-level HadAM3 version of the United Kingdom Met Office Unified Model does not simulate sufficient high cloud over land. By using low-altitude winds, from the European Centre for Medium Range Weather Forecasting (ECMWF) Re-Analysis from 1979 to 1994 (ERA-15) to predict the areas of maximum likelihood of orographic wave generation, it is shown that much of the deficiency is likely to be due to the lack of a representation of the orographic cirrus generated by sub-grid scale orography. It is probable that this is a problem in most GCMs.

www.springerlink.com...


Another of the many flaws of GCMs..

The widely accepted (albeit unproven) theory that manmade global warming will accelerate itself by creating more heat-trapping clouds is challenged this month in new research from The University of Alabama in Huntsville.

Instead of creating more clouds, individual tropical warming cycles that served as proxies for global warming saw a decrease in the coverage of heat-trapping cirrus clouds, says Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist in UAHuntsville's Earth System Science Center.

That was not what he expected to find.

"All leading climate models forecast that as the atmosphere warms there should be an increase in high altitude cirrus clouds, which would amplify any warming caused by manmade greenhouse gases," he said. "That amplification is a positive feedback. What we found in month-to-month fluctuations of the tropical climate system was a strongly negative feedback. As the tropical atmosphere warms, cirrus clouds decrease. That allows more infrared heat to escape from the atmosphere to outer space."

The results of this research were published today in the American Geophysical Union's "Geophysical Research Letters" on-line edition. The paper was co-authored by UAHuntsville's Dr. John R. Christy and Dr. W. Danny Braswell, and Dr. Justin Hnilo of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA.

www.uah.edu...


In fact there is more evidence that corroborates the following than there is evidence to back the AGW SCAM...

Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2000 November 7; 97(23): 12433–12438.
Published online 2000 October 24. PMCID: PMC18780

Copyright © 2000, The National Academy of Sciences
Geophysics
Geophysical, archaeological, and historical evidence support a solar-output model for climate change
Charles A. Perry* and Kenneth J. Hsu†
*U.S. Geological Survey, Lawrence, KS 66049; and †Tarim Associates, Frohburgstrasse 96, Zurich, Switzerland 8006
Contributed by Kenneth J. Hsu
Accepted September 5, 2000.


Although the processes of climate change are not completely understood, an important causal candidate is variation in total solar output. Reported cycles in various climate-proxy data show a tendency to emulate a fundamental harmonic sequence of a basic solar-cycle length (11 years) multiplied by 2N (where N equals a positive or negative integer). A simple additive model for total solar-output variations was developed by superimposing a progression of fundamental harmonic cycles with slightly increasing amplitudes. The timeline of the model was calibrated to the Pleistocene/Holocene boundary at 9,000 years before present. The calibrated model was compared with geophysical, archaeological, and historical evidence of warm or cold climates during the Holocene. The evidence of periods of several centuries of cooler climates worldwide called “little ice ages,” similar to the period anno Domini (A.D.) 1280–1860 and reoccurring approximately every 1,300 years, corresponds well with fluctuations in modeled solar output. A more detailed examination of the climate sensitive history of the last 1,000 years further supports the model. Extrapolation of the model into the future suggests a gradual cooling during the next few centuries with intermittent minor warmups and a return to near little-ice-age conditions within the next 500 years. This cool period then may be followed approximately 1,500 years from now by a return to altithermal conditions similar to the previous Holocene Maximum.

www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov...


But of course now that i am showing peer-reviewed research instead of articles from the MSNBC that you seem to love, I am sure you, and some others, are going to once again call me an "oil spook"... like some other members who have been AGW fans for years have claimed in these same boards whenever I or some other member shows evidence that refutes the AGW SCAM/religion...

For some reason people like you don't want to accept the fact that glaciers worldwide have retreated, and advanced probably hundreds of times, and it is all part of a NATURAL cycle...

The peer-reviewed research paper below, among many others, show some of the recent retreats, and advances(increase) in glaciers....

Does this show mankind in the past was also causing Climate Change?...

The Holocene, Vol. 16, No. 5, 697-704 (2006)
DOI: 10.1191/0959683606hl964rp


Multicentury glacier fluctuations in the Swiss Alps during the Holocene
Ulrich E. Joerin
Institute of Geological Sciences, University of Bern, Baltzerstrasse 1, CH-3012 Bern, Switzerland, [email protected]

Thomas F. Stocker

Climate and Environmental Physics, Physics Institute, University of Bern, Sidlerstrasse 5, CH-3012 Bern, Switzerland

Christian Schlüchter

Institute of Geological Sciences, University of Bern, Baltzerstrasse 1, CH-3012 Bern, Switzerland

Subfossil remains of wood and peat from six Swiss glaciers found in proglacial fluvial sediments indicate that glaciers were smaller than the 1985 reference level and climatic conditions allowed vegetation growth in now glaciated basins. An extended data set of Swiss glacier recessions consisting of 143 radiocarbon dates is presented to improve the chronology of glacier fluctuations. A comparison with other archives and dated glacier advances suggests 12 major recession periods occurring at 9850- 9600, 9300-8650, 8550-8050, 7700-7550, 7450-6550, 6150-5950, 5700-5500, 5200-4400, 4300-3400, 2800-2700, 2150-1850, 1400-1200 cal. yr BP. It is proposed that major glacier fluctuations occurred on a multicentennial scale with a changing pattern during the course of the Holocene. After the Younger Dryas, glaciers receded to a smaller extent and prolonged recessions occurred repeatedly, culminating around 7 cal. kyr BP. After a transition around 6 cal. kyr BP weak fluctuations around the present level dominated. After 3.6 cal. kyr BP less frequent recessions interrupted the trend to advanced glaciers peaking with the prominent ‘Little Ice Age’. This trend is in line with a continuous decrease of summer insolation during the Holocene.

hol.sagepub.com...

To the claim that the 20th century, or even the 21st century have been hotter than in the past there is the following peer-reviewed research among MANY others...

On-line Publication Documentation System for Stockholm University
Full DescriptionUpdate record

Publication type: Article in journal (Reviewed scientific)
Author: Grudd, H (Department of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology)
Title: Torneträsk tree-ring width and density ad 500–2004: a test of climatic sensitivity and a new 1500-year reconstruction of north Fennoscandian summers
In: Climate Dynamics
Publisher: Springer, Berlin / Heidelberg
Volume: 31
Pages: 843-857
Year: 2008
Available: 2009-01-30
ISSN: 1432-0894
Department: Department of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology
Language: English [en]
Subject: Physical geography, Climatology
Abstract: This paper presents updated tree-ring width (TRW) and maximum density (MXD) from Torneträsk in northern Sweden, now covering the period ad 500–2004. By including data from relatively young trees for the most recent period, a previously noted decline in recent MXD is eliminated. Non-climatological growth trends in the data are removed using Regional Curve Standardization (RCS), thus producing TRW and MXD chronologies with preserved low-frequency variability. The chronologies are calibrated using local and regional instrumental climate records. A bootstrapped response function analysis using regional climate data shows that tree growth is forced by April–August temperatures and that the regression weights for MXD are much stronger than for TRW. The robustness of the reconstruction equation is verified by independent temperature data and shows that 63–64% of the instrumental inter-annual variation is captured by the tree-ring data. This is a significant improvement compared to previously published reconstructions based on tree-ring data from Torneträsk. A divergence phenomenon around ad 1800, expressed as an increase in TRW that is not paralleled by temperature and MXD, is most likely an effect of major changes in the density of the pine population at this northern tree-line site. The bias introduced by this TRW phenomenon is assessed by producing a summer temperature reconstruction based on MXD exclusively. The new data show generally higher temperature estimates than previous reconstructions based on Torneträsk tree-ring data. The late-twentieth century, however, is not exceptionally warm in the new record: On decadal-to-centennial timescales, periods around ad 750, 1000, 1400, and 1750 were equally warm, or warmer. The 200-year long warm period centered on ad 1000 was significantly warmer than the late-twentieth century (p < 0.05) and is supported by other local and regional paleoclimate data. The new tree-ring evidence from Torneträsk suggests that this “Medieval Warm Period” in northern Fennoscandia was much warmer than previously recognized.

www.diva-portal.org...

There have been extreme Climate Changes in the past which have caused problems worldwide.... there is nothing we can do about that except ADAPT to the changes...

But instead some people want to play with nature claiming that they are more powerful than nature, and than the entire Universe and they can control the climate of Earth....

doi:10.1016/j.quaint.2007.06.001

Copyright © 2007 Elsevier Ltd and INQUA All rights reserved.
Extreme Nile floods and famines in Medieval Egypt (AD 930–1500) and their climatic implications

References and further reading may be available for this article. To view references and further reading you must purchase this article.


Fekri A. Hassana,

aInstitute of Archaeology, University College London, 31-34 Gordon Square, WC1H 0PY, London, UK


Available online 7 June 2007.

Abstract
Nile gauge records of variations in Nile floods from the 9th century to the 15th century AD reveal pronounced episodes of low Nile and high Nile flood discharge. Historical data reveal that this period was also characterized by the worst known famines on record. Exploratory comparisons of variations in Nile flood discharge with high-resolution data on sea surface temperature of the North Atlantic climate from three case studies suggest that rainfall at the source of the Nile was influenced by the North Atlantic Oscillation. However, there are apparently flip-flop reversals from periods when variations in Nile flood discharge are positively related to North Atlantic warming to periods where the opposite takes place. The key transitions occur atAD 900, 1010, 1070, 1180, 1350 and 1400. The putative flip-flop junctures, which require further confirmation, appear to be quite rapid and some seem to have had dramatic effects on Nile flood discharge, especially if they recurred at short intervals, characteristic of the period from the 9th to the 14th century, coincident with the so-called Medieval Warm Period. The transition from one state to the other was characterized by incidents of low, high or a succession of both low and high extreme floods. The cluster of extreme floods was detrimental causing famines and economic disasters that are unmatched over the last 2000 years.

www.sciencedirect.com


There is also the following fact which some of us have been trying to show to the AGW fanatics, but of course they immediately claim that is not true, that we are talking about some "magical forcing" and that CO2 affects the climate more than any natural factors, like they USED to claim...

Science News

Antarctic Science (2003), 15:2:173-173 Cambridge University Press
Copyright © Antarctic Science Ltd 2003
doi:10.1017/S0954102003001305
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Editorial

Galactic energy and its role in a changing Earth

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALAN P.M. VAUGHAN


Proposed climate change mechanisms are many and various but generally attributable to our part of the solar system. They usually focus on temperature changes driven either by local processes such as variations in oceanic circulation, or, levels of atmospheric greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, or by global processes such as variations in received solar energy linked to changes in the parameters of the Earth's rotation and orbit or solar activity. However, two recent papers have suggested that we may need to look outside the Earth System and even outside our local planetary system for the possible origins of climate change, both on a decadal scale and over longer timescales of hundreds of millions of years. In each case, the galactic cosmic ray flux and its potential effects on cloud formation is considered to be the culprit.

journals.camb ridge.org



[edit on 23-1-2010 by ElectricUniverse]

You can find more of some of the peer-reviewed research i have provided in the following link.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

And btw, do try to call on melatonin... the same melatonin who has used RealClimate, where Michael Mann, and Jones are directors of, and other research data which comes directly from the scientists who were part of the AGW scam, and were found out through the leaked emails...

Of course almost not one of the AGW fans believed us when we were showing the flaws, and lies these people were saying before the leaked emails came out...no matter how many tons of peer-review research data showed that these SCAMMERS were wrong, and they have known from the beginning what they have been doing...