This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Scientific Experiment By Top Laboratory Shows that Cosmic Rays Affect Cloud Formation, Which In Turn Affects Climate
Image Courtesy of CERN (Click for clearer image)
One of the world's most prestigious science labs - CERN - has found that cosmic rays affect cloud formation.
By way of background, the news magazine for the prestigious science journal Nature noted yesterday:
The number of cosmic rays that reach Earth depends on the Sun. When the Sun is emitting lots of radiation, its magnetic field shields the planet from cosmic rays. During periods of low solar activity, more cosmic rays reach Earth.
Scientists agree on these basic facts, but there is far less agreement on whether cosmic rays can have a large role in cloud formation and climate change. Since the late 1990s, some have suggested that when high solar activity lowers levels of cosmic rays, that in turn reduces cloud cover and warms the planet. Others say that there is no statistical evidence for such an effect.
The Director of CERN's cosmic ray experiment (Jasper Kirby) now says that experiments show that cosmic rays significantly enhance the production of the particles which initiate the cloud-formation process. Specifically, cosmic rays allow the minute amounts of sulfuric acid and ammonia in the atmosphere to stabilize, and then - when the clusters grow to 20 molecules or more - become the structure around which moisture can condense so that clouds begin to form.
A press release from CERN states:
The CLOUD results show that trace vapours assumed until now to account for aerosol formation in the lower atmosphere can explain only a tiny fraction of the observed atmospheric aerosol production. The results also show that ionisation from cosmic rays significantly enhances aerosol formation.
A new scientific paper published today by the CERN team in Nature summarizes the results. And here is a chart graphically conveying the results of the experiment:
While the CERN findings are very important, they are not the first experimental results to confirm the affect of cosmic rays on cloud formation.
A team of Danish scientists from Aarhus University and the National Space Institute published results in May showing the same basic mechanism:
[Danish scientists] have directly demonstrated in a new experiment that cosmic radiation can create small floating particles – so-called aerosols – in the atmosphere. By doing so, they substantiate the connection between the Sun’s magnetic activity and the Earth’s climate.
With the new results just published in the recognised journal Geophysical Research Letters, scientists have succeeded for the first time in directly observing that the electrically charged particles coming from space and hitting the atmosphere at high speed contribute to creating the aerosols that are the prerequisites for cloud formation.
The more cloud cover occurring around the world, the lower the global temperature – and vice versa when there are fewer clouds. The number of particles from space vary from year to year – partly controlled by solar activity. An understanding of the impact of cosmic particles – consisting of electrons, protons and other charged particles – on cloud formation and thereby the number of clouds, is therefore very important as regards climate models.
With the researchers’ new knowledge, it is now clear that here is a correlation between the Sun’s varying activity and the formation of aerosols in the Earth’s atmosphere.
***
In a climate chamber at Aarhus University, scientists have created conditions similar to the atmosphere at the height where low clouds are formed. By irradiating this artificial atmosphere with fast electrons from ASTRID – Denmark’s largest particle accelerator – they have also created conditions that resemble natural ones on this point.
Simply by comparing situations in the climate chamber with and without electron radiation, the researchers can directly see that increased radiation leads to more aerosols.
In the atmosphere, these aerosols grow into actual cloud nuclei in the course of hours or days, and water vapour concentrates on these, thus forming the small droplets the clouds consist of.
»
- advertisements -
Yeah, Flaky, word on the street has it Gore dick is longer than Inhofe so I guess he is better qualified to fuck us all.
But he acts like he is. And Krugman isnt a scientist either. He's just decorated.
A scientist is someone who discovers knowledge through trials and errors. Krugman just repeats the same errors and hopes that it will some day vindicate his point of view.
Al Gore says "the science is settled".
That is funny. Einstein's science is still open to question. Darwin's science is still open to question. Even Isaac Newton's science is open to question.
But Al Gore's science is not open to question.
That is not a statement from a scientist, that is the statement of a Pope.
Diogenes, Gores statements are those of someone who stands to make BILLIONS from the AGW scam. So of course his science is not open to question.
Diogenes, Gores statements are those of someone who stands to make BILLIONS from the AGW scam. So of course his science is not open to question.
Al Gore is not a scientist, and does not own any science. He can have any opinion he wants. So can you. Matters nothing.
The science on global warming and resulting climate change is in. It is moving but it is in the grasp, and it isn't going away. The science is backed by observations in nature. It makes predictions, and those predictions bear out. If anything the science in public discussion has been watered down somewhat for public consumption, the math and complexity stripped out so as not to frighten people. When you do that the message can actually become lost. But if you stick to the original work and grapple with the original message, the story is bleak indeed.
I have little hope for humanity as a result of my knowledge of the climate science. Some days, I have no hope at all. We've fucked up, big time, even if through no deliberate act of our own. And something bad is coming and I don't mean coming in a thousand years.
Deal with it.
Dear Fyrebird,
be of good cheer. The science is fraudulent and a hoax. Why not relax and enjoy life ? Nuclear war, overpopulation, crash of the fiat money system, epidemics, and other calamities will get you long before nasty CO2.
I have been looking for proof of global warming since the nineties. Every pro global warming book (or movie) I have ever seen is full of kids stories and hand waving, no actual science.
All the science (like the article mentioned above) is on the other side.
This makes me sad because I live in Canada.
Proof?
1 Get a balloon.
2 Blow into balloon until full.
3 Let go of balloon.
4 Balloon hits ground (as it is full of a heavier than air gas,CO2).
Proof,Carefull when spelunking.
Hang out at a respectable climate site, pro or con. GW is accepted, the bickering is over AGW.
GW is accepted, so speaks the Flakmeister. I guess some may not agree..
Global Cooling Is Coming -- and Beware the Big Chill, Scientist Warns
By Gene J. Koprowski
Published May 19, 2010
The hottest new trend in climate change may be global cooling, some researchers say.
Contrary to the commonly held scientific conclusion that the Earth is getting warmer, Dr. Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology at Western Washington University and author of more than 150 peer-reviewed papers, has unveiled evidence for his prediction that global cooling is coming soon.
“Rather than global warming at a rate of 1 F per decade, records of past natural cycles indicate there may be global cooling for the first few decades of the 21st century to about 2030,” said Easterbrook, speaking on a scientific panel discussion with other climatologists. This, he says, will likely be followed by “global warming from about 2030 to 2060,” which will then be followed by another cooling spell from 2060 to 2090.
Easterbrook spoke before a group of about 700 scientists and government officials at the fourth International Conference on Climate Change. The conference is presented annually in Chicago by the Heartland Institute, a conservative nonprofit think tank that actively questions the theory of man's role in global warming. Last year the Institute published Climate Change Reconsidered, a comprehensive reply to the United Nations' latest report on climate change.
"Global warming is over -- at least for a few decades," Easterbrook told conference attendees. "However, the bad news is that global cooling is even more harmful to humans than global warming, and a cause for even greater concern."
Easterbrook made several stunning claims about the effects of the coming cold. There will be twice as many people killed by extreme cold than by extreme heat, he predicted, and global food production will suffer because of the shorter, cooler growing seasons and bad weather during harvest seasons.
But not everyone is breaking out the overcoat and mittens.
“It's absurd to talk of global cooling when global heating is with us now and accelerating," said Dan Miller, managing director of the Roda Group, and an expert on climate change. "According to NASA, this past April was the hottest since temperature measurements began. And 2010 is on track to be the hottest year since temperature records began.
“North America was relatively cool last year, but the Earth as a whole was much warmer than average,” he said.
Data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency (NOAA) also points to a warming trend. The agency recently reported that global land and ocean surface temperatures for the first four months of 2010 were the warmest it had on record.
Easterbrook, one of 75 climate and policy experts presenting at the conference, uncovered sudden climate fluctuations of warming and cooling -- all of which occurred before 1945, when carbon dioxide levels began to rise sharply -- through geologic evidence.
Ten big climate changes occurred over the past 15,000 years, and another 60 smaller changes occurred in the past 5,000 years.
Based on new analysis of ice cores from Greenland to Antarctica, Easterbrook said global temperatures rose and fell from 9 to 15 degrees in a century or less -- swings that he said were "astonishing."
In addition, he explained that energy consumption will rise -- and consumer prices will rise along with it -- and political and social instability could result as the world population grows 50 percent in the next 40 years while food and energy demand soars.
Another presenter at the conference, James M. Taylor, an environmental policy expert and a fellow at the Heartland Institute, said that global cooling is already happening. Based on figures provided by the Rutgers University Global Snow Lab, he noted that snow records from the last 10 years exceeded the records set in the 1960s and 1970s.
A sign of global cooling? This past “decade set a record for largest average global snow extent,” Taylor said.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/05/19/global-cooling-scientists-warming/#ixzz1W5Tt52VtBeautiful... a link to Fox News about a conference sponsored by Heartland Institute.....
I was wrong... you are already a shill.
I guess the Russians are also deniers:
Russian Scientists Forecast Global Cooling | Print | Written by Ed Hiserodt Friday, 16 January 2009 14:20 http://www.gstatic.com/buzz/api/images/buzz-counter-long.gif); background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: transparent; display: inline-block; text-align: center; width: 36px; line-height: 18px; height: 18px; color: black; text-decoration: none; background-position: 0px 0px; background-repeat: no-repeat no-repeat; margin: 0px; border: 0px initial initial;" dir="ltr">0Even before the Bolsheviks took over the Kerensky government and formed the Soviet Union, the main propaganda arm of Soviet Communism was the newspaper Pravda. It continued as the voice of the Communist Party throughout the history of the Soviet Union, though some contend it remains that voice today. The irony is in the name "Pravda," which in Russian means "truth." Yet virtually every pronouncement in Pravda was the exact opposite of the objective truth.
The Soviet dictators considered truth to be whatever promoted the welfare of the Communist Party, and that was almost always a falsehood of some dimension.
More ironic is that the reporting today of Pravda on the subject of global warming has less bias than its Western counterparts such as the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Washington Post, AP — you name it in the U.S. media — when it comes to the subject of global warming. The major media in this country has hewed to the IPCC and Gore line that debate over anthropomorphic (human-caused) global warming (AGW), or the more fashionable phrase "climate change," is no longer debatable. It's over. Burning more fossil fuels will lead inevitably and shortly to the Earth overheating and to climate catastrophe.
As reported by Pravda, Russian scientists are ignoring the global-warming "consensus" that the American media claim exists. Russian scientists point out that the Earth has warm periods called "interglacials" of about 12,000 years in length between incomprehensibly long 100,000-year ice ages. And guess how long it has been since the last ice age. That's right — about 12,000 years. Yet our international bureaucrats build fear that the planet might warm — to the level of the Medieval Warm Period when Greenland was green and mankind flourished as it always has during warm periods.
So what causes the ice ages? And are we in any danger?
There are three astronomical cycles that are together known as the Milankovich cycles. They include the tilt of the Earth varying over 41,000 years, the shape of the Earth's orbit that changes over 100,000 years, and the "wobble" that slowly rotates over about 26,000 years. Just as in any multi-cyclic system, the variances evolve into harmonics. In this case, peaks and valleys of solar intensity occur — much greater than the normal variable irradiance of today's sun. In peaks we enjoy the interglacials. Most of the time we are in "glacials," where most life on our planet is pretty miserable, except for polar bears and radical environmentalists who prefer near-human extinction. (Actually polar bears prefer to hunt from the shore and not out into the ice.)
Regarding danger from the impending cold: No, we are likely not in danger, even if we are entering into an era similar to the Maunder Minimum — when the number of sunspots went from the tens of thousands to a mere handful and the Earth suffered through the Little Ice Age — as these changes take on the order of a hundred years to have truly significant effects. But we are in danger of political decisions allegedly intended to enforce global cooling.
How sad that Pravda not only researched the climate-change issue, but presents the facts on this subject, while Western media pander to the anti-capitalist environmentalist lobby that eschews science other than that proscribed by government grants.
Or the statement of someone that really needs legislation to make his investment in 'carbon' pay off.
This isn't news, the same scientists published a book about this 5 years ago.
And yes, it does mean Man Made Global Warming is bogus.
Of course AGW is bogus, and a fraud doomed to failure. Imagine making Al Gore, someone who 50% of the US population reflexively dislikes, the front man to promote the scam, backed by fraudulent science from the UN's IPCC, an organization that most americans also reflexively dislike. Only politicians and banksters could have come up with such evilly clever scheme, to cheat the public via selling hot air credits. The only science in AGW is $$.
Of course it's bogus, isn't that what they teach you at Business School.... and of course it's all political and you are the one to recognize it, what with a BA in polysci...
Funny thing about the conspiracy people here... Everything is a Bilderburg, TriLat or some conspiracy to rule the world and rob people of their freedom.. However, a conspiracy by the fossil fuel interests re: AGW does not exist...
Go figger....
From this, it is safe to conclude that your issues with AGW is purely ideological. From your demonstrated understanding of the issues, it would be logically impossible to be anything but an agnostic.
You are one step removed from being a shill, and given the capacity of an MBA to whore themselves for money, I'd say you are on your way to some measure of success.
Dear Flaky,
thank you for your kind words.
You are right, there is no conspiracy by fossil fuel interests. Many of them stand to make more money trading carbon derivatives than actually producing oil.
See what the former president of BP has to say:
BP chief backs carbon trading
BP's new chief executive Tony Hayward
12:01AM BST 05 Jun 2007
Comment
Hayward's first big speech as CEO underlines company's intention to go 'Beyond Petroleum', reports Tom Stevenson
BP's new chief executive, Tony Hayward, has used his first major speech since taking over from Lord Browne to confirm the oil giant's desire to move "Beyond Petroleum" and to face down opposition by the United States to a global system of carbon trading.
Speaking at a meeting of business and political leaders in Berlin before the G8 meeting this week in Heiligendamm, Mr Hayward threw BP's weight behind the system of mandatory emissions caps that is backed by all leading industrialised economies except the US.
"When it comes to the wider consideration of what we should collectively do about climate change, BP has a very firm point of view, which I hope you will share," he said. "We believe in markets". Mr Hayward said he accepted that reductions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions could also be achieved through taxation or regulation, but he believed that the cap-and-trade system introduced through the Kyoto agreement on global warming was the approach most likely to succeed.
He said: "The price mechanism, set by the interaction of supply and demand, is perhaps the most powerful economic force ever discovered by mankind. I believe that unlocking the ability of a competitive market to innovate and change behaviours will achieve the lowest cost solution to climate change."
Related ArticlesPutin turns up heat on BP in gas row
05 Jun 2007
Mr Hayward's comments are a high-profile contribution to an increasingly fractious debate about global warming after the call last week by President George W Bush for the world's 15 biggest polluters to reach a consensus over the next 18 months on a global emissions goal.
Although Mr Bush's apparent conversion to the belief that climate change is a serious threat was welcomed by Tony Blair, others see the American proposal as an attempt to hijack the G8's climate change debate this week.
Sceptics believe that the Bush administration's proposals will allow the US to turn its back on any proposals it does not like at the G8 summit. The environmental organisation Greenpeace said: "It is a classic spoiling tactic from the Americans."
The Bush administration has repeatedly opposed the introduction of mandatory emissions caps, saying they would damage the US economy. The integration of the US, still the world's biggest emitter of CO2, is seen as crucial to the success of any successor to the Kyoto round of cuts, which ends in 2012.
Mr Hayward drew a parallel between the development of a global carbon trading market and that of stock and commodity markets around the world.
"Nobody can doubt that financial markets are now global and that there is a global market in equities, commodities, futures, options, foreign exchange and bonds. Yet all these markets started off in individual countries, sometimes just in small localities, and grew up without the need for a single global currency" he said.
Europe currently leads the world in carbon trading, through its emissions trading scheme, but California has already expressed an interest in linking its forthcoming emissions trading system with the EU's.
Mr Hayward's speech was his first set-piece performance since taking the top job at BP. He became chief executive when his predecessor, Lord Browne, was forced to resign after admitting lying in court about how he met a former lover.
"agnostic"???
Are you sure you want to frame a 'scientific' issue thus?
Dear OldTrooper
Since when was AGW a scientific issue? It became a religious movement long ago, based on the notion that evil humans are destroying the earth via CO2 production, and redemption can only be realized by the payment of carbon credits to guys like Flakmeister, who, as part of the elect, hold the keys to your salvation from this dreaded hot hell.
Agnostic within science refers to the admission that you do not understand things enough to conclude one way or another.
For instance, I am agnostic about String Theory. I'll wait and see.
Thank you for clarifying. I'd hate to think it was intended to mean:
although I'd suggest that is what you invoke (unintentionally, I am sure) with such language.
I love the way you make up stupid shit and pretend it represents someone else's opinion... so you can easily tear it down.
Isn't that what they teach you at Liberal Arts Hand Waving School?
How do you like whoring yourself for a hypocrite billionaire who laughs at you from the hot tub of his palatial estate?
And by the way where is my damn check? I have been speaking out against the global warming scam for 10 years, you twats keep promising me money from the oil companies so where is my damn check?
The only ones getting checks from the oil companies are the global warming alarmists at the University of East Anglia and the politicians promoting cap and trade.
Diogenes,
just ask him about the 20 peer reviewed papers he claims to have authored. Also, ask him to produced his biography. You will be waiting for a long, long time.
Russki knows damn well what I am referring to....
We can take this matter up elsewhere if you so chose...
Ooooops, lest I forget, I been asking Flake to link to the 20 plus authored, peer reviewed papers that he claims in his CV. Still waiting....
Flakmeister
Vote up!
0
Vote down!
0M. Sc. in Theoretical Physics, Ph.D. Experimental Physics,
Post Doctroral Experience: U. of Chicago, U. Michigan, Visiting scientist U. of Manchester,
Staff Scientist at Brookhaven National Lab
Primary author of ~20 peer reviewed research papers....
Referee for the Physical Review
Internationally known: Invited seminars and colloquia in 7 countries, 3 continents.... ~20 of the top 100 research universities in US, places like Stanford, CalTech. Featured speaker at 2 international conferences....
Over 20 years experience basic research....
And while not related 5 years experience in structured finance on Wall St.
EOD
I been asking Flake to link to the 20 plus authored, peer reviewed papers that he claims in his CV. Still waiting....
And yours, russki?
Wassa Matta U?
Dear Urban Roman
I claim no professional qualifications to substantiate my views. I merely quote from alternate sources and point out flaws in his arguments.
Flakmeister claims to be a PHD scientist who has published over 20 peer reviewed papers, and uses his qualifications to justify his views. Flaky's arguments are based in part on an appeal to authority. Yet, when you ask him to prove his qualifications, he refuses or ignores the request. So, in effect, he is like AGW, all noise, no substance.
And why would anyone identify themselves in the presence of clearly twisted fucks like yourself...
As you said, my credentials are used to support my view. Your opinion of my view should be based on your credentials.
Let's say I was a BA in English and typed what I wrote, it would not change your responses one bit. So my supposedly claimed credentials should not matter a whit to you..
Go lick your masters fingers....
No, Flaky I do not blame you for hiding behind a computer screen. I imagine you to be a fat smelly geek with coke stains on his shirt, alternating between his online personalities and pulling his pud to the latest video on youporn.com
Seriously, Flaky, it is easy to cite non existent credentials to bolster AGW wrong views. Here is a suggestion, STFU about what you claim to be, and just stick to facts you can substantiate. No appeal to non existent authority or credentials, just a good old online slugfest.
And yah, I will lick my masters fingers, or I should say dominatrix. More fun than deflating pompous frauds like yourself.
Milankovitch Cycles bitcheeezz!!
I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that the Earth's multi-hundred thousand year history of ice ages and inter-glacial warming periods hasn't been suspended because of Al Gore or cow farts or Mother Gaia or enviro-guilt or even anthropogenic CO2 emmissions.
If we're delaying the next, inevitable ice age by a few decades or centuries....that's just fine with me.
You mean an inter-glacial warming period leads to higher temperatures? Wow, what an inconvenient concept.
Cosmic Ray Futures.... it could work....
Hey Sudden Debt... I really enjoy your wise cracks. But I used to enjoy your analysis and opinions even more, before the trolls discouraged you. Any chance of getting serious again?
Derivatives here on Earth only dwarf the real global economy by many times. You're right, let's open up a market for solar system wide derivatives!
Long black holes?
Even better, lets issue galactic wide derivatives, and rip off the aliens.....
Well, according to Nobel Laureat Paul Krugman, PhD. Economics, the ripped off aliens would likely not wish to stay ripped off.
This, obviously, would stimulate the economy. ;-)
- Ned
Yeah, but another Nobel Prize WINNER Obama Barack, PhD in Bullshitting, the ripped off aliens would likely accept change and a cheap speech.
I'm not so sure that TOTUS would be functioning in that EMC/EMP environment. Could lead to "missteps" and other fireworks.
Might be interesting if we were not reaching "Peak Popcorn". And, well, If I didn't have to be too close.
- Ned
"Might be interesting if we were not reaching "Peak Popcorn"."
LOL!!!
My personal favorite was all the hogwash about if the North Pole melted it would make the oceans rise.
Now I'm sitting here thinking, why are the Europeans not burning buildings down & lynching politicians after having been snookered into paying billions in "carbon taxes" for nothing but hot air ;-)
Yes, anyone who said if the North pole melted it would make the oceans rise is a fool... Try the Greenland Ice sheet though... different story.
"Try the Greenland Ice sheet though... different story."
LOL!!!...the UofC Sea Level Research Group already got busted trying to add 0.3 millimeters per year to actual sea levels while trying to account for land mass growth...because, like, no one is actually drowning...lol.
Someone remarked below so I'll ask you...what is the ideal or average temperature of the Earth? A simple question.
Not for us (humans) but the Earth.
From the moment algae splashed up on a rock. Or from whenever the long sought after missing link (yet to be found) "linked up" with our ancestors...I just need an average here Flak.
We would need to know this first, would we not?
Now, you know better than to ask such a rhetorical question....
Let's use a very simple example. I presume you own your own house. House insurance is about ~0.3% of the value of the property per annum. Why do you buy insurance?
Do you agree that if ocean levels rise ~2m, that our civilization has a problem? Approximately ~1 billion people would have to move and a large part of our cultural heritage would be underwater...Let's use the data from Antartica where there is evidence of a fast melt in the past, enough water to raise levels by ~5 m fairly quickly (100 years or so, maybe longer)... 5 m would result in a massive migration, wars, etc....
Now, we do know that the ice volumes in Greenland and Antartica are decreasing and have been for a number of years.
Back to the insurance, 0.3% of the world economy is a few hundred billion... seems to me that forgoing gratuitous dumping of C02 into the air at a cost of 0.3% is good risk management...It's called hedging your bets...
1 trillion dollars could buy enough solar panels at current prices to provide 50% replacement of the coal fired electrical capacity in the US. We seem to piss trillions away on other things quite readily with nothig to show for it.
I swear the lunatics are running the asylum....
"Now, you know better than to ask such a rhetorical question...."
There's nothing rhetorical about the question. You should stop trying to scare the kiddies Flak. I won't be contemplating or endorsing more centrally planned control over peoples lives now or in the future.
"1 trillion dollars could buy enough solar panels at current prices to provide 50% replacement of the coal fired electrical capacity in the US."
The world was much warmer in the past than now and alternately, much much colder. And it happened long before coal power plants or my beloved redneck pickup truck ;-)
You avoided the trillion dollar question so I will answer it for you. There is no "average temperature" because the world is not a static place. Its an ecosystem. Therefore it cannot be "modeled". Too many variables...it changes constantly. You also did not dispute more grant money shenangins with the data of land mass "rise". Again, this is not a static proposition here, so your position is doomed to fail.
Now, what are we going to do with all the rotting vegetation and past & living organisms emitting CO2? They are the vast majority of this "gas" that bedevils you so...will the authorities declare it illegal for algae blooms and trees to die?...lol.
I always thought you were a little better than this.... I'm disappointed...
By the way, look up the definition of a rhetorical question, you shall see that I my response was indeed appropriate.
Chew on these, if you are really interested
http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-increase-is-natural-not-human-caused.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect-advanced.htm
"I always thought you were a little better than this.... I'm disappointed..."
Oh God nooo, I'm crushed....condescending jerk off.
The earnest question again was...
"Someone remarked below so I'll ask you...what is the ideal or average temperature of the Earth? A simple question.
Not for us (humans) but the Earth."
Answer the question genius.
There is no ideal temp for the Earth... the Earth really doesn't care...
What is the ideal temp for humans? Somewhere in the range where the oceans don't freeze or boil....
You can narrow it down a bit more than that, I guess it's a matter of personal preference and where you live... :)
BTW, how do you define the Earths temperature? I'll presume you mean via the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.
You missed your calling...you should have been a CO2 standup comedian.
Now if I can get you to quit using a zero instead of an O, I believe you'd be even funnier and impress your dull friends even further ;-)
Sorry Flaky, but hedging your bets, by creating artificial scarity of energy to raise prices may work for you because your stomach will be full, feeding from the AGW trough. But, if petroleum cost more that $15O per barrel, as a result of implementing the AGW agenda, it is estimated that more than 500 million people would be slowly starved due to the loss of their purchasing power. Now, losing 500 million brown and black people may be acceptable to you, but it is not acceptable to me. Besides, what happens if a few of them live in your neighbourhood and see your fat overhanging belly? Think you will be safe from them? Think again.