Five Mistakes Online Job Hunters Make

1. Forgetting Manners

If you use Twitter or you write a blog, you should assume that hiring managers and recruiters will read your updates and your posts. A December 2009 study by Microsoft Corp. found that 79% of hiring managers and job recruiters review online information about job applicants before making a hiring decision. Of those, 70% said that they have rejected candidates based on information that they found online. Top reasons listed? Concerns about lifestyle, inappropriate comments, and unsuitable photos and videos.

"Everything is indexed and able to be searched," says Miriam Salpeter, an Atlanta-based job search and social media coach. "Even Facebook, which many people consider a more private network, can easily become a trap for job seekers who post things they would not want a prospective boss to see."

Don't be lulled into thinking your privacy settings are foolproof. "All it takes is one person sharing information you might not want shared, forwarding a post, or otherwise breaching a trust for the illusion of privacy in a closed network to be eliminated," says Ms. Salpeter, who recommends not posting anything illegal (even if it's a joke), criticism of a boss, coworker or client, information about an interviewer, or anything sexual or discriminatory. "Assume your future boss is reading everything you share online," she says.

2. Overkill

Blanketing social media networks with half-done profiles accomplishes nothing except to annoy the exact people you want to impress: prospective employees trying to find out more about on you.

One online profile done well is far more effective than several unpolished and incomplete ones, says Sree Sreenivasan, dean of students at Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism. He made the decision early on to limit himself to three social-networking sites: Facebook, LinkedIn and Twitter. "There is just not enough time," he says. "Pick two or three, then cultivate a presence there."

Many people make the mistake of joining LinkedIn and other social media sites and then just letting their profiles sit publicly unfinished, says Krista Canfield, a LinkedIn spokesperson. "Just signing up for an account simply isn't enough," she says. "At a bare minimum, make sure you're connected to at least 35 people and make sure your profile is 100 percent complete. Members with complete profiles are 40 times more likely to receive opportunities through LinkedIn."

LinkedIn, Facebook, and Twitter are the three most popular social networking sites for human resources managers to use for recruiting, according to a survey released last month by JobVite, a maker of recruiting software.

3. Not Getting the Word Out

When accounting firm Dixon Hughes recently had an opening for a business development executive, Emily Bennington, the company's director of marketing and development, posted a link to the opportunity on her Facebook page. "I immediately got private emails from a host of people in my network, none of whom I knew were in the market for a new job," she says. " I understand that there are privacy concerns when it comes to job hunting, but if no one knows you're looking, that's a problem, too."

Changing this can be as simple as updating your status on LinkedIn and other social networking sites to let people know that you are open to new positions. If you're currently employed and don't want your boss to find out that you're looking, you'll need to be more subtle. One way to do this is to give prospective employers a sense of how you might fit in, says Dan Schawbel, author of "Me 2.0" and founder of Millennial Branding. "I recommend a positioning, or personal brand statement, that depicts who you are, what you do, and what audience you serve, so that people get a feeling for how you can benefit their company."

4. Quantity Over Quality

Choose connections wisely; only add people you actually know or with whom you've done business. Whether it's on LinkedIn, Facebook or any other networking site, "it's much more of a quality game than a quantity game," says Ms. Canfield. A recruiter may choose to contact one of your connections to ask about you; make sure that person is someone you know and trust.

And there's really no excuse for sending an automated, generic introduction, says Ms. Canfield. "Taking the extra five to 10 seconds to write a line or two about how you know the other person and why'd you'd like to connect to them can make the difference between them accepting or declining your connection request," she says. "It also doesn't hurt to mention that you're more than willing to help them or introduce them to other people in your network."

5. Online Exclusivity

Early last year, Washington's Tacoma Public Utilities posted a water meter reader position on its website. The response? More than 1,600 people applied for the $17.76 an hour position.

With the larger number of people currently unemployed (and under-employed), many employers are being inundated with huge numbers of applications for any positions they post. In order to limit the applicant pool, some have stopped posting positions on their websites and job boards, says Tim Schoonover, chairman of career consulting firm OI Partners.

Scouring the Web for a position and doing nothing else is rarely the best way to go. "When job-seekers choose to search for jobs exclusively online -- rather than also include in-person networking -- they may be missing out on 'hidden' opportunities," says Mr. Schoonover. "Higher-level jobs are not posted as often as lower-level jobs online. In-person networking may be needed to uncover these higher-level positions, which may be filled by executive recruiters."

Write to Elizabeth Garone at cjeditor@dowjones.com

Read More!

Why NOT you?

So why was someone else hired and you weren't? These five reasons may shed some light on the situation.

1. You're overqualified
It's not just a cliche--you really can be overqualified for a position. It's especially true in a tight economy. A candidate that is more qualified would require a higher salary and benefits package for a competitive offer and for long-term retention. If someone else interviewed who fit the qualifications but didn't overly exceed them, it might be in the company's best interest to hire him and save the cash.

2. You don't know the right people
You may be great on paper, and you may interview really well--but if another candidate is the employer's tennis instructor's daughter, you might be out of luck. This isn't a reason you can't really avoid. Your best bet is to make sure you follow up with a genuinely appreciative phone call or note. Leaving a positive impression will keep you in that employer's mind if other opportunities arise.

3. You hit it off, just not professionally
Having a good rapport with your interviewer is great--however, if you bonded over your love of tequila shooters, you may have made a friend and not an employer. In a less extreme example, you may be very easy to interview but still not right for the position. While being friendly and personable are two very important traits, they won't guarantee you the job.

4. You came with conditions
You may be a good fit for the job, but if you come with strings attached, you may not get hired. If you can't see yourself sticking to the position long-term, or if prior commitments mean you'll have to work odd hours, it could take you out of the running. If possible, come in condition-free or at least willing to compromise. However, if you have a restriction that is non-negotiable, it's only fair to both of you to bring it up in the interview--there's no sense in wasting time if the situation won't work out.

5. An unpredictable reason
Often, the reason is one you may never know. You may get an unrelated job simply for having a shared interest with the interviewer, or perhaps because you have a skill the employer hopes to learn from you. It may be as simple as two or more candidates being equally qualified, and you lost the coin toss.

It may also be a simple reason like an off-the-cuff comment you probably shouldn't have made, or a more blatant reason like answering your cell phone during an interview (never a good move, no matter how friendly you are with the interviewer!). Be honest with yourself about the interview process--if you can think of a slip up, learn from your mistake and keep it in mind for your next interview.

The bottom line
Whatever the reason, do your best to learn from it and apply it to your next interview. Don't be afraid to politely follow up and inquire about why you weren't right for the position--just make sure you don't come off as sulking. Be professional, and thank them for helping you to understand what you did wrong, or where you can improve. After all, if you made it to the interview stage once, you're likely to do it again.

Read More!

Help Prevent a Catastrophic War for America and the World!

Help Prevent a Catastrophic War for America and the World!

By David Duke

The Zionists are at it again. The Jewish extremists in the American media and government told us the colossal lie that Iraq had “weapons of mass destruction” and that Saddam posed a threat to the United States. In truth, he had ten years earlier destroyed such weapons and had never hurt a single American.(unlike Israel)

In fact, at America’s urging, Saddam Hussein went to war against Iran. He was our ally. But, Israel considered him a dangerous enemy and he supported the Palestinians in their fight for freedom. So, the Jewish-dominated media and political establishment filled us with lies about Iraq and made him out to be an enemy of America.

Of course, there were no weapons of mass destruction. Anyone with intelligence could discern that before the war. In the months before the war I showed how after a U.S. sponsored team searched for months and found no weapons, that the whole story was nothing but a big lie to justify war for Israel. It turned out I was right. A special American task force costing $1 billion US dollars found nothing, and found proof that Iraq had destroyed its weapons years earlier.

We went to war for a lie. Thousands of our brave men were killed for this lie. Hundreds of thousands have been harmed for this lie. In truth, America is far more hated and in far more danger from terrorists because of this lie that hundreds of millions of people around the world saw as totally unjust, a war that killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi men, women and children in the name of “freedom.” And it will cost America trillions of dollars at time when many Americans are economically suffering.

And now the Zionists Power Matrix is at it again, telling us that Iran has a nuclear weapons program, even after our own intelligence agency issued a report saying that there is no evidence that Iran has a nuclear weapons program. Israel is the nation that has violated dozens of UN sanctions. Israel is the nation that won’t allow weapons inspections. Israel is the nation that won’t sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and that has a vast horde of chemical, biological, conventional and nuclear weapons. Israel is the nation that has committed terrorism against America in the Lavon Affair and the Attack on the Liberty…who has spied on us in the Pollard Case. Israel is nation that has killed tens of thousands of civilians, invaded its neighbors repeatedly, has tortured hundreds of thousands in its prisons, and has brutally stolen the land – and now brutally occupies Palestinian land.

In the height of Chutzpah, Israel does this horrendous evil and then demands sanctions against Iran, a nation that has not invaded its neighbors, has not stolen the land of hundreds of thousands of people, nor murdered and bombed women and children in beautiful cities like Beirut and even in Bethlehem, the birthplace of Jesus. And Obama and Clinton, plus the Jewish controlled media scream to the world of the evil of Iran all while Israel maintains a brutal occupation of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians, routinely kills Palestinians children, and steals their homes and lands!

Every American has heard, a thousand times, that Iran’s President, Ahmadinejad, threatens to “Wipe Israel off the map.” That quote is an outright lie repeated every day by the media. I was present at an international conference in Tehran when he supposedly said this. He only said that he believed the Zionist regime will fall just as the communist regime fell in Russia. His speech was boring in that he repeated, probably twenty times, the need for peace in the region and the fact that all people, Christians, Muslims and Jews must be accorded their human rights and dignity. But the media, just as before the Iraq War, didn’t let the American people, and few of the world’s people, know the truth of his statements. You didn’t hear any of his words for peace and human decency, just the lie that he would somehow “wipe Israel off the map!”

One of the best ways we can help prevent a catastrophic war with Iran is to distribute and spread my new video: No War for Israel in Iran. I spent a hundred hours of my time and effort in making this video for you, and for my fellow Americans, free of any charge. I hope you will spend a few short hours in helping the world to see this video which has the power to wake people up to the evil of this planned Zionist war.

Please be sure to watch this video, “favorite” it, rate it, and comment on it — as that helps the video rise in ratings and thus be seen by more people. Send the link to everyone on your email contact list, talk about the video in chat rooms and in Internet forums, and tell your friends, family and neighbors about this powerful video.

Thank you very much for your dedication and your unselfish efforts to help America and the world avoid what would be a catastrophic war!

The truth is that every day we come closer to this catastrophic war. We all face incredible loss if this war goes ahead. Let’s stand together to prevent it!

Dr. David Duke

Mandeville, La

Read More!

New Hiring!

1. Nippon Oil, Malaysia.

- seeking Drilling Engineer. Onshore drilling in Miri.

2. Qserv, Malaysia

- Coiled tubing operator, Slickline operator.

Read More!

Life's good? Life's sucks?

Read More!

This is life..

Read More!

Lesson Learnt

Read More!

HR : Biased?Racist?Discrimination?

Anyone ever experienced this situation? Lets share!..What company..whose that people..how..lets kick their ass back! Read More!

URGENT HIRING

Position : Coiled Tubing Operator

JOB DESCRIPTION

Reporting to the Coiled Tubing Supervisor, the Coiled Tubing Operator is responsible for operating, driving and maintaining coil tubing equipment in base and location. Performs assembly, checking, and loading necessary equipment required for scheduled jobs; including operations and maintenance of equipment and facility. Works with CT crew on location to assemble and run the CT and Well Control equipments.

RESPONSIBILITIES

· Assemble and prepare equipment for installation and service, perform pre- and post- job coiled tubing equipment inspections, and take responsibility for safe crane and rigging operations during the delivery of services.

· Operate auxiliary equipment and pump unit while maintaining excellent quality control and in accordance with company policies and procedures. Recognizes equipment malfunctions, and correct them as necessary or report them to Supervisor. Constantly develop a working knowledge of the major components of coiled tubing, well control equipment.

· Monitor well control parameters and calculations before and during job applications, and perform preventative maintenance on all coil tubing equipment.

REQUIREMENTS

· 3+ years or related oilfield service experience.

· Candidates with an experience in Matrix Acidizing, Nitrogen Lift, Cementing and other major CT jobs are preferred.

· Willing to work internationally

ONLY SHORT-LISTED CANDIDATES WILL BE CONTACTED. Interested applicants are invited to send application with full resume indicating qualifications and experience, expected salary and recent photo to: Jihan.Wan@qserv.com

Read More!

Oil&Gas Companies directory.

Try to check on this website. Some of the HR e-mail posted here! Good luck

http://www.mogsc.org.my/directory.php

Read More!

New Hiring! 2010

Experienced / Graduate Engineers, Coiled Tubing/Pump/Slickline Operators.

1. AkerQServ

2. Halliburton

3. Weatherford

4. Schlumberger

Bidding on progress for Nippon Oil tender. Just send your resume as they are looking for technicals.

HSE position.

1. Synergy Oil & Gas Engineering.

email to: razmahwata.razalli@synergykl.com.my

Also look forward to apply to:

1. Bakerhughes , Malaysia

2. Orogenic, Malaysia

Read More!

The IMPOSSIBLE: Just Doing It

Read More!

Can you STOP the job?

Read More!

Why Bury Carbon?

Global Warming and the Role of CO2

In a nutshell, the facts are as follows:

• Global mean temperatures (figure 1) have risen anomalously over the last century, and global mean temperature is a key determinant of climate change.
• Since the year 1750, the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide (figure 2) and other greenhouse gases has risen by an amount unprecedented in the last several million years.
• Anthropogenic CO², generated by burning fossil fuels (figure 3) and deforestation, fully accounts for the increase in atmospheric and oceanic carbon dioxide in recent times.
• There is a well established physical mechanism, the greenhouse effect, linking rising concentrations of atmospheric CO² with rising temperatures. The observed elevated levels of CO² account quantitatively for recent global temperature rise.

All other mechanisms which might account for the rise in global mean temperatures are either speculative or, where they are well established, insufficient to account for the measured temperature increase. Moreover, even if these alternative mechanisms do contribute to rising temperatures, their contribution would not eliminate the greenhouse warming of CO² which will continue to contribute in any case. The only tenable argument arises if there are other mechanisms which completely swamp the effect of CO² and render it pointless to limit the CO² levels. This does not appear to be the case.

Figure 1: Hadley Centre data showing annual global land-surface temperatures (grey bars), spatially averaged and expressed as deviations from the mean of the temperatures between 1961 and 1990. The smooth curves show decadal moving averages estimated by a variety of independent teams.

Figure 2 : Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations, measured in parts per million (ppm), for the last millennium, using ice core data up to 1977 and the direct CO2 measurements (in blue) made in Hawaii by Keeling from 1958 onwards

Figure 3: Anthropogenic CO2 emissions, measured in millions of metric tons of carbon per year.

The Earth's Greenhouse Effect
At the core of the greenhouse mechanism is the behaviour of certain molecules which can absorb, and subsequently re-radiate, infrared radiation. Water molecules have this property and are accompanied in the earth's atmosphere by carbon dioxide (CO₂), methane (CH₄), and small traces of other gases. Most of the sun's radiation comprises photons with frequencies above the infrared which are not strongly susceptible to absorption by the greenhouse gasses (GHGs). These higher energy photons pass through the atmosphere, largely unimpeded by molecular absorption, and warm the earth below. However, by virtue of its being much cooler than the sun, the earth radiates much of its heat energy in the infrared. (The different spectra of incoming and outgoing radiation are shown in figure 4.)

Fig 4: The spectrum of incoming solar radiation is shown in red, and the outgoing thermal radiation of the earth is shown in blue. The absorption bands of the atmosphere are shown below the wavelengths.

Since most of the energy flux leaving the earth's surface consists of infrared photons which are readily absorbed and re-radiated by the GHGs in the atmosphere, individual infrared photons do not propagate far in the lower atmosphere. They have a mean free path which is much shorter than the effective (infrared) optical thickness of the atmosphere. The overall effect of this trapping of infrared is that the lower atmosphere is warmed, raising the total flux of heat energy arriving at the earth's surface (referred to as "radiative forcing") by about 1.7 Wm-2. Indeed, even before industrial emissions of CO₂,the naturally occurring GHGs in the atmosphere (largely water and CO₂) had already caused the earth to warm above a frigid -18oC, which would be its equilibrium temperature in the absence of all greenhouse gases.

Global Mean Temperature Projections
Furthermore, the global warming observed in recent decades is consistent with the projections of detailed numerical climate models. Figure 5 shows estimates of recent global mean temperature with and without the influence of anthropogenic forcing, compared to the data themselves. Clearly this ensemble of models broadly reflects the observed global warming when both natural and anthropogenic forcing is included, but fails to capture this trend when anthropogenic forcing is excluded.

Figure 5: Numerical climate model predictions for mean global temperature, both with the influence of anthropogenic forcing (shown in orange), and without (shown in blue). Actual temperatures are shown in black and the major volcanic eruptions are marked.

Could it be something else?
The question that remains is: could the observed changes, particularly in global mean temperatures, be caused by something other than carbon dioxide? Various mechanisms have been proposed:

Changes in Solar Output
There has been a flurry of speculation in recent years that, while not denying the increase in global mean temperature, the source of global warming is in fact an increase in the output of the sun, which varies with the sunspot cycle and over which we have no control. The tentative basis for this suggestion is that the sunspot activity of the sun has increased significantly since the Maunder Minimum of the second half of the 17^th century when, during a period of 30 years, only about 50 sunspots were observed¹. This compares to a value of about 30,000 for the sum of daily sunspot numbers accumulated over a more representative 30-year period. The Maunder Minimum coincided with the coldest part of the little ice age and this association broadly gives rise to the suggestion that it is the sun, and not CO₂, which caused the recent warming.

However the data do not support this contention. The increase in total solar irradiance since the Maunder Minimum (compared to contemporary minima) is about 0.04%, which amounts to a radiative forcing of about 0.125 Wm^-2, while the increased radiative forcing since the beginning of the industrial era in 1750 is about 0.15Wm^-2. Compared to the radiative forcing of 1.7Wm^-2 due to CO₂, we can see that the contribution of the variation in solar output to global warming is an order of magnitude lower than that of anthropogenic CO₂. So, while there is evidence for a small increase in solar forcing since the 17th century, the magnitude of this forcing is small compared to that of anthropogenic CO₂ and the overall increase in solar forcing is not sufficient to account for recent warming (by a large margin).

Galactic Cosmic Rays Modulated by Solar Activity
Various mechanisms have been proposed in which the modulation of cosmic rays by variations in solar activity influence climate² in some way. However, because of the complex chain of interactions linking variation in the flux of cosmic rays to physical phenomena in the atmosphere, quantitative estimates of the influence of cosmic rays on climate have not been made. A variety of associations between solar cycles and cloud cover have nonetheless been claimed³ although these remain highly controversial. An empirical association between variation in cloud cover and solar activity between 1984 and 1990 continues to be disputed because of uncertainties about the decadal signal itself, the ambiguous phase with solar activity and its separate dependence for low, middle and high clouds. In particular, there is no correlation to global cloud cover after 1994 ^{4 5}without the application of de-trending methods which are subject to question⁶. Furthermore, cloud cover time-series from ship synoptic reports for the multi-decade period 1952 to 1997 do not show any correlation with cosmic ray flux⁷. While there is a small but statistically significant positive correlation⁸ between UK cloud cover and galactic cosmic ray flux for the period 1951 to 2000, cloud cover over the USA for the period 1900 to 1987 exhibits a negative correlation with the cosmic ray flux⁹.

Because of the uncertainty in the mechanisms, it has also been suggested that it may not be just modulation of cosmic rays which plays a role, but rather the direct variation in sea surface temperature with solar irradiance, and also internal variability caused by El Nino¹⁰.

The overall conclusion must be that this phenomenon is very poorly understood. Although it might prove that cosmic rays modulated by the sun do have an influence on cloud cover, and therefore on climate, the evidence is currently tenuous.

The Pacific Decadal Oscillation
A suggestion with some currency is that oscillations in ocean temperature account for recent warming and, furthermore, that these will now start to cool and global warming will be over. The suggestion is based on the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), a phenomenon in which regions of the Pacific Ocean alternately warm and cool with a period of 20 to 30 years. Figure 6 shows the ocean surface temperature distribution during what are termed the 'warm phase' and the 'cool phase' of the PDO.

Figure 6: Ocean surface temperature distribution during what are termed the 'warm phase' and the 'cool phase' of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.

I suspect that, to some degree, it is this warm phase/cool phase terminology that has led some to assert that, since we are now going into a cool phase, the Pacific will cool down. This is not the case at all. The term "warm phase" just means that the equatorial Pacific is in the warm part of its cycle. It is interesting to consider the mean sea surface temperatures (SST) in the North Pacific throughout the warm/cool phases of the PDO. They reveal (figure 7 ) that global mean sea surface temperatures exhibit a rising trend regardless of the phase of the PDO.

Figure7: Global mean sea surface annual temperature data for the entire globe (a), and the two hemispheres (c) and (d), shown by the red bars superimposed with the decadal variation, estimated by a variety of teams. (The variation between estimates depends on details of how the raw data are treated).

Nature's Changing Course
It is appealing, of course, to believe that damaging climate change has nothing to do with our activities. If this were the case, then we could abrogate any responsibility to act. This has lead to claims either that recent climate change just reflects the vagaries of nature and has nothing to do with our emissions, or that climate change is natural and our having caused it is of no real consequence The inherent conclusion being that humanity should just adapt to climate change.

The first claim does not stand up. The evidence that anthropogenic emissions play a key role in climate change is substantial. Indeed, anthropogenic emissions have lead to changes of such magnitude and rapidity that known natural mechanisms cannot readily account for them.

As for the second claim, humanity adapting to climate change will come at a great financial and human cost. We have established much of the infrastructure of civilization in regions which are vulnerable to climate change¹¹. This applies to agriculture and water resources as well as to the concentration of extensive development along coastlines.

Figure 8: The coastline of southern/eastern USA showing the potential for inundation by sea level rises of 1.5m (red) and 3m (blue).

The current rate of sea level rise, as measured by the TOPEX/Poseidon satellite, is 3.1mm/year ±0.7mm/year¹² and current projections suggest the possibility of sea level rise of a meter by 2100, depending on the dynamics of the Greenland Ice Sheet. Figure 8 shows the coastline of the southern/eastern USA and the potential for inundation by sea level rise, with the impact of sea level rises of 1.5m and 3m. The value of the infrastructure lying within 1.5 meters of current sea level already runs into trillions of dollars. If global warming continues to accelerate the melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet, as seems likely if we do not act to limit emissions, sea level rises of several meters could occur over a few centuries.

While the cost of mitigating climate change is estimated at a few percent of world GDP, the cost of adaptating to its consequences is estimated to be closer to 20%¹³ . Furthermore, it has to be acknowledged that the longer we leave any real attempt to mitigate, the more we will be forced to adapt. It seems unlikely that we can entirely mitigate the effects of emissions to date. Some combination of mitigation and adaptation is therefore now inevitable. It still remains the case, however, that the more we can mitigate, the lower the overall cost of dealing with future climate change.

Temperature Rise Causes Carbon Dioxide Emissions (rather than the other way round)
The most recent analysis of the striking correlation between global temperatures and atmospheric concentrations of CO₂ in the paleoclimate record indicates that temperature rise precedes the rise in carbon dioxide by several centuries¹⁴. This has been misinterpreted by some to demonstrate that CO₂ is a mere consequence of temperature rise and not a cause. However, as we have discussed, the presence of CO₂ and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will inevitably lead to warming. What we are seeing in the paleoclimate is a feedback mechanism. Initial warming induced by variation of the earth's orbit around the sun, does indeed give rise to an increase in the concentration of CO₂, through mechanisms which probably include the reduced solubility of CO₂ in the ocean surface and variation in the biological carbon cycle. The extra CO₂, in turn, contributes to further warming by the greenhouse effect. Without this positive feedback, the variation in temperature induced by the earth's orbital variation alone would be insufficient to account for the transition from glacial to interglacial conditions.

In the case of recent anthropogenic warming, there is no need of a mechanism to initially raise temperatures to release CO₂. We create the CO₂ directly by burning fossil fuels. Moreover, we generate carbon dioxide in such large quantities that it can induce substantial warming, much more rapidly than in most natural episodes in the earth's past.

Conclusions
The case for reducing CO₂ emissions is rational. The fact of a significant rise in mean global temperature over the last century is incontrovertible, as is the fact of a 36% rise in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere since the beginning of the industrial revolution. Moreover, the rise since th₂en, in the levels of CO₂ found in the ocean and in the atmosphere, is commensurate with the volume of CO that has been emitted by human activity and is very largely accounted for by the emissions associated with burning fossil fuels.

Complementing these facts is the known physics of the greenhouse effect. Long before anyone was worrying about modern climate change, it had been established that traces of greenhouse gases in the earth's atmosphere caused substantial warming. Indeed this mechanism accounted for the fact that humans found themselves on a planet warm enough to support their existence, rather than in the frigid environment that would have prevailed without the greenhouse effect.

The facts and the physics sit comfortably together as a consistent description which adequately accounts for the observed global warming. None of the other mechanisms proposed to explain global warming, be they variations in solar irradiance, solar modulation of cosmic rays, or uncontrollable natural events, exhibit anything like the quantitative consistency exhibited by the anthropogenic CO₂mechanism described here. Even where the descriptions of these other mechanisms are quantitative, as is the case with solar irradiance, the effects prove small when compared to greenhouse warming, which already comes in at the correct magnitude to fit the facts.

References

1. Eddy, J., Science 192 4245 18th June 1976
2. Gray et al. 2005 Review of the influences of Solar Changes on Earth's Climate Hadley Centre Technical Note No. 62
3. Marsh et al. (2000) Phys. Rev. Lett.,85,5004-5007
4. Kristjansson et al. 2000 J. Geophys. Res.,105(D9) 11851-11863
5. Sun and Bradley 2002 J. Geophys. Res.,107(D14)
6. Usoskin et al. 2004: Geophys. Res. Lett.,31, L16109
7. IPCC AR4 2007
8. Harrison et al. 2006 Proc.Roy Soc. London Ser. A, 462,1221-1233
9. Udelhofen et al. 2001 Geophys. Res. Lett. 28(13), 2617 -2620
10. Kernthaler et al. 1999 Geophys. Res. Lett.,26(7), 863-866
11. Sheppard and Socolow 2007 : Amer.Inst.Chem.Eng.,53(12) 3022-3028
12. Cazenave and Nerem 2004 Rev. Geophys., 42(3)
13. Stern Review of the Economics of Climate Change - HM Treasury
14. http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/stern_review_report.htm
15. Mudelsee 2001 Quat.Sci.Rev.,20, 583-589

Read More!