What Do We Think About Climate Change

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by Brent Swain

In Northern Manitoba, the ice roads they use to deliver their supplies , which are normally useable for three months a year have only been useable for six weeks this year, and many northern communities are afraid of running outiof supplies.
What truly amazed me was their fear of runing out of :"Home heating oil! Duhhh!! They are surounded by boreal forests, which they have used for heating for ten thousand years, and now they are afraid of runing out of heat? After ten thousand years of independence from the outside world, it's disgusting how dependent they have become on the outside world, and the status quo. You couldn't ask for a better example of how we have lost our ability to adjust to climate change.

If the lack of heating oil turns into a long-term problem, I'm sure they'll go back to burning wood. But frankly, oil heating works better and it isn't surprising they turned to it. Why are you disgusted they don't have wood stoves set up and stacks of cut firewood behind the house, when they've probably been using oil for years?

I don't see that as any evidence of a lack of ability to adjust. Sounds to me like they did adjust to the modern world--and I'm sure they'll adjust again if necessary.

[fasteddy106]

Please list the names of the tens of thousands of scientists who support AGW.

[fasteddy106]

Originally Posted by masrapido

fastedy, attack the argument, not the person. Or is that below your high moral standards? Your petition link is a crap but no one is calling you names just because someone disagrees with it. In fact australian scientific and research agency CSIRO disagrees completely.

But no one is calling you names for presenting that point of view.

Considering your measured and reasoned responses in the past I'm not quite sure you should be the one writing the above response. Further, considering the insults and ridicule that Boston throws around in here, my post was almost polite and diplomatic.

[fasteddy106]

I still haven't seen anyone post any fraudulent names they discovered on the Petition Project.

[Boston]

Hi Troy
what I notice in the mountain towns around here is that some folks are actually reverting to wood stoves again, that and pellet stoves. They are carbon neutral and a far better option than oil anyway. The Majority of the cost of wood or pellets is in labor so one is providing work as well when using these kinda of fuels. We all know who benefits from oil production and frankly they are not the kind of people who I would like to continue doing business with one second longer than absolutely necessary.
Another reason I would like to fit a steam engine into the build at some point with the diesel as a back up.

Im sure the mountain folks up in Manitoba will have there old stoves kicking around somewhere and you are right they will just convert right back to it eventually

thing is look at the damage caused by the hype and glitter the oil and gas industry leaves in its wake after all is said and done and we are all back to using sustainable forms of energy except this time a bit more modern like solar and geothermal tidal bla bla bla. Why is it these few companies that have made there Trillions by foisting there pollution and temporary energy source off on the world should not be held responsible for cleaning up there waste.
Seems completely fair to me that if someone produces a product the manufacturing and use of which also produces toxic waste that that person is responsible to appropriately dispose of that waste.

Eventually the oil and gas industry will be held to the same standards as everyone else but as long as we remain paralyzed by the there lobbyist groups and politicians it is we who will continue footing the bill for there profits

[Guillermo]

CLIMATE CHANGE AND ITS CAUSES
A DISCUSSION ABOUT SOME KEY ISSUES
by Nicola Scafetta.
March 2010.

"On February 26, 2009 I was invited by the Environmental Protection Agency Office of the Science Advisor (OSA) and National Center for Environmental Economics (NCEE) to present a talk about my research on climate change. I thought that the best way to address this issue was to present an overview of all topics involved about the issue and their interconnections.

So, I prepared a kind of holistic presentation with the title ”Climate Change and Its Causes, A Discussion about Some Key Issues”. Then, a colleague from Italy who watched my EPA presentation suggested me to write a paper in Italian and submit it to an Italian science journal which was recently published.

I realized that it could be done more, so I thought that actually writing a short booklet summarizing all major topics and possible future perspectives could be useful for the general public. So, this work I am presenting here and which is supposed to be read by the large interested public came out. It contains a translation into English of my Italian paper plus numerous notes and appendixes covering also the most recent results that have transformed the original paper in a comprehensive booklet.

This booklet covers more or less all topics I believe to be important for understanding the debate on climate change. Herein, I argue why the anthropogenic theory proposed by the IPCC should be questioned.

Finally, a suggestion for those who would like to print it, the best way is to use the “booklet option” of the printers and staple it in the middle."


http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/im...ange_cause.pdf

Abstract
This article discusses the limits of the Anthropogenic Global Warming Theory advocated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. A phenomenological theory of climate change based on the physical properties of the data themselves is proposed. At least 60% of the warming of the Earth observed since 1970 appears to be induced by natural cycles which are present in the solar system. A climatic stabilization or cooling until 2030-2040 is forecast by the phenomenological model.

This work covers most topics presented by Scafetta at a seminar at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, DC USA, February 26, 2009. The presentation plus a video of the seminar can be found here:
http://yosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/eed.n...05982A1\#video


Here is the table of contents, there’s something in this report for everyone:

Climate Change and Its Causes: A Discussion About Some Key Issues

Introduction … 4

The IPCC’s pro-anthropogenic warming bias … 6

The climate sensitivity uncertainty to CO2 increase … 8

The climatic meaning of Mann’s Hockey Stick temperature graph … 10

The climatic meaning of recent paleoclimatic temperature reconstructions … 12

The phenomenological solar signature since 1600 … 14

The ACRIM vs. PMOD satellite total solar irradiance controversy … 16

Problems with the global surface temperature record … 18

A large 60 year cycle in the temperature record … 19

Astronomical origin of the climate oscillations … 22

Conclusion … 26

Bibliography … 27

Appendix…29-54

A: The IPCC’s anthropogenic global warming theory … 29

B: Chemical vs. Ice-Core CO2 atmospheric concentration estimates … 30

C: Milky Way’s spiral arms, Cosmic Rays and the Phanerozoic temperature cycles … 31

D: The Holocene cooling trend and the millennial-scale temperature cycles … 32

E: The last 1000 years of global temperature, solar and ice cover data … 33

F: The solar dynamics fits 5000 years of human history … 34

G: The Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age – A global phenomenon … 35

H: Compatibility between the AGWT climate models and the Hockey Stick … 36

I: The 11-year solar cycle in the global surface temperature record … 37

J: The climate models underestimate the 11-year solar cycle signature … 38

K: The ACRIM-PMOD total solar irradiance satellite composite controversy … 39

L: Willson and Hoyt’s statements about the ACRIM and Nimbus7 TSI published data .. 40

M: Cosmic ray flux, solar activity and low cloud cover positive feedback … 41

N: Possible mechanisms linking cosmic ray flux and cloud cover formation … 42

O: A warming bias in the surface temperature records? … 43

P: A underestimated Urban Heat Island effect? … 44

Q: A 60 year cycle in multisecular climate records … 45

R: A 60 year cycle in solar, geological, climate and fishery records … 46

S: The 11-year solar cycle and the V-E-J planet alignment … 47

T: The 60 and 20 year cycles in the wobbling of the Sun around the CMSS … 48

U: The 60 and 20 year cycles in global surface temperature and in the CMSS … 49

V: A 60 year cycle in multisecular solar records … 50

W: The bi-secular solar cycle: Is a 2010-2050 little ice age imminent? … 51

X: Temperature records do not correlate to CO2 records … 52

Y: The CO2 fingerprint: Climate model predictions and observations disagree … 53

Z: The 2007 IPCC climate model projections. Can we trust them? … 54

[rasorinc]

GUILLERMO, thank you very much for your efforts and work. I greatly appreciate it as I know others will also. I am going to print out several copies (if that is OK ) and mail then to family and friends. If I send it in the mail they will read it! Again, thank you much.
Stan Rasor (RASORINC)

[Boston]

welcome back G and hope you had a great trip

I notice a key graph in his work is detrended
I've often questioned why certain people almost invariably aligned against or questioning the one and only working theory of Rapid Global Climate Change sometimes use visual data that is deliberately altered to not accurately be a visual representation
a trick shown previously to not represent the rising temperatures
I also notice that Scafetta then places this detrended graph of temp variations over a graph of solar cycles
this is nothing new
as a mater of fact its one of the prime reasons that astro-climatology has been discounted as a leading cause of climate change
we know solar variance will have an effect on climate and we also know by looking at data that is not detrended that the solar influence is not what is causing the present unprecedented rate of change in climate
about 97% of climate scientists agree that AGW is caused by mans interaction with the environment and not representative of changes in solar out put

I look forward to going over this work however astro-climatology has been ruled out long ago as being a major factor in today's unfortunate circumstances of climate change.

cheers
B

ps
I found an interesting article concerning the paper
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sourc...Wf4m9iRHXrhRuw

The climate models from the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology also include new findings about the effects of aerosols and the influence of the Earth's carbon cycle. The results seem to confirm speculation over recent years that humans are having a large and unprecedented influence on the climate and are fuelling global warming.

The researchers say their climate model was verified by first simulating the climate of the last century and comparing the results with the real climate. "In this way, the theoretical models could be adapted very well to reality," said Institute Director Jochem Marotzke. The results from Hamburg will be presented in the report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

But not everyone agrees. A group of researchers from Duke University say that man's impact on climate change may be overstated, and that the solar cycle may have more of an effect than previously thought.

The Duke researchers say that their findings indicate that climate models of global warming need to be corrected for the effects of changes in solar activity. At least 10 to 30 percent of global warming measured during the past two decades may be due to increased solar output rather than factors such as increased heat-absorbing carbon dioxide gas released by various human activities, according to their findings in Geophysical Research Letters.

The Duke researchers, Nicola Scafetta and Bruce West, examined solar changes over a period of 22 years. They filtered out shorter range effects such as volcanic eruptions, which can temporarily cool the climate, and ocean current changes such as el Nino that affect global weather patterns. Such events can influence surface temperatures but are not related to global warming.

Scafetta's and West's paper concludes that "the sun may have minimally contributed about 10 to 30 percent of the 1980-2002 global surface warming." They stressed that their finding does not discount that human-linked greenhouse gases contribute to global warming. "Those gases would still give a contribution, but not so strong as was thought," Scafetta said. "For now, if our analysis is correct, I think it is important to correct the climate models so that they include reliable sensitivity to solar activity."

[Guillermo]

Don't be silly, Boston. Don't keep on talking about "Rapid Climate Change" as this only shows your total lack of understanding of climate issues.

And please do some effort in posting something new and interesting, not your usual boring and old crap from realclimate and the like.

[Brent Swain]

Originally Posted by troy2000

If the lack of heating oil turns into a long-term problem, I'm sure they'll go back to burning wood. But frankly, oil heating works better and it isn't surprising they turned to it. Why are you disgusted they don't have wood stoves set up and stacks of cut firewood behind the house, when they've probably been using oil for years?

I don't see that as any evidence of a lack of ability to adjust. Sounds to me like they did adjust to the modern world--and I'm sure they'll adjust again if necessary.

When the gas pipeline to Prince Rupert was disabled , the media said there would be a problem getting heat to the community. When I talked to a guy from Rupert, he laughed and said "We all have wood stoves and a cord or two in the back yard, No one really missed the gas."
Not having a wood stove and wood available as a backup, leaves one vulnerable to the naive assumption that nothing will ever change. I was hoping northerners were wiser than that.
Oil heat may be convenient, if you don't mind going to work to pay for it, hand having to make panic moves when it fails.. Every morning, I listen to the traffic report , thinking of the guy in the traffic jams going to work because he needs the job, to pay for his car, which he needs to get him to work, so he can pay for the car, which he needs do to get to work , etc etc etc.
Works better? Ya sure, according to the car salesman.

[Guillermo]

Solar influence on Earth's climate not only depends on total irradiance but also on magnetic influences, on the solar wind's blocking of cosmic rays and on the Sun's very own "solar cosmic rays" from the coronna, as well as the solar-spots assimetry. None of these the IPCC took into account. As a matter of fact they had no idea about them because "during the 70s the World Meteorological Organization /WMO/ demonstrated a very negative position to the results of solar-climate studies. As a result after 1975 all solar-climatic studies results were ignored and this field labeled as a ‘forbidden’ area for all scientific conferences and symposiums under the aegis of WMO [21]. This is the cause why on the field of solar-climatic relations during the last ~30 years mainly space physics specialists, but not meteorologists, are working" in the words of B. Komitov.

The "Sun–climate" relationship.
III. Solar eruptions, north-south sunspot area asymmetry and earth climate
Boris Komitov
Institute of Astronomy, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, 1784 Sofia, Bulgaria
bkomitov@sz.inetg.bg
(Research report. Accepted on 12.12.2009)

Abstract.
In this Paper III, the last one of the series, additional evidences are given that the fluxes of solar high energy particles, with energies higher than 100 MeV (the solar cosmic rays), are a very important component of the “Sun–climate" relationship (see also Paper I and Paper II). It is known that the total solar irradiance and the galactic cosmic rays produce an integral climate effect of cooling in sunspot minima epochs and warming in sunspot maxima epochs. Contrariwise, the powerful solar corpuscular events cause cooling predominantly during the epochs of their high levels. By this reason subcenturial global and regional temperature quasi-cyclic changes with duration of approximately 60 years could be tracked during the last 150 years of instrumental climate observations. This paper shows that this subcenturial oscillation is very important in the group sunspot number data series since the Maunder minimum up to the end of 20th century. Only a relatively short period, closely before and during the last centurial Gleissberg-Gnevishev’s minimum (AD 1898-1923), when this cycle is totally absent, is an exception there. Thus the solar eruptive activity make the total "Sun–climate" relationship essentially more complicated as it could be expected if only the total solar irradiance and the galactic cosmic rays variations are taken into account. From this point of view the climate warming tendency after AD 1975 has rather natural than anthropogenic origin. It is also shown that the efficiency of the solar corpuscular activity over the climate strongly depends on the "north-south" asymmetry of the solar activity centers (as a proxy the sunspots area north-south asymmetry index A is used there). The climate cooling effect in the Northern hemisphere is most powerful during the epochs of predominantly positive values of A. This effect is very significant in combination with high level of the index of the group sunspot number. A strong quasi 120-130-year "hypercycle" has been detected in the A index during the period of AD 1821- 1994. Most probably the observed 120-130-year cyclity in the climate and cosmogenic 10Be continental ice core data (both "Greenland" and "Antarctic" series) is related to this cycle. In the end the expected climate changes during the next decades and especially the new solar sunspot cycle No 24 are discussed on the base of the "multiple" nature of the "Sun– climate" relationship.

[Boston]

Originally Posted by Guillermo

Don't be silly, Boston. Don't keep on talking about "Rapid Climate Change" as this only shows your total lack of understanding of climate issues.

And please do some effort in posting something new and interesting, not your usual boring and old crap from realclimate and the like.

actually Scafetta's work is a simple rehash of the same old tired arguments being made over and over even though they have been debunked countless times

sun did it
volcano's did it
some as of yet unknown did it
IPCC and tens of thousands of scientist lied
wild accusations of fudged data

anything but acknowledge that man did it

sounds like it's not I who is rehashing the same old tired song and dance Guillermo

the more I read it the less I credibility I find

please that last was somewhat beneath the typical quality of your usual posts

[Brent Swain]

Reagan said duck farts were doing it. Many believed him. There are lot of naive people out here.

[fasteddy106]

Originally Posted by Boston

Hi Troy
what I notice in the mountain towns around here is that some folks are actually reverting to wood stoves again, that and pellet stoves. They are carbon neutral and a far better option than oil anyway. The Majority of the cost of wood or pellets is in labor so one is providing work as well when using these kinda of fuels. We all know who benefits from oil production and frankly they are not the kind of people who I would like to continue doing business with one second longer than absolutely necessary.
Another reason I would like to fit a steam engine into the build at some point with the diesel as a back up.

Im sure the mountain folks up in Manitoba will have there old stoves kicking around somewhere and you are right they will just convert right back to it eventually

thing is look at the damage caused by the hype and glitter the oil and gas industry leaves in its wake after all is said and done and we are all back to using sustainable forms of energy except this time a bit more modern like solar and geothermal tidal bla bla bla. Why is it these few companies that have made there Trillions by foisting there pollution and temporary energy source off on the world should not be held responsible for cleaning up there waste.
Seems completely fair to me that if someone produces a product the manufacturing and use of which also produces toxic waste that that person is responsible to appropriately dispose of that waste.

Eventually the oil and gas industry will be held to the same standards as everyone else but as long as we remain paralyzed by the there lobbyist groups and politicians it is we who will continue footing the bill for there profits

That logic is about on the same level of sophistication as blaming the dog for eating your homework.

[Guillermo]

Do something positive, Boston, something positive, please, instead of bringing here your usual garbage. Please, please, bring in something really new and interesting.