What Do We Think About Climate Change

And according to the UN estimate, one person needs 1 1/2 hectars to produce the food for one year. As the population grows, the land shrinks. The industry grows to provide "comfort" in whitegoods, cars, trains, planes, boats and ships, gadgets etc. Something has to give in in the end. The earth cannot simply stretsh to let more people live on top of each other.

The arable land is already at the ends. No wonder now the "answer" is in genetically modified food. Instead in birth control through education and planning.

Who ever said that we MUST grow?

Only the "high" end of the city. To have more consumers, to make more profit.

How irresponsible is that concept? Quite a lot.

 

Any data that comes from GISS or the East Anglia CRU is suspect as it has been constantly "adjusted" by their own admission. The following article explains why their is so much disparity in temperature graphs and the computer models that live off the data from those graphs.



http://joannenova.com.au/2010/03/the-mystery-deepens-where-did-that-decline-go/

http://joannenova.com.au/2010/03/hiding-a-different-decline-and-rewriting-history/

 

Spoken like a true self hating anti-human elitist. The real problem is that most of the so called solutions you wack jobs advocate call for the human race to devolve to a level of sophistication equal to that of a meerkat colony with no plan whatsoever to deal with the real economic and human costs of your plan to save the earth at the expense of the human race.

C02 and warming are just symptoms of the problem for you. You see the problem as the human race itself.

 

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.

 

Some people are able to conceptualize the data and some are not. The ones who can tend to move on through the science education programs. The ones who can't tend to get weeded out in the first year or two. Almost invariably its these types of people unable to see past there own small experiences who fail to understand the dangers of the worlds problems like Rapid Global Climate Change and Hunger or farm land degradation, often these kinds of people are simply unable to see beyond there own continuation within the status quo. Some of us are able to see the bigger picture and some not. Some are simply so afraid of what these tens of thousands of independent scientists are saying, that they simply refuse to believe, not realizing that a few changes now could literally make, a world of difference.

generally I ignore those unfortunate enough to be incapable of understanding and focus my attentions on making a difference with those who can

This year again I'm hoping I can find a public speaking series like I did last year concerning conservation but more specifically targeted towards Rapid Global Climate Change

So the cause isn't really hindered and if anything the childish behavior is a great opportunity show who has there data lined up and ready for scrutiny and who doesn't

A few dissenters hurling baseless accusations and calling names are actually one of the best ways to address the disinformation campaign. So no worries, the ones I do not ignore tend to make for a more interesting conversation.

cheers
B

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

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

 

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

 

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/images/stories/papers/originals/climate_change_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.nsf/vwpsw/360796B06E48EA0485257601005982A1\#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

 

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)

 

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&source=web&ct=res&cd=13&ved=0CAwQFjACOAo&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.scienceagogo.com%2Fnews%2F20050902215757data_trunc_sys.shtml&rct=j&q=Nicola+Scafetta.+real+climate&ei=b-qjS7jOI4_UsgOov6i9BA&usg=AFQjCNHSOsT5P-gT7o0SZ9pH89G9_fy1QA&sig2=Js1Emv9hWf4m9iRHXrhRuw

 

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.