What Do We Think About Climate Change

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

G please please please will you stop introducing the same half dozen or so failed arguments back into the conversion

if you are going to bring the same old tired arguments then what am I to do but repeat to you and the readers why it is that these arguments are old hat and long ago fell by the way side
I will maintain it is you who is beating a dead horse by bringing up the same old arguments over and over without ever acknowledging that the overwhelming amount of data is in direct opposition to these arguments you tend to bring

ok having had a chance to skim the paper I am finding several flaws that are also discussed in the rebuttal posted on Real Climate not the least of which is the use of detrended data in a visual representation, very misleading if you ask me.

if you want all the links go to
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/03/solar-variability-statistics-vs-physics-2nd-round/

once again G the arguments you present have been debunked long ago
is there really no new information coming out that even remotely refutes our one and only working theory explaining the radical changes observed over the last fifty years or so
wow
that is in itself a strong argument in favor of making some positive changes eh
including maybe not bringing the same old tired diatribe into the conversation after what 5000 posts

 

G I got a great book for you to read if you find the time

Here's and article on it so you can get a feel for what its all about

Unscientific America
Mooney/Kirshenbaum

‘Unscientific America’: A Review

 

That kinda makes it seem like Sun spots have little effect on temperature when compared to CO2 increase.

 

well thats what happens when you present data in an accurate visual representation
all of a sudden the likelihood of the solar influence argument goes the way of the Dodo

kinda makes you question the integrity of presenting a detrended graph without mentioning why it was necessary to the argument to do so
or why the Graph is detrended in the first place

again the same old deniers arguments presented again and again
ans still once again are in serious question

when oh when will they present compelling evidence in a coherent form representing the linking of numerous papers together into a firm argument
whats up with these few spurious bits and pieces

oh wait I almost forgot

there isnt such an argument

 

Just more cultist science fiction.

 

This thread is turning into an Ed Wood movie.

 

I know
The science has shot down every denialist argument from every angle imaginable but still the "true believers" keep bringing on the same old tired diatribe on how the sun did it or there was a volcano, the IPCC lied or one of my faves, its a conspiracy.

Ridiculous I know but thats what you get to deal with when you try and educate people who dont want to be educated or as Jerry once said

you aint going to learn
what you dont want to know

cheers
B

 

As usual, the effect of Henry's Law is ignored. The fact that anthropogenic emissions rose at about (not exactly, but approximately) the same time as atmospheric CO2 levels rose really does not prove anything. The fact is that anthropogenic emissions (added as they are to the atmosphere directly) are not nearly large enough to have caused the increase in atmospheric CO2 levels. The amount needed to accomplish this feat is greater than all the CO2 that would be produced if all the world's fossil fuel reserves were already burned! The isotopic mass-balance studies bear this out as they consistently show an 'unexpectedly' small fraction of 'fossil' hydrocarbon is in the current atmosphere.

There are NO expected "Ill effects" from current or anticipated CO2 levels, which are well below 1%.

Unless you can come up with some credible, plausible explanation as to why the Beer-Lambert equation magically does not apply to CO2, then we have been at spectral saturation WRT CO2 levels for EONS, and additional CO2 just can't do any more that it is already doing.


The explanations you have come up with so far (from Surrealclimate; see "A Saturated, Gassy Argument") are seriously flawed, as the outcomes they predict (a warming stratosphere) are clearly not happening.

Jimbo

 

Boston, the Ed Wood comment was directed to you, spearaddict and troy 2k. Ed Wood would have made a movie out of your fantasies.