Dr. Nicola Scafetta has written an extensive summary of the state of climate science today. He’s done some very extensive analysis of the solar contribution that bears examination. Pay particular attention to this graph from page 49:
WUWT readers may remember him from some previous papers and comments he’s written that have been covered here:
Scafetta: New paper on TSI, surface temperature, and modeling
Scafetta: Benestad and Schmidt’s calculations are “robustly” flawed.
He writes to me with this introduction:
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.
========================
Download the report here (PDF -warning over 10 MB – long download time on slow connections)
This work covers most topics presented by Scafetta at a seminar at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, DC USA, February 26, 2009. A video of the seminar is here:
The Italian version of the original paper can be downloaded (with possible journal restrictions) from here
========================
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
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/acid_test.pdf
““OCEAN ACIDIFICATION” – THE EXTREMISTS’ FALLBACK SCARE
First, they called it “global warming”. Then they noticed there had been no warming for 15 years, and cooling for 9, so they hastily renamed it “climate change”. Then they noticed the climate was changing no more than it ever had, so they tried “energy security”, and even named a Congressional Bill after it. Then they noticed that most Western nations already had bountiful energy security, in the form of vast, untapped domestic supplies of oil, gas, coal, or all three, so they switched to “ocean acidification”.”
((This work covers most topics presented by Scafetta at a seminar at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, DC USA, February 26, 2009….))
..And yet our government is bent on listening to no such thing. Immediately after, the EPA listed Carbon Dioxide as a “harmful gas.”
Very interesting. Downloaded at once.
Wait a minute, how could we possibly influence the center of mass of the solar system?
Blimey – best get my reading specs on!
This post is why WUWT is the cutting edge of truth.
What is meant by “de-trended”?
OK the first page of the booklet makes clear the answer to my question :^)
This is a wonderfully clear and impressive presentation. Very welcome, very recommended. Thank you.
Wait, do I smell a barycentre?
Note the cycle of the PDO is about the same as that 60 year cycle.
Ooops, Leif incoming.
============
Well now. Maybe the Sun and the Oceans really do have something major to say? Whodathunkit?
Thank you Dr. Scaffeta for putting this work together. I’ve just downloaded it and look forward to a little light reading before bed.
Prof. Horst Malberg , retired director of Berlin Free University’s Institute of Meteorology has just published “La Niña – El Niño and Solar Influence: Climatic Trends 1950 – 2008” and “Solar influence on long-term climate change, globally since 1860, in Central Europe since 1672” — a pair of real game-changers for the climate debate that demolishes AGW and, IMHO, deserve widest-possible dissemination. Can’t fit them in here, so please e-mail me an address.
R.
Interesting. I do not think that anyone has an argument against the TSI effecting things to some extent. But it appears that the effect is rather small and somewhat secondary. D’Aleo found that adding it to his model along with the PDO and AMO did not add much.
Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I actually hadn’t heard of this work before. I shall download and read Dr. Scaffeta’s entire report “Climate Change and Its Causes” with much interest.
From a quick preview, it appears that he believes that we are in for a period of global cooling, bottoming out in 2030 or so, and it’s got nothing to do with GH gases, but is related to solar and astronomical cycles. Is this correct? And if this is what he predicts, then his hypothesis can be put directly up against the AGW hypothesis, which would state that we should see many new record global high temps between now and 2030, along with the disappearance of summer arctic sea ice, etc.
Both theories can’t be correct, and it even looks as though, according to Dr. Scaffeta’s own graphs, that we should already be seeing a downward plunge in temperatures heading to that 2030 low. If we see a new global record warm year in 2010, as the Met Office (and I believe) will likely happen, what problems would that represent for Dr. Scaffeta’s hypothesis?
Long period Lunar declinational influences on the global circulation that may not be much different from the above in essence, although not as well researched yet.
http://research.aerology.com/aerology-analog-weather-forecasting-method/
Downloading the PDF file now thanks for the input.
The author’s first name is Nicola, not Nicolas. Yes, he is a man; see
http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/
Reply: Fixed ~ ctm
Very interesting. Thanks for the download information.
The Figure 13 chart is quite telling.
Dr. Scafetta has recently honoured us participating in a meeting held in Italy on february 27th. In that meeting I asked him the permission to make an on line interview with questions directly from the readers. The discussion (in italian) is ongoing here http://www.climatemonitor.it/?p=8378.
gg
I give up. What’s TSI?
[Total Solar Irradiance. ~dbs]
Found it, buried deep in his PDF. TSI = total solar irradiance.
I’ve read it. And this has been presented to the EPA?
I noticed that you didnt elaborate much on CRU station removal, and not much on GISS versus UHI opposite compensation. But, since you were to present it to the EPA, I can understand it.
A very interesting read. Maybe this can help in trying to turn the IPCC into another direction? Like, changing
The IPCC mission:
“The IPCC reviews and assesses the most recent scientific, technical and socioeconomic information produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of human induced climate change.”
For example;
“The IPCC reviews and assesses the most recent scientific information produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of human induced pollution.”
Is Scafetta going to let RealClimate have the code that he used for his paper?
Or is he going to use the same excuses that Michael Mann, Tamino, & Co have been using?
I have just downloaded it and haven’t yet had a chance to study it but it seems we have needed a compendium of research summaries and how they relate to the AGW debate. Perhaps this can serve that purpose.
Dr. Scaffeta welcome to the club of ‘pseudoscience’, why not peruse, by now now infamous, set graphs and equations which have earned me a rare distinction of a ‘cycloramic in extreme’.
http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/GandF.htm