One-Hundred And Twentieth Status Report Of Pacific Gas And Electric: Fill & Download for Free

There are many books that meet your criteria. I recommend as most relevant for today THE NEGLECTED SUN Why the Sun Precludes Climate Catastrophe, by two German scientists, Fritz Vahrenholt and Sebastian Luning. THE FULL TEXT OF THE NEGLECTED SUN IS AVAILABLE FREE HERE!Full text of "Fritz Vahrenholt The Neglected Sun"The effect of the sun’s activity on climate change has been either scarcely known or overlooked. In this momentous book – first published in German as Die kalte Sonne in 2012 – Professor Fritz Vahrenholt and Dr. Sebastian Lüning demonstrate that the critical cause of global temperature change has been, and continues to be, the sun’s activity. Vahrenholt and Lüning reveal that four concurrent solar cycles master Earth’s temperature – a climate reality upon which man’s carbon emissions bear little significance. The sun’s present cooling phase, precisely monitored in this work, renders impossible the catastrophic prospects put forward by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the alarmist agenda dominant in contemporary Western politics. AmazonREVIEWSRandy A. Stadt5.0 out of 5 starsWith Climate Change, the Past is the key to the Present and to the FutureNovember 1, 2017Format: PaperbackThe words “climate change” can technically mean a number of things, but usually when we hear them, we understand that they are referring to something in particular. This would be a defined narrative, an idea which has been repeated so often in the media that it is taken as almost axiomatic. This narrative goes something like this:“Carbon dioxide produced by mankind is dramatically changing the climate and is leading to unprecedented temperature extremes, storms, floods, and widespread death. If we fail to apply the emergency brake now, and hard, then the climate will be irreparably damaged and there will be little hope for averting the approaching cataclysm. In just a few more years it may be too late. The measures proposed for averting disaster are costly, very costly, but the anticipated damage from climate change will be even more expensive, so there is little alternative but to act quickly and decisively.”Furthermore, we are told, the science is settled, it represents a scientific consensus, and opponents are rightfully called “climate deniers,” deserving the rhetorical connotations and stigma attached to the label because they might as well be denying the reality of the Holocaust.Now is this true? Are we even allowed to ask the question? If it is not true, how could we tell? The authors, coming from different backgrounds and having different reasons for developing suspicions of the received narrative, present a detailed, 400-page argument which carefully (and I think persuasively) makes the case that the sun, and only secondarily human activities, are the primary driver for climate change.This book gives public exposure to the work of many, many climate scientists whose conclusions are deemed politically incorrect and are thus ignored. In the authors’ own words, “We were able to cite hundreds of scientific studies showing that the changes in the sun’s activity and oceanic decadal oscillations are responsible for at least half of the recent warming, which means that the contribution of CO2 is at most half.”Most of us have no way of evaluating the computer models which predict, to varying degrees, catastrophic future warming with CO2 emissions from fossil fuel burning being the sole culprit.The authors maintain, however, that “the past is the key to the present and to the future,” meaning that it is better to gather data on how the climate has acted in the past, and use this to calibrate projections into the future, than it is to create models calibrated to agree with a pre-ordained conclusion.This approach reveals a few surprises. First, neither the degree nor the rate of warming we are currently experiencing is unprecedented. Second, warming in the past was not caused by rising CO2 levels. Third, cycles of warming and cooling occurred at regularly repeating intervals over the past several thousand years and beyond, and closely match cycles of increased and decreased solar activity. Fourth, currently accepted climate models which are centered on CO2 cannot reproduce these past warming and cooling events. And finally fifth, the current halt in global warming since the year 2000 was not anticipated by these models, but it is completely consistent with a sun-centered approach which takes into consideration not only CO2 but also solar cycles and ocean oscillations.So here I, the average Joe, the taxpayer who doesn’t have in-depth scientific knowledge of the issues, is being asked to adjudicate between two opposing claims. And it does matter, because the choice I and the rest of society make will have a significant impact on the world our children inhabit. If the alarmists (if I may use that pejorative label for the sake of simplicity) are right, we have a moral obligation to give up our financial prosperity in order to maintain a world that is inhabitable for future generations.And it just so happens that it is this position (that of the alarmists) that “holds the microphone,” so to speak. We are bombarded with claims that the “science is settled” and only the ignorant and those with financial interests in maintaining the status quo would disagree.It seems to me that if this boils down to a matter of trust, and to some degree it does, then we are entitled to see if that trust is earned. And we can do that in a few ways. One is by listening carefully to the alarmists and trying to see if they are telling us the whole story, or are they selectively publicizing information that furthers their cause on the one hand, while withholding information that does not, on the other hand.One testable example that leaps to mind is Al Gore’s new book, “An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power.” Early in the book he prominently displays a graph of increasing temperatures over the past number of decades. No comment is given to the stagnating temperatures between the years 2000 and 2014, but we see an apparent resumption in the warming in the final two years, 2015 and 2016.So here Mr. Gore has told us part of the story. But has he told us the whole thing? No. He has utterly ignored the vast literature cited in “The Neglected Sun” which carefully shows how natural climate oscillations, and particularly an unusually active sun, have contributed, not only to recent temperature fluctuations, but also to those seen throughout the historic temperature record.And second, he has neglected to mention what our authors have made clear, namely, that it is inappropriate to include El Niño years in long-term projections, because these phenomena, which can produce remarkable short-term increases in global temperatures, are just that: they are short-term blips that vanish after a couple of years. Al Gore leaves us with the impression that these two years are further evidence of man-made global warming when the reality is nothing more than they are in fact El Niño years.Another way the average Joe can navigate this confusing terrain is to spend some time reading “The Neglected Sun.” It is not hard to read, the citations to peer-reviewed literature are numerous, and as it does give a place, albeit a secondary one, for CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, it gives a feeling of balance, and also an admission of the infancy of much of our knowledge, an admission that is entirely missing from popular presentations from the other side, in particular from Al Gore.Spend some time reading the book and it will become clear that the claims of scientific consensus and that the science is settled are false. And it seems to me that when what we can test is found to be wanting, this gives us reason to be suspicious of that which we cannot test. In other words, it looks sneaky and it looks like they haven’t got the goods.Now the authors make it clear that they are not denying that we need to move away from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources, but they are arguing that because projections based on solar activity are actually going to give us a few decades of cooling, we can make the change in a rational, rather than a panicked, way.The stakes are high, as we are on the verge of decisions that can dramatically alter the prosperity of not only our children and grandchildren, but of those in developing countries that need at least short-term access to fossil fuels in order to keep from sliding further backwards in poverty.Al Gore and the alarmists are right about one thing: the climate debate is a moral issue, but just not in the way they see it. Because if our authors are right, then we are faced with the following reality: as much of an economic inconvenience that an abrupt shift away from fossil fuels would be for those of us in the wealthy West, it is actually a life-and-death situation for those in the developing world whose ability to move out of poverty would be taken away from them.And that is immoral.The book is a translation of the German version, “Der Kalte Sonne” published in 2012. Thus, some of the policy discussions are set in a German context. They do provide a glimpse of what could happen if similar policies are adopted elsewhere as one sees today in the UK.Here are some critical things I learned from the book (this is an incomplete list):• The sun, including its magnetic cycles, and inner dynamics, exerts the major control on climate variability and climate change.• Six different cycles of solar activity are documented. The climate history of the earth, including the last 150 years, correlate closely with these cycles which range from 11 to 2300 years. Moreover, some are amplified long term by Milankovich orbital parameters.• The sun’s quantitative influence on climate change exceeds the influence of anthropogenic CO2, although the authors acknowledge that anthropogenic CO2 has a minor role to play in raising global temperatures. The supporting arguments are well-buttressed and convincing• The current temperature “Pause” is explained in terms of solar cycles and decreasing solar radiation. Likely, a period of cooling is ahead as solar radiation entering a diminished phase.• Chapters 5 (Has the IPCC really done its homework?), 6 (The misunderstood climate amplifiers), and 7 (A look into the future) provide the most detailed and accurate critique of the UN-IPCC’s reports. (I call it withering dissection). Thus, projected future temperature increases are expected to be much less than the UN-IPCC infers and the climate ‘crisis’ is overblown far too much. These chapters are incisive.• The last two chapters deal with German climate and energy policy. They are instructive because the policies are failing, particularly as electricity costs have skyrocketed since implementation. This is becoming a universal problem.• A trivial (or perhaps not) fact I did not know. Before Angela Merkel became Chancellor of Germany, she was the minister of the environment. It appears she was co-opted by the green movement well before her global prominence.The Neglected Sun, originally published in 2012 is a timely and extremely important discussion of the many factors impacting the earth's climate, with particular emphasis on the sum. It's primary message is that climate is the result of complex interactions many disparate phenomena (some of which are not fully understood); and provides a cautionary "not so fast" warning to those rushing to conclude that present climate change is a never before experienced phenomena which can only be reasonably blamed on the negative impact on humanities burning of fossil fuels and consequent generation of atmospheric CO2.The book clearly demonstrates via a number of indirect means (e.g., ice core samples) for estimating previous climatic conditions over many millennia that the earths has undergone significant changes in the past before man-made CO2 was a factor. The book is an excellent introduction for the climate neophyte and at the same time a good reference for the more experienced (I fall into the former catagory). Each chapter is replete with citations with a corresponding large number of references at chapter end.Of particular interest to today's discussion is the "Little Ice Age" 1400 to 1900 CE, and the "Medieval Warm Period" 1000 to 1400 CE. The latter experienced temperature conditions similar to our present "unprecedented" climate. As one who has done numerous computer simulations of complex technical systems, i particularly appreciate his caution about making important political decisions on the basis of predictions using computer codes that struggle to explain the already known past.Relative to political decisions that can result from climate concerns the Preface states: "Within less than a year Germany has gone from having a power supply that was one of the world's most stable to one that is on the brink of collapse""The Neglected Sun" attempts to explain why the IPCC's predictions of climate doom are so off the mark because the IPCC focuses solely on heating from human-related carbon dioxide. The authors state in relentlessly annotated, scientifically-supported arguments that natural climate variations play at least as large a role as carbon dioxide in modifying the Earth's climate. Cyclical variations in ocean temperature (critically the Pacific Decadal Oscillation), variations in the sun's magnetic field, and the sun's impact on cloud formation are shown to be critically important factors that are likely to impact our climate going forward. The authors even make the case for a slight cooling of the Earth in coming decades, offsetting the heating from anthropogenic carbon dioxide.This book is the best I've seen so far at explaining why we are seeing the temperatures observed by satellites today: no significant warming since 1998. Their argument is that the IPCC's doomsday climate scenarios wrongly discount natural variations in the Earth's climate and that is why the IPCC's models of the present and future are wrong. This gives humanity time to prudently transition from fossil fuels to other alternatives, which is in direct conflict to the green movement's demand for the immediate destruction of the carbon-based energy grid.KEY REFERENCES ARE FROM PHYSICISTSWhile the authors have impressive credentials they are not physicists. They do however rely extensively on Physicist Dr. Nir J. Shaviv in their treatise.Nir J. ShavivCredentialsPh.D., Physics. Israel Institute of Technology, 1996. [1]M.A., Physics. Israel Institute of Technology, 1994. [1]B.A., Physics. Israel Institute of Technology, 1990. [1]BackgroundNir J. Shaviv is an associate professor of Physics at the Racah Institute at the The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. He contends that the sun's rays are the primary driver of climate change. [2] Dr. Shaviv says that he is not funded by the oil industry or large corporations. [3]Although he is skeptical of man-made climate change, he stresses that there are a “dozen good reasons why we should strive to burn less fossil fuels.” His two primary reasons are pollution and depletion. He is in favor of developing cheap energy alternatives such as wind and solar power. [6]THE FULL TEXT OF THE NEGLECTED SUN IS AVAILABLE FREE HERE!Full text of "Fritz Vahrenholt The Neglected Sun"Preface    The day the book Die kalte Sonne was launched in Germany happened to be the coldest of 2012. And  6 February was remarkable for another reason too: on that day Germany’s power grid teetered on the  brink of collapse. Having decommissioned eight of its older nuclear reactors, the country was no  longer able to guarantee its own power supply. Electricity from an old, mothballed, oil-fired power  plant in neighbouring Austria and from Czech nuclear power plants had to be fed in to prevent  Germany’s power supply failing.   In 2011 Chancellor Angela Merkel announced that Germany would implement the Energiewende  (energy turnaround) in an attempt to replace nuclear and fossil fuel power plants with renewable  sources. At the same time, she promised that Germany would no longer need to import electricity and  that electricity prices would not go up. Within less than a year this grand declaration proved to be  little more than wishful thinking. 1 Today electricity prices in Germany are soaring out of control due  to unlimited subsidies given to renewable power, and the German power supply can be secured only  through emergency decrees. Power companies also have to keep unprofitable power plants on  standby and large power consumers may find their supply cut off in the event of unexpected supply  bottlenecks. Within less than a year, Germany has gone from having a power supply that was one of  the world’s most stable to one that is on the brink of collapse.   How did Germany reach this point?   Germany is implementing an energy policy driven by fear. After a catastrophic tsunami on the other  side of the globe struck Japan in 2011, causing the Fukushima reactor accident, fear gripped  Germany. While other leaders such as Britain’s David Cameron and France’s Nicolas Sarkozy  soberly acknowledged that a tsunami could not be expected in their respective countries and that their  reactors were deemed safe, Merkel lost her nerve and prompdy shut down eight of Germany’s  nineteen reactors even though they had been rated as among the safest in the world.   At the same time, the German government made generating 80 per cent of the country’s electricity  from renewables - wind and solar energy - by 2050 a national priority. Gas, coal and oil would not  play a role in the future because Germany’s energy policy was being driven by fear of a climate  catastrophe.   This fear was being fanned by climate scientists such as Professor Hans-Joachim Schellnhuber of  the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research. He had been promoted to the position of chief  climate adviser to the German Chancellor. Schellnhuber and his group succeeded in apportioning all  the blame for past and future climate change on C0 2 alone. He is on record as saying, £ We ... can  show that there is an extremely simple, quasi-linear relation between the global mean temperature and  the total amount of C0 2 that will be emitted into the atmosphere over the next four or five decades.  The climate system’s entire complexity can be boiled down to this simple linear relation’ [1].   Politicians simply accept this as true and base energy and social policy on this. The climate  scientists who shape public opinion and the IPCC postulate that an uncurbed rise of atmospheric C0 2  concentration will lead to a dramatic temperature increase of 2-6° C.   Spreading fear is poor policy  Here comes the sun   The past is the key to the present and to the future. Data provide us with a picture of pre-industrial,  natural climate patterns. They reveal that when the sun was active, temperatures were high; and when  the sun was quiet, temperatures were low. This was always the relation during pre-industrial times.  That is one of the key findings of this book and is thoroughly documented in Chapter 3.  Reconstructions based on ice cores, dripstones, tree rings and ocean or lake sediment cores reveal  that temperature history was characterized by significant temperature changes of more than 1° C.  Warm and cold phases alternated according to thousand-year cycles. Examples include the Minoan  Warm Period three thousand years ago and the Roman Warm Period two thousand years. During the  Medieval Warm Period, around a thousand years ago, Greenland was colonized and grapes suitable  for winemaking were cultivated in England. Cold periods prevailed between the warm phases, among  them the Little Ice Age which lasted from the fifteenth to the nineteenth centuries. All these  temperature fluctuations occurred at a time when atmospheric C0 2 concentration was essentially  stable, which means that only natural processes could have been responsible for the historical climate  variations. Is it really credible to think that these natural variations came to a halt about 150 years  ago?   Let us consider for a moment what the climate since 1850 would have looked like had the natural  pattern simply continued. 1850 marks the end of the Litde Ice Age, a natural cold period associated  with low solar activity. Based solely on the natural pattern, we see that solar activity has increased  since 1850, more or less in parallel with an increase in temperature. When we compare this with real-  world climate data for the past 160 years, we are surprised to learn that this is exactly what happened.  Both the timing and the 1° C warming fit nicely into the natural scheme. The solar magnetic field has  more than doubled over the past century. According to the solar physicist Sami Solanki, the past  decades have been among the most active in terms of solar activity in the last ten thousand years [12].   Does it really make sense to assume that the sun has almost nothing to do with modern climate  warming, as the IPCC claims? Hard-core IPCC supporters such as Rahmstorf deny that solar-driven  millennial-scale climate cycles exist and insist it’s a cul-de-sac for climate science. But many  researchers disagree. Since the first edition of our book appeared in German in early 2012, many  studies have been published confirming the great importance of natural climate cycles in the past, and  therefore they also must apply to the present and the future [13]. We find that solar-driven millennial-  scale cycles have controlled wet and drought phases in the Mediterranean region during Roman times  [14]. Along the French Mediterranean coast, storms occurred in millennial cycles in line with solar  activity [15]. In Germany too, the sun has driven the climate over the past 10,000 years [16]. Likewise,  the temperatures of the Swiss Alpine lakes fluctuated according to the same rhythm [17]. Millennial-  scale solar cycles were also found to be responsible for Alpine glacier movements [18]. Similar  cycles were found in Finnish Lapland. Interestingly, each successive warm phase over the last 2500  years was colder than the one that preceded it [19], marking a long-term cooling, which is not  compatible with the climate catastrophe now being proposed by the IPCC.   Solar-driven millennial-scale climate cycles are also reported in North America by a number of  new studies. For example, temperatures along the coast of Cape Hatteras pulsated according to the  rhythm of the thousand-year solar cycle [20]. Florida was drier when the sun was weak and wetter  when the sun was strong [21]. The climate of British Columbia has been driven by solar activity over  the past 11,000 years [22] and in South America the sun regulated the distribution and intensity of the  monsoon rains [23].   In China’s Taklamakan desert, oases blossomed according to solar millennial-scale cycles [24].  Likewise, temperatures on the Tibetan plateau followed the sun’s pattern [25]. The East Asian  monsoon too was controlled by solar activity [26]. The currents of the East China Sea varied according to the sun’s activity [27]. Even the climate of Lake Baikal fluctuated in accordance to the  solar rhythm [28]. Natural climate cycles led to the collapse of the mighty Indus civilization [29].  Finally, the rains in south-east Australia followed the solar pattern [30]. Could all this be a  coincidence? All these studies affirm the need to include the sun as a key climate driver. And any  models used to project future climate trends need to be tested rigorously by using the climate of the  pre-industrial 10,000 years. Only models capable of reproducing the known climate past can be  approved for use in future modelling. Unfortunately, not a single climate model used today by the  IPCC is able to reproduce the climate cycles of the past.   We find the sun everywhere   Besides long-term millennial-scale solar cycles, researchers have also found evidence that changes in  solar activity strongly contribute to climate development on human timescales, that is to say in years  and decades. For example, Norwegian studies have revealed that a significant part of the warming in  their country has been caused by the sun [31-34]. In Sweden too, climate and solar activity are tighdy  linked [35]. In neighbouring Finland, solar cycles have been discovered in tree rings [36]. The extent  of Baltic Sea ice is now known to be influenced by solar activity [37], as is the ice on the Rhine in  central Europe [38]. A massive cold period in central Europe 2800 years ago appears to have been  triggered by a weak sun. [39]. The north Atlantic deep water formation was found to be modulated by  the sun [40]. The notorious rains in Northern Ireland are affected by changes in solar activity [41].  Winds in Portugal were particularly strong when the sun was weak [42]. Solar activity fluctuations  and the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) have contributed to Italy’s climate over the past 10,000  years [43]. A solar influence can even be detected in Italy’s salt marshes [44].   In Asia, monsoon rains have waxed and waned according to the rhythm of the sun over the past  150 years [45]. Rains on the Tibetan plateau ceased whenever the sun weakened [46]. Coral reefs in  Japan died during cold phases triggered by low solar activity [47]. A marked solar influence on  Japan’s climate was also found in other recent studies [48-49]. Wet phases in the Aral Sea were  associated with solar high activity phases [50]. The rains in Maine over the past 7000 years have been  controlled by the sun [51]. A solar influence on precipitation has now been found for Brazil [52-53].  Solar cycles have even been detected in the water masses of the deep sea [54]. The field of research in  solar-climate interaction is more active than ever [55-58]. Unfortunately, the IPCC has chosen to  marginalize and underrate this important subject. Therefore, books like this one provide thousands of  active researchers in this field with a much-deserved public platform and recognition for their  painstaking and fascinating work.   The fickle sun   What makes us so sure that the sun, which is dismissed by the IPCC, plays a central role in climate  events? That is relatively easy to answer. Geological climate reconstructions exhaustively show that  temperatures on earth have followed solar activity for thousands of years. That is not surprising when  we consider that 99.98 per cent of the total energy of the world’s climate comes from the sun. Would  it not make sense to suspect that even small changes in solar energy could have huge impacts?   Fluctuations in solar activity are manifested over a wide range of cycles and have characteristic  cycle lengths of between 11 and 2300 years. Especially important in today’s context is the 1000-year  cycle, which led to unusually high irradiation intensities during the second half of the twentieth  century. Over recent decades, the sun has been in one of its most active phases of the last 10,000 years.  Solar magnetic field activity more than doubled between 1901 and 1995. Similar irradiation  maximums occurred 1000 years ago (the Medieval Warm Period) and 2000 years ago (the Roman  Warm Period). In both periods, pronounced climate warming took place. The Roman Warm Period,  the Medieval Warm Period and today’s Modern Optimum (since 1850) are well documented. Between  those warm periods the sun’s activity decreased and this led to distinct cold phases - the Vandal Cold  Period and the Little Ice Age.   Many studies investigating different oceans and several continents have shown that similar cycles  shaped climate events throughout the entire 10,000-year post-ice age period. These cycles are visible  in the lower, middle and upper latitudes and include all the climate zones from the Arctic to the  Tropics. Temperature fluctuations over the last 10,000 years were at times up to several degrees  Celsius, and so on a global average they had a similar or even larger range than the 0.8° C or more of  warming that we have seen since the Little Ice Age (1400-1800). So just how plausible is it to ignore  the link between the sun and climate?   The IPCC models run into trouble  First, the earth is in the process of putting the Great Solar Maximum behind. That means a cold sun  will leave its mark on the decades and centuries to come. Second, the IPCC should have noticed that  the warming of the last 150 years took place over three distinct stages: 1860-80, 1910-40 and 1975-  2000. The temperature increases for these three episodes were similar, at about 0.15° C per decade.  Between these warming phases global temperatures cooled or stagnated.   What stands out is that the warming and the cooling phases were synchronized with the Pacific  Decadal Oscillation (PDO), which is an oscillation within the climate system itself. One complete  PDO cycle takes between 40 and 60 years. Every time the PDO enters a negative phase, global  warming ceases. The PDO is superimposed over longterm solar activity and C0 2 -triggered climate  trends, and so raises or lowers the temperature by a few tenths of a degree depending on whether or  not the PDO is in its warm or cold phase. Other oceanic oscillations such as the Adantic Multidecadal  Oscillation (AMO) and the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) contribute to this process. These well-  established interrelationships certainly have to be valid for the future development of the earth’s  climate. However, the IPCC also refused to integrate this crucial factor in its calculations and, in  doing so, displayed an unwarranted confidence in every climate model, which have all since failed. It  is truly remarkable that not a single IPCC model predicted the halt to warming we have seen over the  last decade. In October 2011 the BEST study, conducted at the University of California, Berkeley, was  able to show that global temperatures are influenced by natural oceanic cycles such as the AMO:  ‘Since 1975, the AMO has shown a gradual but steady rise from -0.35 C to +0.2 C, a change of 0.55 C.  During this same time, the land-average temperature has increased about 0.8 C ... Some of the long-  term change in the AMO could be driven by natural variability ... In that case the human component  of global warming may be somewhat overestimated’ [1].   The IPCC climate experts tried to salvage what they could and rushed out the notion that increased  cooling was due to sulphur emissions from coal burning in China. However, since 2005, China has  equipped most of its coal-burning power plants with desulphurization systems. The same argument  was also used to explain the cold phase of the 1970s. And because the last warming stage ended 10  years ago, the same dubious explanation has once again been retrieved from the IPCC’s basement of climate tricks. Again it appears not to matter that these sulphur emissions occurred in the Northern  Hemisphere and that the bulk of the cooling since 2000 has taken place in the Southern Hemisphere.  By playing the sulphur joker (global dimming), the IPCC scientists once again have corrected their  climate models downward as the need arose, and then claimed that their climate models represent the  past and thus have the future well under control.    The Medieval Warm Period: supposedly just an insignificant local event   Mann, of course, had been aware of the reports of low ice levels in the Arctic, which during medieval  period made settlement of Greenland possible [66, 134-135, 153] and he also knew of the Thames  freezing for weeks at a time during the bitter cold winters of the Little Ice Age. Even so, he went  ahead and drew a more or less straight temperature line through the climatically turbulent past  millennium, using a ingenious explanation to justify it: the observed climatic development of the  north Atlantic region was only a local phenomenon and was not representative of the rest of the  globe. There had never really been a Medieval Warm Period or a Little Ice Age elsewhere on the  globe.   And the world believed him. He was the expert, after all. For a while everything went well - until  opposition began to mount. Some specialists started checking the temperature history beyond the  north Adantic region for the last 1000 years. They steadily introduced data from all seven continents  and in most cases their temperature curves depicted strange humps: one positive hump 1000 years ago  and another negative hump 500 years later. They produced what was thought to be impossible,  documenting the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age, not only in the north Atlantic, but also in  Africa [154-155], Antarctica [156-161], Asia [162-173], Oceania [174-175], North America  [176-177] and South America [178-182]. The volume of data available today is overwhelming.  Nevertheless, still acting as if nothing was wrong, scientists close to the IPCC, among them Stefan  Rahmstorf (Potsdam) and Gerald Haug (Zurich), continue using the discredited argument and insist  that the prominent climate peaks of the past were only a ‘local phenomenon’.   Climate audit breaks the hockey stick   It took more than four years before serious resistance coalesced against Mann’s hockey stick. This  included an American group led by Willie Soon, who pointed out that the Medieval Warm Period and  Little Ice Age were global [183-184]. Hans von Storch of the Helmholtz Centre too was not  convinced by the hockey stick and calculated much stronger temperature variations for Mann’s  hockey stick handle [185]. But in the end it took semi-retired mining specialist Stephen McIntyre of  Toronto to undertake the painstaking audit needed to see through the hockey stick’s dark secrets. Not  surprisingly, Mann and his colleagues were unwilling to disclose their data. Undeterred, McIntyre  teamed up with economics professor Ross McKitrick and carried on. Eventually, after considerable  effort, their determination paid off. The fascinating story of their journey through the hockey stick  quagmire is told by A. W. Montford in his 2010 thriller, The Hockey Stick Illusion [186].   McIntyre and McKitrick were able to show that the statistical methodology Mann used was  fundamentally flawed and tended to produce a hockey stick curve even when fed random data [187].  Using the R 2 test the Mannian temperature graph failed. It was not until 2011 that statisticians took up  the challenge and corrected the errors in the statistical process [188-189]. Now an easily recognizable  warm hump and a cold trough appeared from Mann’s data set, namely, the Medieval Warm Period and  the Little Ice Age.   In addition to mathematical and methodological errors, Mann and his colleagues committed a  number of blunders when compiling their climate data sets. A large part of the input data originated  from tree ring values, which are not ideal temperature proxies. 8 Tree growth reacts to a number of  non-temperature influences, such as precipitation changes and insect infestation. Furthermore, in the  late twentieth century some trees grew more rapidly because of the higher atmospheric C0 2    concentration, which is a temperature-independent C0 2 fertilization effect. At times Mann and his  colleagues simply ignored tree ring data after the 1960s because the trend these data delivered  deviated from the measurements taken by thermometer and at times even showed cooling (the so-  called divergence problem). Moreover, tree rings often do not indicate winter temperatures reliably  because trees for the most part are dormant during the winter. Interestingly, temperature  reconstructions based on cave dripstones for the last 1000 years produce temperature fluctuations that  are almost an order of magnitude greater than those of tree rings. According to the palaeo-  climatologist Augusto Mangini of Heidelberg, this is because climate variability in the Northern  Hemisphere occurs mosdy and most distincdy in the winter, when trees are dormant [190].   There are more problems with Mann’s data. Particularly with the oldest part of the hockey stick  handle, the data are poor and the geographic distribution of the measured data is questionable. To  some extent the data were simply extrapolated (Gaspe data) and at times they were false. Even  obsolete data were used (Twisted Hill and Heartrot Hill data). Part of the error was later admitted, but  they insisted that it had little effect on the overall curve. The supposedly 'independent’ confirmation  of the methodology and curves from Mann and his colleagues provided by Eugene Wahl and Caspar  Ammann [191] from the year 2007 also has to be viewed critically. Amman was a former  postgraduate of Ray Bradley, co-author of both the 1998 and 1999 hockey stick papers.   Finally, in 2008, Mann and his colleagues published a reworked version of their much criticized  temperature curve [150]. In this one the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age were restored,  although they were still somewhat subdued (Figure 4.10). The latter probably had something to do  with the fact that although Mann used fewer tree ring data this time, he still worked with bristle cones  whose strong growth over the last decades has much to do with C0 2 fertilization [187, 192]. In  addition, temperature proxy data taken from a Finnish lake were incorrecdy interpreted and found  their way into the successor reconstruction [186].   So how did this small group of scientists manage to mislead the world for so long and so  consistendy? Clearing this up and looking into the exact background of the hockey stick episode is a  task for future science historians. In any case, George Orwell’s 1984 certainly should be among the  source materials for such a study. Falsifying historical facts to ensure they always accommodated the  current ideology of the state was one of the primary responsibilities of historians in the fictional state  of 1984. Orwell’s Ministry of Truth provided the memorable slogan: Who controls the past controls  the future. Who controls the present controls the past.   Solar forcing and twentieth-century climate change    Mr J. Shaviv   Hebrew University of Jerusalem   A long list of empirical results strongly suggests that solar variations play an important role in  climate change. We begin by discussing why such variations are crucial if we are to understand  twentieth-century climate change and how it is related to the value of the climate sensitivity, for  example the amount of warming expected for a certain increase in manmade greenhouse gases. This  climate sensitivity is necessary if we are to predict future climate change.   In the standard scenario advocated by the IPCC, most of the global warming observed over the  twentieth century is attributed to the increase in manmade greenhouse gases. Indeed, when one  considers the observed increase in temperature and the increase in manmade greenhouse gases, it is  very tempting to do so. However, we have to remember that there are many uncertainties - primarily  the unknown radiative forcings and unknown climate sensitivity - which imply that most of the  warming is not necessarily human.   When the earth’s energy budget changes, that is, when the net radiative forcing changes, so does  the climate equilibrium. Loosely speaking, the temperature change over the twentieth century is the  product of the changed energy balance, according to the IPCC mostiy manmade greenhouse gases,  and the climate sensitivity:   Temperature Change (AT) = Radiative Forcing Changes (AF) x Climate Sensitivity (S)   It is, though, somewhat more complicated because it takes many decades for the climate system to  adjust.    Now we see why the role of the sun in climate is so important. Because solar activity increased  over the twentieth century, if it has an effect on the climate it should have contributed a net positive  forcing and it may have been responsible for some of the twentieth-century warming. This would then  diminish the role of manmade activity.   Put more quantitatively, if the sun has contributed a positive radiative forcing, then the total  radiative forcing change over the twentieth century is necessarily larger as well. As we shall see, the  sun does have a large effect on the climate, and it is roughly twice as large as the anthropogenic  forcing alone. This implies that in order to explain the same observed twentieth-century warming, we  require a climate sensitivity only half the size. In fact, the range of sensitivities required to explain  twentieth-century warming is just below the often quoted IPCC range of 1.5-4.5 0 C increase per  doubling of C0 2 .   Needless to say, a lower climate sensitivity is very important if we are to the predict twenty-first-  century temperature increase. For a given emissions scenario, such as a ‘business as usual’ one, the  warming should be correspondingly smaller.   Evidence for a solar-climate link   One of the most interesting aspects of the sun is that it is not constant. The variations that it exhibits  appear in the total irradiance of the sun, primarily in the visible and infrared bands by as much as 0.1  per cent. But they also appear in components other than the total emitted flux. These include very  large relative changes in the magnetic field, the number of sunspots, the strength of the solar wind  and the amount of UV, to name a few.   The basic variation is an activity cycle of about 11 years, which arises from quasi-periodic  reversals of the solar magnetic dipole field. Over longer timescales (of decades to millennia) there  are irregular variations which modulate the 11-year cycle. For example, during the Middle Ages and  again in the latter half of the twentieth century, the peaks in the 11-year cycles were strong, but were  almost absent during the Maunder minimum. On the other hand, eruptions may appear on a timescale  of days. Today there is evidence linking solar activity to the terrestrial climate on all of these  timescales.   Since Jack Eddy published his work in the 1970s, many empirical results have shown a clear  correlation between different climatic reconstructions and different solar activity proxies on the  timescale of decades or longer. Eddy realized that there is a correlation between solar activity and the  European climate over the past millennium [3]. For example, the Little Ice Age in Europe took place  while the sun was particularly inactive, during the Maunder minimum. The Medieval Warm Period,  on the other hand, occurred while the sun was as active as it was in the late twentieth century. Since  then, many findings show a correlation between different climatic reconstructions and different solar  activity proxies.   One of the most beautiful results is that of a multi-millennial correlation between the temperature  of the Indian Ocean as mirrored in the ratio between different oxygen isotopes in stalagmites in a cave in Oman, and solar activity, as reflected in the cosmogenic carbon 14 isotope [4]. These results  by Professor Mangini Heidelberg’s cosmogenic isotope group are presented in Figure 3.11.   Another impressive result over the same timescale comes from Professor Bond’s group, where  the solar activity was compared with the northern Atlantic climate, as recorded on the ocean bed  through ice-rafted debris [5] (Figure 3.10). Many other correlations exist elsewhere.   One way to see that this solar -climate link is global and that it affects the global temperature is to  look at borehole data [6]. These reveal that the solar variations give rise to changes as large as 1° C  between low and high solar activity.    Over the 11-year solar cycle, it is much harder to see climate variations. There are two reasons for  this. First, if we study the climate over short timescales, we find that there are large annual variations  (for example, due to the El Nino oscillation) which introduce cluttering ‘noise’, hindering the  observation of solar-related signals. Second, because of the large ocean heat capacity, it takes decades  before the full effects of given changes in the radiative budget, including those associated with solar  variability, can be seen. It is for this reason that the climate of continental regions is typically much  more extreme than their marine counterparts.   If, for example, a given change in solar forcing is expected to give rise to a temperature change of 0.5° C after several centuries, then the same radiative forcing varying over the 11-year solar cycle is  expected to give rise to temperature variations of only 0.05-0.1° C or so [7]. This is because over short timescales, most of the energy goes into heating the oceans, but because of their very large heat  capacity, large changes in the ocean heat content do not translate into large temperature variations.   Nevertheless, if the global temperature is carefully analysed (for example, by folding the global temperature of the past 120 years over the 11-year solar cycle), it is possible to see variations of  about 0.1° C in the land temperature and slighty less in the ocean surface temperature [7]. Moreover, as we shall demonstrate, it is possible to see the large amount of heat going into the oceans every  solar cycle.   We therefore conclude that the sun has a large effect on the climate. Although the link itself is not the topic of this chapter, it should be mentioned that the leading contender is through solar modulation of the cosmic ray flux reaching the earth [8].   8. Svensmark, H. (1998) Influence of cosmic rays on earth’s climate. Physical Review Letters 81 (22), 5027-30.   This is now supported by a range of empirical and experimental results, as discussed later in this work. Influence of Cosmic Rays on Earth's ClimateHenrik SvensmarkPhys. Rev. Lett. 81, 5027 – Published 30 November 1998ABSTRACTDuring the last solar cycle Earth's cloud cover underwent a modulation more closely in phase with the galactic cosmic ray flux than with other solar activity parameters. Further it is found that Earth's temperature follows more closely decade variations in galactic cosmic ray flux and solar cycle length, than other solar activity parameters. The main conclusion is that the average state of the heliosphere affects Earth's climate.Received 16 September 1997DOI:https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.81.5027©1998 American Physical SocietyAUTHORS & AFFILIATIONSHenrik Svensmark*Solar-Terristrial Physics Division, Danish Metorological Institute, Lyngbyvej 30, DK-2100 Copenhagen Ø, Denmark*Present affiliation: Danish Space Research Institute, Juliane Maries Vej 30, DK-2100, Copenhagen Ø, Denmark. Correspondence should be directed to the above address.