New analysis counters claims that solar activity is linked to global warming

hamba

Inactive User
Joined
May 24, 2005
Messages
8,704
Reaction score
1,345
Location
Down Here
New analysis counters claims that solar activity is linked to global warming

· Study undermines climate sceptics' arguments
· Correlations 'inconsistent' with temperature rise



It has been one of the central claims of those who challenge the idea that human activities are to blame for global warming. The planet's climate has long fluctuated, say the climate sceptics, and current warming is just part of that natural cycle - the result of variation in the sun's output and not carbon dioxide emissions.

But a new analysis of data on the sun's output in the last 25 years of the 20th century has firmly put the notion to rest. The data shows that even though the sun's activity has been decreasing since 1985, global temperatures have continued to rise at an accelerating rate.

The solar hypothesis was championed publicly in March by the controversial Channel 4 documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle.

The programme has been heavily criticised for distorting scientific data to fit the sceptic argument and Carl Wunsch, a professor of physical oceanography at MIT who featured in the programme, later said that he was "totally misled" by the film makers and that his comments were "completely misrepresented".

The new analysis is designed to counter the main alternative scientific argument put forward by the programme - that solar activity may be to blame for global warming.

"The temperature record is simply not consistent with any of the solar forcings that people are talking about," said lead author Mike Lockwood at the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory in Oxfordshire.

"They changed direction in 1985, the climate did not ... [the temperature] increase should be slowing down but in fact it is speeding up."

Global temperatures are going up by 0.2 degrees per decade and the top 10 warmest years on record have happened in the past 12 years.

One way that the sun affects the climate is through clouds. The sun's magnetic field shields the Earth from its high energy particles called cosmic rays. The rays help form clouds that reflect the sun's energy back into space and cool the planet.

So if the sun's magnetic field is high, there should be a fall-off in cosmic rays, fewer clouds and more warming. But Prof Lockwood's data, published today in the Proceedings of the Royal Society, shows the sun's magnetic field has declined since 1985, even as the world heats up.

James Hansen, a Nasa climate scientist who was once gagged by the Bush administration for speaking out on global warming, said the issue of whether the sun's activity is causing global warming had been dispensed with by most scientists long ago. "The reason [this paper] has value is that the proponents of the notion that the sun determines everything come up with various half-baked suggestions that the sun can somehow cause an indirect forcing that is not included in the measurements of radiation coming from the sun," he said. "These half-baked notions are usually supported by empirical correlations of climate with some solar index in the past. Thus, by showing that these correlations are not consistent with recent climate change, the half-baked notions can be dispensed with."

Prof Lockwood said the study was "another nail" in the coffin of the notion that solar activity is responsible for global warming.

Nir Shaviv, an astrophysicist at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and a proponent of the solar hypothesis, has tried to rescue the idea by invoking a time lag between changes in the sun and its effect on the Earth's climate. But Prof Lockwood dismissed this as "disingenuous".

"Nobody has invoked that kind of lag before. It's only been invoked now as a way out," he said. Even if the lag were 50 years then he believes we would begin to see the rise in global temperatures slowing down.

Even though there is almost no argument among scientific circles about the role of human activities as the main driver of climate change, a recent poll suggested that the public still believes there is significant scientific uncertainty. Despite the efforts of government and campaigns such as Live Earth to educate the public, the Ipsos Mori poll of over 2,031 people, released this month, found 56% of people thought there was an active scientific debate into the causes of global warming.

A spokesman for the Royal Society, the UK's leading scientific academy, said: "This is an important contribution to the scientific debate on climate change. At present there is a small minority which is seeking to deliberately confuse the public on the causes of climate change. They are often misrepresenting the science, when the reality is that the evidence is getting stronger every day. We have reached a point where a failure to take action to reduce carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions would be irresponsible and dangerous."

Channel 4 and Martin Durkin, producer of The Great Global Warming Swindle, declined to comment.







James Randerson, science correspondent
Wednesday July 11, 2007
Guardian Unlimited
© Guardian News and Media Limited 2007
 
I think its funny that there has always been climate change in one way or another, since the days of the dinosaurs and the cavemen. Now any slight change in climate "MUST" be linked to global warming (or should I say the totally unprovable THEORY! of global warming due to greenhouse gas emmisions).

It amazes me, if we get servere cold weather,
"oh thats global warming - prepare to be taxed".
If we get a few days of sun aka summer,
"oh thats global warming - prepare to be taxed"

They would tax the air we breathe if they could.

edcase
 
a government attempt at damage control,

the suns output has NOT been decreasing,
and they still need to explain how the other planets are warming up, have aliens exported muscle-cars and 4x4's?

interesting linky's
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/july2007/090707closertosun.htm
http://www.spaceweather.com/

Why a government attempt?

The Royal Society, the national academy of science of the UK and the Commonwealth, is at the cutting edge of scientific progress.

It supports many top young scientists, engineers and technologists. It influences science policy, it debates scientific issues with the public and much more. It is an independent, charitable body which derives its authoritative status from its 1400 Fellows and Foreign Members.
 
I think its funny that there has always been climate change in one way or another, since the days of the dinosaurs and the cavemen. Now any slight change in climate "MUST" be linked to global warming (or should I say the totally unprovable THEORY! of global warming due to greenhouse gas emmisions).

It amazes me, if we get servere cold weather,
"oh thats global warming - prepare to be taxed".
If we get a few days of sun aka summer,
"oh thats global warming - prepare to be taxed"

They would tax the air we breathe if they could.

edcase



Mark Steel: Global warming must be a lie. Just look who says so

Those spiders should be ashamed of the effect they're having on the islands of Kiribati

Published: 11 July 2007

The Live Earth concert was worthwhile, because it provoked this splendid argument from a columnist in The Sun, who insists the climate isn't changing - "Global warming is simply the new way of screwing more and more taxes out of us."

So it turns out all those scientists and weather people and botanists and people measuring glaciers have made it all up so the Government can propose a twelve quid long-haul airline tax. There's probably a secret group in Greenland hacking icebergs to bits with a shovel to make it look more convincing.

Next week he'll add: "And what about these so-called 'sound waves'? Have you ever seen one? Of course not, because they're simply another scam dreamed up by the BBC so they can charge us a license fee."

This is the level of debate offered by those who dispute global warming is happening. Either that, or they repeat some snippet they've seen on a website, like: "What about the Montana Institute of Snow, eh? They analysed nine different snowflakes in the Andes and concluded flakes are bigger now than in the olden days, so although there are less flakes, there's 80-per-cent more snow in total than ever before, and the man who does the graphs to say there's global warming is being paid by a cycle shop in Taunton."

Even this would be more convincing than the theory of Johnny Ball, who for some reason has become one of their media spokemen, and who cornered me for half an hour, during which time he said with great conviction: "Do you know what causes more global warming than anything else? The methane from spiders."

The little buggers. I bet they're using coal-powered webs, with not a thought for the environment. And instead of hanging from beams in sheds, they're flying round garages in Boeing 757s they've had built by bees.

One thing the spiders should be ashamed of is their effect on the islands of Kiribati, some of which have been sunk by rising sea levels, forcing the population to flee. Or maybe that was caused by condensation. The Sun columnist would go round and say: "Aah, I say what's happened here - someone's had the kettle on."

The other main point of the sceptics is that Al Gore is a pompous politician who flies everywhere himself. Which is true, but this has little bearing on whether the climate is changing. You might as well say, "Isaac Newton was a right scruffy bastard. And yet you expect me to believe in gravity?"

Some of the science is confusing and uncertain, so one way to judge it is to look at who's on which side of the argument. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report was made by 600 scientists from 40 countries, assessed by 600 reviewers, and agrees this is happening.

Whereas most of the stuff that contradicts it can be traced back to websites that aren't entirely neutral. For example, one leading source for the "global warming's a myth" supporters is called "Friends of Science" - except their president admitted: "About one third of the funding for the Friends of Science is provided by the oil industry." Yet this stuff is repeated round the world by columnists as fact.

Exxon has spent millions of dollars on a website that disputes global warming. Or there's the publication called 21st Century Science and Technology, which claimed that 55 per cent of glaciers are actually growing at the moment.

But this paper turns out to be owned by an American millionaire by the name of Lyndon Larouche, who has also claimed the British royal family is running an international drugs syndicate. Nonetheless, he's been quoted by global warming sceptics, including David Bellamy.

Johnny Ball, David Bellamy - why does this affliction seem to target 1970s TV presenters? Soon Frank Bough will announce that global warming is caused by cyclists, because they disrupt the path of flies who then whizz about more erratically, making themselves a more difficult prey for spiders, who have to move faster to catch them, causing methane mayhem.

Apart from TV presenters, opponents of the scientists seem to be supporters of the oil companies, or people who believe they're standing up against a woozy liberal agenda. Because the PC mafia are forcing us to burn our cars and buy tandems and not go on holiday, while the only people resisting this are the downtrodden voices of the petro-chemical industry, the airlines, and the government of America.

So they're not interested in the science at all. When they were at a chemistry class in school, and the teacher announced that the litmus paper had turned red so vinegar must be an acid, they probably shouted: "Oh what do you know? I suppose now we'll all have to campaign to save alkalines from extinction will we?"

Live Earth may have brought the scale of the climate problem to people's attention. But it can't be resolved without confronting those giant companies and governments in whose interest it is to deny the problem is there at all.

For example, to reduce the number of cars, we could invest in a re-nationalised public transport system, which would upset the private rail firms and the car firms. And it would upset the people who complained that Live Earth "only put one point of view". They'll probably also complain the coverage of the Tour de France "only puts one point of view," as there should be someone else saying: "They can't have gone all that way, they'd have tipped over the edge."





© 2007 Independent News and Media Limited
 
Yes, the temperature is rising, but nobody can prove that it is linked to greenhouse gasses.
The article above provides no evidence that global warming is linked to greenhouse gas emmisions, and simply aims to belittle any non-believer. Its the most pointless piece of sh*te I have read in a long time.

edcase
 
the government bitches are good at twisting science in the knowlege that most people wont know any better.

cars dont emit co2 for example, they emit co
co2 is heavier than air and used in fire extinguishers and fizzy drinks - ban cola!

if co2 was reaching the atmosphere then it would have blanketed the oxygen and sufocated all of us.
that's why they use it in extinguishers - it displaces the oxygen.
 
Back
Top