Some new evidence from eminent British & Swiss researchers concludes that variability in the sun's energy output cannot be responsible for recent global warming. Full report from Reuters, though I'm certain it will be all over the press like a rash later today; it's already been mentioned by Wogan on Radio 2.
"There is little doubt that solar variability has influenced the Earth's climate in the past and may well have been a factor in the first half of the last century, but British and Swiss researchers said it could not explain recent warming. "
"Over the past 20 years, all the trends in the sun that could have had an influence on Earth's climate have been in the opposite direction to that required to explain the observed rise in global mean temperatures".
That rather takes one of the major planks out from the BOFDis' none AGW case.
I wonder just how many will take any notice? And what's the betting that some other eminent solar scientists will come up with data that indicates just the opposite within a few days?
This debate will still run and run and run and run ..................
Want to reassess this and other evidence for yourself? Probably the best start point can be found in the New Scientist - Environment section: "Climate change: A guide for the perplexed".
Some other takes on the same research.
"the temperature increase should be slowing down but in fact it is speeding up." The Guardian
"This should settle the debate," - BBCi
"All quiet on the solar front" - The Register.
"measurements of solar activity show it has been declining since the mid-1980s and cannot account for recent rises in global temperatures" - New Scientist.
"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." Royal Society spokesman - as quoted in The Telegraph.
"Find another culprit" - Guardian CIF - some interesting debate in the many comments already, the majority coming from the 'deniers' side already.
______________
ADDENDUM (from Junkk Male) - Real Climate
4 comments:
I fear you are right on one thing more than most: the debate will run on and on.
It's not helped by the 'can't winning' BBC's other enviro reporter (how many have they got?) lady saying that this was 'apparently conclusive'. What the heck does that mean?
As to where we go with this, I look to the facts. But not the facts of climate change, but the facts of how it is playing out with the public who, at the end of the day, will shape business and governement policy.
There is a stonking great disconnect, and whatever is being done simply isn't working. From initiative to campaign, squillions are being blown on 'awareness' that is having precious little effect. Why?
Surely, if simplistically, either the message is not being shaped correctly, or it is the wrong one.
And handing massive amounts to ad agencies to win awards with CGI extravaganzas seems to me poor enviROI as a consequence... unless there is an incentive-based sweetener in the tail.
So I'd like to see some rethinking on directing these funds not on vanity projects that get the COI quango ad commissioner a nice lunch in Charlotte Street and a big up in Cannes, but a lot more going to actually motivating the masses.
Personally, that would seem to be best directed at their wallets. And when (I'm an optimist) they see a difference, then such successes can be shared to say 'look, this does actually save you money... oh.. and it also doesn't do bad by the planet either'.
Peter,
You are quite right as ever. Maybe the message is just plain wrong, or perhaps the way it is slanted is incorrect. Either way, the masses sure don't seem to want to hear what they instinctively know is bad news, so the reaction is the old 'Ostrich. Sand. Head in.' one.
I too think that pain in the wallet is what will really start to make people take note - I spotted an industry article suggesting oil prices will rise another 10% to 15% or more over the next few months due to lack of supply and increasing demand from the emerging economies. Incentives to save energy - better insulation grants (or dare I suggest even free provision of?) etc. as you have stated on many occasions can also have a positive effect.
In the meantime, despite the furore and arguments over its content Durkin's Swindle documentary continues to get global coverage - and will undoubtedly persuade even more people that there really is no problem, when the real evidence suggests that there very much is. Great Global Warming Swindle
According to news.co.au Durkin's program reached an Australian audience of 1.1 Million. I hope that's not another 750,000 who are now convinced that global warming is all a con.
Forgive me leaping ahead several posts to make this point, but this is why we need to regain (though god knows how) our trust in the media to share objective information, or at least subjective opinion in a balanced way that allows free debate and the viewer to arrive at a view that may be 'right', or 'wrong', but is at least honest.
As it stands, while I know full well a CH4 'doco' has about as much chance of being accurate as fly in the air, I no longer trust the BBC, for instance, to have anything other than it's own agenda at play too. So when they trot out anything that is still probably pretty much OK now, especially to do with climate, I always have in the back of my mind that this may be them spinning.
At least I have broader reading to stiffen my resolve, but does the majority of the time-poor population?
Post a Comment