That's the conclusion of research from Lancaster University reported by the Beeb today.
Now this was a key piece of evidence (based on Svensmark's theory) used in the Great Global Warming Swindle indicating that the warming of the earth was not caused by human activity.
Seems now to be pretty much debunked as a factor as to why the planet is warming. So we probably really do need to carry on trying to reduce carbon emissions, otherwise we could start to see other unwanted visitors arriving in the UK.
Maybe soon we will need to teleport to a new planet?
6 comments:
Interesting.
This was referred to earlier this AM in one of the 'climate optimistic' sites/newsletters that froms part of my daily deluge.
I merely play devil's advocate here and reprint a reader comment that has aspects I have to say I have some sympathy with:
'The sun provides 100% of the earth's heat and 100% of the earth's light! If there were no sun there would be no life! You only have to walk outside on a sunny day to feel the power of the sun and experience its effect on the climate around you, and then walk out at night to feel the effect of the sun's absence! From cloud formation to plant growth to the rain that falls the sun drives everything! The AGW lobby must be desperate , I mean really deperate, to come out with trash like the "sun has no effect on climate".
The obvious question ... would be, if the sun has no effect on the earth's climate then where does the heat and light come from?
I have to say that either my understanding of what is being shared is poor... or they way it has been portrayed.
The comment above is simplistic, as is my grasp of the deep subtleties of climate science, but then the BBC has some form in trotting out things simplistically, too. And, often, not without a hint of agenda attached.
So to divorce our climate from the sun's activity seems hard to credit.
I will follow this with interest.
As always, I just want to know, to some measure of accuracy and trust, what's going on.
Doesn't alter my commitment to reducing emissions where possible, and cutting waste always.
Of course the sun is the massively singular controlling factor on our planet's climate; that's blindingly obvious to anyone with even a single brain cell; but nowhere does the article (nor the research it is reporting on) state that the "sun has no effect on climate".
It very clearly states that the evidence gathered from over the last twenty years (which has seen the most rapid warming of our planet over more than 300,000 years [ice core evidence]) suggests absolutley minimal correlation with observed (and carefully recorded) solar activity. I.e. the current scientifically observed warming does NOT correlate with any observable solar activity.
I'm afraid the poster clearly didn't read the article before bursting into apocalyptic rage.
Calm down, dear.. it's only the end of life as we know it. Maybe.
As I said, I am interested in how this plays out.
I fear that what may be muddying the waters is the sense in some that the reporting of the facts (on any side... but we do pay a hefty chunk for the BBC to do its job in a balanced manner) may not be that objective.
To the casual observer (you are not, and I am not, if nowhere as diligent or expert as you... but most are not going to get that into it much at all beyond the headline and hoo-haa) this is just shaping up for yet another titanic clash of the extreme preconceptions.
I have revisited the CO site and it is, forgive the pun... ablaze... with most obviously raging apocalyptically. However, there is the odd question posed that I certainly would like explained, if only on the reporting front.
I may only be a copywriter and not a professional journalist or editor, but reading the facts as they are does not, to me, warrant the tone, from headline to much of the copy to the end line... at least from an objective news source. And hence it serves the cause of moderate explanation and persuasion poorly, as it hands those who would see more value in discreditting anything at all some fairly potent ammo. In my view. Maybe one of those areas we may need to agree to disagree? PMWNCC is a heady subject. And while you may rage in return, that is what I have taken from what I have read. Hence the manner of the information sharing is at fault, at least in reaching out to me, and that has tainted the value of the actual information. I hope you can see the distinction.
It also seems a worry that you are more able and willing to try and explain things objectively than the BBC with all the resources at their disposal and remit to be objective.
But at least on this little blog the discussion can be engaged upon in a civilised manner.
I just got my BBC mail. This is what precedes the link:
'No Sun link' to climate change -
The idea that the Earth's climate is determined by cosmic rays and the Sun's activity is discredited by UK scientists.'
Do I think that is an accurate representation of the information, debate, and protagonists...no.
Wading through the excitement, what I do now have is another piece in the jigsaw that suggests a group of scientists from a Uni in the UK have produced some research based on readings over a certain period that would suggest the link between sunspot activity and negative, unexpected (deep water time) climate change is not as others have claimed.
Hmmmm, I see what you mean. The incorrect use of terms ('climate' instead of 'warming climate' for example, as in "the idea that the Earth's climate is determined by cosmic rays and the Sun's activity"), does rather make the Beeb's reporting of the subject misleading, if not even factually incorrect.
But it will, of course, foment a great deal of heated debate. Perhaps this is a tried and trusted Beeb method of stimulating interest? (or creating news?)
OK, for what it's worth, here's my summary:-
1) Svensmark postulated (not proven, of course) that solar activity (sunspots, irradiation, solar wind etc.) were directly responsible for observable warming over the last twenty years.
2) This postulate was used by the antis as a central argument against AGW (as in the GGW Swindle). i.e. They claimed that it 'proved' that any warming was not man made.
3) New detailed analysis (by a British Uni.) of recorded solar activity evidence over the last twenty years, compared against actual temperature data records, now very strongly implies that Svensmark's postulate is invalid.
My Conclusions:-
a) The scientific evidence is clear that the earth's climate is warming.
b) It now does not appear that this warming is anything directly related to solar activity.
c) We still do not know for certain that any observed warming is solely, largely, partly, slightly or even NOT at all, from an anthropogenic cause.
d) The 'theory' that climate warming is man made is in itself, nothing more than a postulate, albeit one that thousands of scientists [much cleverer than me] have effectively agreed with and signed up to. (What, if I recollect rightly, is termed a 'Consensus Supported Theory')
e) There is a lot more evidence to gather before AGW can be totally proven or disproved.
___________
Soooooo, In the meantime, I am happy to sign up to PMWCC (Probably [or even, perhaps, Likely] Man Worsened Climate Change) as a suitable moniker, with one BIG caveat....
..... Do we actually have the time to do anything to prevent runaway climate warming? It may be that by the time it is proven to one and all that climate warming IS anthropogenic, we may have already passed one of the so-called tipping points.
_____________
So many factors, theories and postulates, so little definitive knowledge, so much bloody confusion and argument; and none of it helped much by our paid-for national broadcaster!
Maybe our licence fees simply pay for a pot-stirrer?
Beyond our mutual concerns, I fear it has to be accepted that we are in but a tiny minority in thinking there is something going on, and If it is as serious as many who know better say it is, then such actions as will make a difference are required.
I just happen to look at the totality of the issue in a slightly different way, namely how it gets communicated to the masses, and the effect that the current communications are having.
My personal view is that government, and certain compliant media content (for whatever reasons, sincere or otherwise) to 'help' try and get the public on board, are currently making a total fist of it.
If this is 'the single greatest threat... etc' they seem to be treating it in a very piecemeal, scrappy manner, dipping in when it suits, and not very convincingly when they do. And usually either with a whopping 'other agenda' attached or with near propaganda levels of communication that in our... current... democracy seem almost designed to create the near opposite to what is intended.
We are in a media world, and that needs to be accepted. What will not fly for a moment is anything other than obective truth, accountablity and common sense. A big part of that is saying 'we don't know'. I might add my own 'but' here, and suggest a lot more on sticking to what we do know and where it is vague don't try and bend thinsg to fit a total view, no matter how attractive it seems to the target-driven mindsets that run our lives today.
In my ad days you didn't stay in business long just by pumping out messages; people needed to understand, believe and engage positively with them.
AIDAR: attention, interest, desire action/response
Post a Comment