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?
Showing posts with label SOLAR ACTIVITY. Show all posts
Showing posts with label SOLAR ACTIVITY. Show all posts
Thursday, April 03, 2008
Sunday, July 15, 2007
Sun to blame for global warming. Not! Well,.... maybe!
Who are we supposed to believe? Does anyone have a method we can follow to fight our way out of this pandora's box of utter confusion?
We suspected that this just might be the case - "this debate will still run and run and run."
First we had a counter AGW theory - climate change is not anthropogenic at all, its all to do with natural cycles in the sun's output - solar radiation levels, magnetic field changes, sunspots, solar flares etc.......
...... Then along comes research that supposedly proves that this is definitely not the case, and looking at the data graphs in the New Scientist (link below), the evidence appeared quite compelling ........
"measurements of solar activity show it has been declining since the mid-1980s and cannot account for recent rises in global temperatures" - New Scientist.
...... Well, further to previous posts on this subject on this very blog, it now looks as if it all comes down to "interpretation of the data". This opinion article from The Telegraph suggests that ....
"Last week's research is a simple piece of science and fundamentally flawed. Nobody looked beyond the hype; if they had, they would have reached a different conclusion."
And "Using the global temperature data endorsed by the Inter-national Panel on Climate Change, one can reach a completely different conclusion."
So what was conclusive last week is no longer so this week!
The argument (and debate) is over .... NOT!
Wake me up in twenty years time please.
We suspected that this just might be the case - "this debate will still run and run and run."
First we had a counter AGW theory - climate change is not anthropogenic at all, its all to do with natural cycles in the sun's output - solar radiation levels, magnetic field changes, sunspots, solar flares etc.......
...... Then along comes research that supposedly proves that this is definitely not the case, and looking at the data graphs in the New Scientist (link below), the evidence appeared quite compelling ........
"measurements of solar activity show it has been declining since the mid-1980s and cannot account for recent rises in global temperatures" - New Scientist.
...... Well, further to previous posts on this subject on this very blog, it now looks as if it all comes down to "interpretation of the data". This opinion article from The Telegraph suggests that ....
"Last week's research is a simple piece of science and fundamentally flawed. Nobody looked beyond the hype; if they had, they would have reached a different conclusion."
And "Using the global temperature data endorsed by the Inter-national Panel on Climate Change, one can reach a completely different conclusion."
So what was conclusive last week is no longer so this week!
The argument (and debate) is over .... NOT!
Wake me up in twenty years time please.
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
Sun to blame for global warming. Not.
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
"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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)