It wasn't the sun unless you can prove it

[Iceberg]

A new article on the beeb based on a paper. A snipet is below.

We really need the paper to look at, but the science is in very little doubt.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6290228.stm

A new scientific study concludes that changes in the Sun's output cannot be causing modern-day climate change.

It shows that for the last 20 years, the Sun's output has declined, yet temperatures on Earth have risen.

It also shows that modern temperatures are not determined by the Sun's effect on cosmic rays, as has been claimed.

Writing in the Royal Society's journal Proceedings A, the researchers say cosmic rays may have affected climate in the past, but not the present.

"This should settle the debate," said Mike Lockwood from the UK's Rutherford-Appleton Laboratory, who carried out the new analysis together with Claus Froehlich from the World Radiation Center in Switzerland.

Dr Lockwood initiated the study partially in response to the TV documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle, broadcast on Britain's Channel Four earlier this year, which featured the cosmic ray hypothesis.

"All the graphs they showed stopped in about 1980, and I knew why, because things diverged after that," he told the BBC News website.

"You can't just ignore bits of data that you don't like," he said.

[Osbourne One-Nil]

This should be good!

[Guest Viking141]

OK there are literally hundreds of reports, papers etc that say GW/AGW is not all its cracked up to be (just take a look at the sceptics thread if you dont believe me) and yet those who believe in GW/AGW choose not to believe any of it. Please explain to me then why, I should abandon everything I believe in just on the basis of ONE paper?

If the situation were reversed, if in todays BBC news it had a story about one scientific paper that said GW/AGW was a load of hogwash would you accept it without reservation. No, didnt think so and neither will I. Dont expect me to do something you wouldn't.

[noggin]

Flatulent cows, isn't it?

It's all turning into a bit of a joke.

(Shakes head, sadly......)

Edited July 11, 2007 by noggin

[Devonian]

OK there are literally hundreds of reports, papers etc that say GW/AGW is not all its cracked up to be (just take a look at the sceptics thread if you dont believe me) and yet those who believe in GW/AGW choose not to believe any of it. Please explain to me then why, I should abandon everything I believe in just on the basis of ONE paper?

Show me where it's wrong please.

If the situation were reversed, if in todays BBC news it had a story about one scientific paper that said GW/AGW was a load of hogwash would you accept it without reservation. ...

I would, if it made sense.

Flatulent cows, isn't it?

It's all turning into a bit of a joke.

(Shakes head, sadly......)

Not that again.

A agricultural research org does some scientific research and finds out that, shock, diet effects how cows digestion works. We know methane is a powerful ghg so this might have climate implication - shock?

OK, it's something sceptics can snigger 'fart jokeingly' about it, but - really - is it the best you can do?

Edited July 11, 2007 by Devonian

[jethro]

This just goes round and round and round. I have shown you where it's wrong and why, many times and in many places; so have others. Viking is right, one paper does not a theory make. If I, or any other sceptic had posted one paper and declared it to be the answer, we'd be torn to shreds and rightly so. How can this carry any more weight than the similar paper published a while ago which stated that Cosmic Rays did play a part? Sceptice are repeatedly scorned for posting links which are not peer reviewed - level playing field folks eh.

I would, if it made sense.

Edited July 11, 2007 by jethro

[Guest Viking141]

Show me where it's wrong please.

Thats not what I said. Read again what I said and I also pointed you to a source. Stop taking other peoples words and twisting them to suit yourself.

I would, if it made sense.

On past evidence, Devonian, I doubt it very much.

[noggin]

OK, it's something sceptics can snigger 'fart jokeingly' about it, but - really - is it the best you can do?

At the moment, yes! B)

[Guest Viking141]

This just goes round and round and round. I have shown you where it's wrong and why, many times and in many places; so have others. Viking is right, one paper does not a theory make. If I, or any other sceptic had posted one paper and declared it to be the answer, we'd be torn to shreds and rightly so. How can this carry any more weight than the similar paper published a while ago which stated that Cosmic Rays did play a part? Sceptice are repeatedly scorned for posting links which are not peer reviewed - level playing field folks eh.

Spot on Jethro

[noggin]

This just goes round and round and round.

I really cannot see the point anymore.

Yes, Jethro, it does go round and round, doesn't it!

All this GW/AGW business is the current "fashion".

Fashion goes round and round and we "sceptics" are out of fashion at the moment!

( a bit like my wardrobe! B) )

[Devonian]

This just goes round and round and round. I have shown you where it's wrong and why, many times and in many places; so have others. Viking is right, one paper does not a theory make. If I, or any other sceptic had posted one paper and declared it to be the answer, we'd be torn to shreds and rightly so. How can this carry any more weight than the similar paper published a while ago which stated that Cosmic Rays did play a part? Sceptice are repeatedly scorned for posting links which are not peer reviewed - level playing field folks eh.

I would, if it made sense.

Ditto.

To be honest I think I've had just about enough now. It doesn't matter what thread gets opened or who opens it, the same old argument kicks off; we're right, you're wrong, ner ner ner nah ner. I've posted literally dozens and dozens of peer reviewed papers which throw doubt on the AGW theory from many angles, I've questioned, reasoned and argued and it goes nowhere. As soon as any point comes up which the AGW camp cannot argue or explain then it either goes silent or denegrates into more same old, same old.

I really cannot see the point anymore.

I'm sick as well. Of being dismissed, of being accused of being rude or whatever. I'm sick of all the good science I've read being dismissed. - don't think, or make out, it's just you!

Answer to it? I don't know. But I do know that there is going to be little agreement between those who accept a vast body of science produced by the bodies we all know (Met O, Hadley, NOAA etc etc etc) and those who don't. There never is a agreement when there is a disagreement B)

Thats not what I said. Read again what I said and I also pointed you to a source. Stop taking other peoples words and twisting them to suit yourself.

On past evidence, Devonian, I doubt it very much.

Thank you - so kind...

[Admiral_Bobski]

Was this "study" an actual published paper or just some kind of editorial? I've looked on the Royal Society homepage, browsed through the April, May, June, July and August editions and can't find a single paper by either Lockwood or Froehlich.

Judgement should be reserved until we can actually see the paper anyway, or even just the abstract (would be a nice start). And, as others have pointed out above, one paper does not a Damning Condemnation make.

I believe also that the green light has been given to test the Cosmic Ray hypothesis at CERN in an experiment called "CLOUD". From what I hear the experiment began last year, the first results are expected this summer and the full data set can be expected some time around 2010 (that's the year 2010, not ten past eight in the evening!).

Why is it not possible that the Sun's high level of activity up to the mid-1980s is responsible for the current warming trend? AGW proponents always talk about "delayed response" and "step-changes" and "tipping points" when it suits them, but all of a sudden the shoe is on the other foot and solar activity is disregarded entirely... Crazy.

B)

CB

[jethro]

Yes, Jethro, it does go round and round, doesn't it!

All this GW/AGW business is the current "fashion".

Fashion goes round and round and we "sceptics" are out of fashion at the moment!

( a bit like my wardrobe! B) )

Indeed. Me and my old hotpants are off to work. With the exception of my Banshees, Goth look way back, I don't think I've followed fashion much so it's no great surprise to not be da la mode here either. Going to keep my thoughts to myself in future, giving up with this nonsense. Enjoy everyone, I'm off to the land of Mondy.

[Admiral_Bobski]

Going to keep my thoughts to myself in future, giving up with this nonsense. Enjoy everyone, I'm off to the land of Mondy.

I was going to plead with you to stay, but I think you may have a point... B)

Take care, Jethro

CB

[noggin]

I'm off to the land of Mondy.

I wish we could have Mondy back. I miss him. B)

[flagpole]

I wish we could have Mondy back. I miss him. B)

Yeah, me too!

[kar999]

Was this "study" an actual published paper or just some kind of editorial? I've looked on the Royal Society homepage, browsed through the April, May, June, July and August editions and can't find a single paper by either Lockwood or Froehlich.

Judgement should be reserved until we can actually see the paper anyway, or even just the abstract (would be a nice start).......

CB

Here you go.

http://www.journals.royalsoc.ac.uk/content/h844264320314105/

[Osbourne One-Nil]

Rather than just say "why should we believe one paper" etc etc, why not actually debate whether the information provided is valid, or whether it sheds any more light on the subject?

[Essan]

According to the news story

But in about 1985, that trend appears to have reversed, with solar output declining.

Which is about when global warming started. So that proves it then. Everyone is wrong. Global Warming is caused by reduced solar activity B)

[flagpole]

Which is about when global warming started. So that proves it then. Everyone is wrong. Global Warming is caused by reduced solar activity

That's also around the time Neighbours started! Neighbours causes Global Warming!

It's ok, I'm going. B)

[SnowBear]

Ya know what I believe in?

I believe that no-one in truth really knows exactly what the heck is going on.

All theories, thoughts and beliefs, all maybe have part of the truth within them, until the whole scientific community, trade and commerce, politics etc stop arguing, and a proper investigation done without influences from those said politics, trade and commerce are done, we wont know. So, I will continue to think that humans are a messy species and need to clean up their act, do my bit and let everyone else waste time arguing and shame on those who don't do their bit.

Maybe this warming trend would still be occurring regardless if humans were on the planet or not, who knows, we don't have another planet like this to compare, which in itself says we need to take more care of it.

All hot air, no action so far.

Edited July 11, 2007 by SnowBear

[Guest Viking141]

Heres a thought. If they say the evidence shows that solar output has decreased over the last 20 years does this not actually support Landscheits calculations and mean that we are still on track for the approaching Gleissberg Minima which will happen irrespective of what temp is doing here on earth?

[Admiral_Bobski]

Here you go.

http://www.journals.royalsoc.ac.uk/content/h844264320314105/

Thanks for that, kar - I don't know why I couldn't find it, but there you go...!

It's a shame the abstract isn't more detailed. In response to OON, who said:

Rather than just say "why should we believe one paper" etc etc, why not actually debate whether the information provided is valid, or whether it sheds any more light on the subject?

I'm only too happy to debate the science in the paper...if only I could actually read it...

While it may be true that solar activity has declined it does not necessarily logically follow that the sun is not responsible for current warming - our understanding of the sun's effect on climate is, according to the IPCC themselves, "Very Low". There's the possibility of cumulative effects from prior to 1985 having some sort of knock-on impact on climate. There's the possibility that the measured solar output has decreased but that some other solar output has increased. Unfortunately, without being able to read the paper itself I don't know whether or not they have addressed these issues.

Perhaps this paper should, for now, be filed for later reference...?

B)

CB

[Weather-history]

I'm confused, cosmic ray output has declined in the last 20 years, yet the sun has been more active recently than it appears to have been in the last 1000 years

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3869753.stm

[SnowBear]

Amazing eh? Just proves my point Mr Data.

Two articles, 4 days apart, on the same subject and both in conflict.

Truth is, I believe no-one has a clue really. The Earth, Solar System and Universe is far more complicated than humans can comprehend. In truth we have probably only scratched the surface on the working and complexities of this wonderful Universe.

Edited July 11, 2007 by SnowBear