'No Sun link' to climate change

[biffvernon]

Scientists have produced further compelling evidence showing that modern-day climate change is not caused by changes in the Sun's activity.

The research contradicts a favoured theory of climate "sceptics", that changes in cosmic rays coming to Earth determine cloudiness and temperature.

The idea is that variations in solar activity affect cosmic ray intensity.

But Lancaster University scientists found there has been no significant link between them in the last 20 years.

Presenting their findings in the Institute of Physics journal, Environmental Research Letters, the UK team explain that they used three different ways to search for a correlation, and found virtually none.

More at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7327393.stm

[Shiny_Bottom_1]

Interesting. But what it shows is that it has not 'caused' climate change.

Does it actually disprove that it could be a factor, to any extent?

[Gray-Wolf]

seeing as the sun is our primary energy source I'd imagine it does have it's impact Chris. Had we been 'tilted' differently or in our furthest orbit we may not be changing as quickly as we are but we aren't, so we are!

I, personally, cannot discount the many ways the suns energy arrives and is distributed having 'novel impacts' on AGW. Sadly I'd imagine that my 'leads' would not be explored by mainstream science (driven currents produced during CME's leading to upper atmospheric/tropospheric heating due to resistance).

Ho hum.

[Guest Daniel]

More at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7327393.stm

This Is A load of rubbish. Of course the sun effects our climate that is why we have climate change. The simple fact the global warming lobby are not only making vasts amounts of money but are becomming ever more powerful. So of course they would dismiss any other theroy that may cause them damage. If we follow there lead and try and cut carbon the world would ebd up far poorer than it is now. There no need for this. Also a warmer world is better than a colder world. If in the future if we run out of power because of these mad polices there would be massive soical unrest and voilent protests that would make the poll tax up rising in the 1980s look tame.

Edited April 3, 2008 by Daniel

[jethro]

I propose a whip round to buy them each one of these......

http://www.printfection.com/stupidityoffse...ight/_p_2181283

[biffvernon]

What it comes down to, ChrisL, Daniel, Jethro et al. is whether or not you accept the scientific method as a useful tool for ordering the affairs of humankind.

If you do then you have to accept the implications of AGW.

If you don't then we can have no meaningful discourse, our frames of reference being too far apart.

All I can do is to warn off other people, who have not yet studied the issues, from taking anything you say seriously.

[SnowBear]

This Is A load of rubbish. Of course the sun effects our climate that is why we have climate change. The simple fact the global warming lobby are not only making vasts amounts of money but are becomming ever more powerful. So of course they would dismiss any other theroy that may cause them damage. If we follow there lead and try and cut carbon the world would ebd up far poorer than it is now. There no need for this. Also a warmer world is better than a colder world. If in the future if we run out of power because of these mad polices there would be massive soical unrest and voilent protests that would make the poll tax up rising in the 1980s look tame.

Daniel, whether warming is caused by the sun, CO2 output, cows farts or otherwise, common sense, logic and morals says pollution is wrong.

[Devonian]

This Is A load of rubbish. Of course the sun effects our climate that is why we have climate change. The simple fact the global warming lobby are not only making vasts amounts of money but are becomming ever more powerful. So of course they would dismiss any other theroy that may cause them damage. If we follow there lead and try and cut carbon the world would ebd up far poorer than it is now. There no need for this. Also a warmer world is better than a colder world. If in the future if we run out of power because of these mad polices there would be massive soical unrest and voilent protests that would make the poll tax up rising in the 1980s look tame.

So, you've read the paper and understood what they did? Then can you please post your reasoning not your rubbishing?

Edited April 3, 2008 by Devonian

[BUSHY]

What we have here are two conflicting studies. More work needs to be done before any conclusions can be drawn. The evidence for a significant solar influence is however mounting and we will see what transpires in the short term with regard to the suns recent inactivity. Lag time appears to be about five years and it is possible that we are already seeing the effects.

[Devonian]

What we have here are two conflicting studies. More work needs to be done before any conclusions can be drawn. The evidence for a significant solar influence is however mounting and we will see what transpires in the short term with regard to the suns recent inactivity. Lag time appears to be about five years and it is possible that we are already seeing the effects.

How can evidence for 'a significant solar influence' be 'mounting' on a day when a study saying the opposite comes out? You can say that if a study backing up significant solar influence comes out, but it's well pushing it to claim that today.

[Roo]

What it comes down to, ChrisL, Daniel, Jethro et al. is whether or not you accept the scientific method as a useful tool for ordering the affairs of humankind.

If you do then you have to accept the implications of AGW.

If you don't then we can have no meaningful discourse, our frames of reference being too far apart.

All I can do is to warn off other people, who have not yet studied the issues, from taking anything you say seriously.

Thanks Biff. Good solidly respectable source too.

EDIT: To all those who have rubbished this research, can you please, with evidence, explain why it is wrong?

Edited April 3, 2008 by Roo

[Climate Man]

As an AGW skeptic, I never thought that I would agree with Gray Wolf but it has now happened. All of our heat/energy comes from the sun. If Co2 raises temperatures this will only happen with the sun's energy. If the sun went out any amount of C02 would not stop us freezing to death.

Even some AGW activists are having to agree that recent temperatures have plateaued or are even falling. If CO2 has risen and the sun has no effect - how can this happen?

[Osbourne One-Nil]

I've got an idea - how about we discuss the article published by Lancaster University?

Radical I know, but might be worth a go?

[Devonian]

As an AGW skeptic, I never thought that I would agree with Gray Wolf but it has now happened. All of our heat/energy comes from the sun. If Co2 raises temperatures this will only happen with the sun's energy. If the sun went out any amount of C02 would not stop us freezing to death.

Yup, but the GH effect determines how fast energy leaves the Earth. It's not something to be experimented with.

Even some AGW activists are having to agree that recent temperatures have plateaued or are even falling. If CO2 has risen and the sun has no effect - how can this happen?

The impact of natural variability (LA Nina on this occasion) on an upward trend. When La Nina fizzles then if temperatures don't start to rise again in the medium term (< decade) you'll have a 'convert'. If temperatures rise again will I have a 'convert'?

Edited April 3, 2008 by Devonian

[Roo]

I've got an idea - how about we discuss the article published by Lancaster University?

And do you know what? It's open access (hurrah!) so the full text can be found here:

http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1748-9326/3/...71-e7e11ceba16b

[Mr Sleet]

How can evidence for 'a significant solar influence' be 'mounting' on a day when a study saying the opposite comes out? You can say that if a study backing up significant solar influence comes out, but it's well pushing it to claim that today.

OK Dev, I have read the article and I have no axe to grind either way, I have an open mind : but 2 points

1) The headline " No Sun link" to Climate Change is wrong. To be scientifically accurate, it should say " No cosmic ray" link to climate change. The Lancaster team have only looked at one mechanism by which the Sun could play a part- namely it's influence on cosmic rays from outside the solar system reaching the Earth.

2) It is quite simplistic to say (Rutherford Appleton lab)that solar activity has decreased slightly over the last 20 years so global temps should have gone down too. There is plenty of thermal inertia in the sytem and I wouldn't expect an immediate response- remember we have not warmed up appreciably for the last 8 years and very recently there has been a cooling. So I think that there is a bit of media spin going on here.

[Roo]

OK Dev, I have read the article and I have no axe to grind either way, I have an open mind : but 2 points

1) The headline " No Sun link" to Climate Change is wrong. To be scientifically accurate, it should say " No cosmic ray" link to climate change. The Lancaster team have only looked at one mechanism by which the Sun could play a part- namely it's influence on cosmic rays from outside the solar system reaching the Earth.

2) It is quite simplistic to say (Rutherford Appleton lab)that solar activity has decreased slightly over the last 20 years so global temps should have gone down too. There is plenty of thermal inertia in the sytem and I wouldn't expect an immediate response- remember we have not warmed up appreciably for the last 8 years and very recently there has been a cooling. So I think that there is a bit of media spin going on here.

Have you read the link or the full paper? Becasue that's not at all what the full paper says.....

http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1748-9326/3/...71-e7e11ceba16b

[Gray-Wolf]

What we have here are two conflicting studies. More work needs to be done before any conclusions can be drawn. The evidence for a significant solar influence is however mounting and we will see what transpires in the short term with regard to the suns recent inactivity. Lag time appears to be about five years and it is possible that we are already seeing the effects.

More work has been being done! this is just the latest research to come to the same conclusion. The IPCC's figure of the magnitude of solar variation within the warming (1/13 of the input) seems to be widely accepted.

My own feeling is that , during it's more stormy times at solar max, more heat can be instantly created throughout the atmosphere if the correct charge of CME impacts. In the normal scheme of things this would prove a temporary blip but when you are sailing so close to so many 'tipping points' it becomes a possible straw on the camels back.

Edited April 3, 2008 by Gray-Wolf

[Yeti]

This Is A load of rubbish. Of course the sun effects our climate that is why we have climate change. The simple fact the global warming lobby are not only making vasts amounts of money but are becomming ever more powerful. So of course they would dismiss any other theroy that may cause them damage. If we follow there lead and try and cut carbon the world would ebd up far poorer than it is now. There no need for this. Also a warmer world is better than a colder world. If in the future if we run out of power because of these mad polices there would be massive soical unrest and voilent protests that would make the poll tax up rising in the 1980s look tame.

Do you not see how insulting that comment is to the academics who have done this research? These are people who have studied climate change and the sun for all of their lives - they know what they are doing and are at the forefront of their field. They are not affiliated to any company, government or any body at all and certainly would have no motivation to spread anything other than solid scientific research. How can the world's specialists be curtly dismissed in this manner? What do you think they do at universities, sit there and pretend to carry out research to support governments? The notion is absurd.

If you want my opinion, it is the anti-climate change "scientists" who are telling the lies - for example, that channel 4 programme that propounded the anti AGW idea with ridiculous conspiracy theories such as "Margaret Thatcher invented climate change" was supported by people who had been paid by Shell to come out with that rubbish! It is these people who are giving us downright false information, not university academics!

I also find your opinions on the "advantages" of climate change most ill-informed and totally at odds with the scientific consensus. "A warmer world would be a better world." Excuse me, but what is this? We are talking of failing rainy seasons and widespread drought/famine in particularly the sub-saharan countries with GW - something which is already happening - is this what you would call a good thing? Or perhaps a world with no artic ice in the summer leaving polar bears extinct? The desertification of the Mediterranean - again this is already happening. A warmer world would mean a mass extinction as well as an even worse off third world, and yet you say this is a better thing .

Why is it that when good, solid scientific evidence arrives made by academics in favour of AGW people always dismiss it, but when a scrap of poor "evidence" made by a tiny minority it is clung onto until the fingers bleed? Read Sigmund Freud and his ideas surrounding wish fulfillment.

Edited April 3, 2008 by Yeti

[Devonian]

OK Dev, I have read the article and I have no axe to grind either way, I have an open mind.....

Come again? This wasn't you in your unbiased mode then

1) The headline " No Sun link" to Climate Change is wrong. To be scientifically accurate, it should say " No cosmic ray" link to climate change. The Lancaster team have only looked at one mechanism by which the Sun could play a part- namely it's influence on cosmic rays from outside the solar system reaching the Earth.

Hang on, cosmic rays are supposed to influence the climate via interaction with the solar wind? Nothing to do with the Sun???

2) It is quite simplistic to say (Rutherford Appleton lab)that solar activity has decreased slightly over the last 20 years so global temps should have gone down too. There is plenty of thermal inertia in the sytem and I wouldn't expect an immediate response- remember we have not warmed up appreciably for the last 8 years and very recently there has been a cooling. So I think that there is a bit of media spin going on here.

So, you wouldn't expect an instant response to CO2 either? What with all those other natural effect we might see temps rise in a non linear fashion? Isn't that what we see?

[Climate Man]

Yup, but the GH effect determines how fast energy leaves the Earth. It's not something to be experimented with.

The impact of natural variability (LA Nina on this occasion) on an upward trend. When La Nina fizzles then if temperatures don't start to rise again in the medium term (< decade) you'll have a 'convert'. If temperatures rise again will I have a 'convert'?

Skeptic means open minded so I don't see why not, though temps. did seem to level before the La Nina event.

[Mr Sleet]

Come again? This wasn't you in your unbiased mode then

Hang on, cosmic rays are supposed to influence the climate via interaction with the solar wind? Nothing to do with the Sun???

So, you wouldn't expect an instant response to CO2 either? What with all those other natural effect we might see temps rise in a non linear fashion? Isn't that what we see?

That link was bit of fun , chill out man ( or in your case, warm up ..)

I didn't say "nothing to do with the Sun". It should be obvious that the study actually looked at the effect of cosmic rays on cloud formation/climate change, the Sun can have an effect on the amount of cosmic rays reaching the earth. So this study may rule out one indirect mechanism.It doesn't rule out the Sun per se. So to say "No Sun link" to climate change is wrong and misleading, but would probably be taken at face value by Joe Public.

No, I wouldn't expect an instant temperature response to CO2 .

Edited April 3, 2008 by Mr Sleet

[Shiny_Bottom_1]

What it comes down to, ChrisL, Daniel, Jethro et al. is whether or not you accept the scientific method as a useful tool for ordering the affairs of humankind.

If you do then you have to accept the implications of AGW.

If you don't then we can have no meaningful discourse, our frames of reference being too far apart.

All I can do is to warn off other people, who have not yet studied the issues, from taking anything you say seriously.

Jeez man, its not contagious. You seem to have a grave concern for those that pose questions. Posed by people (like myself) who are not dismissing things, but questioning.

I honestly do find that motive strange. Its not like people like me, Jethro (OK, I have a differing opinion with someone else :lol: ) etc are trying to wean people into some sort of cult.

The general public can make up their own minds, can pose whatever questions they like. GW is not set down by law. Its not illegal to discuss it, and if you feel the need to spend your energies 'warning off other people' then so be it.

I 100% think you are taking many questions completely the wrong way. Sorry, but strange.

Thanks Biff. Good solidly respectable source too.

EDIT: To all those who have rubbished this research, can you please, with evidence, explain why it is wrong?

Hi Roo. The title is incorrect, not the research.

More work has been being done! this is just the latest research to come to the same conclusion. The IPCC's figure of the magnitude of solar variation within the warming (1/13 of the input) seems to be widely accepted.

My own feeling is that , during it's more stormy times at solar max, more heat can be instantly created throughout the atmosphere if the correct charge of CME impacts. In the normal scheme of things this would prove a temporary blip but when you are sailing so close to so many 'tipping points' it becomes a possible straw on the camels back.

Hi GW.

Thanks for the reply (sorry, will reply back to your PM as soon as I have some quality time to do so ).

I like your thinking above. We all have our own thoughts et al, and I think this should be respected.

The fact of my questions is that, like above, you acknowledge that there is more than one factor, possibly.

I hope perhaps you see why I 'question', but not dismiss.

[laserguy]

No 'sun link' to climate change. That's the sort of utter,utter nonsense,the final nail in the coffin if you like,that has caused my withdrawal from this futile arena. 'Good',some will no doubt say. Whatever,you just run along now and get on with 'saving the planet'. The very best of luck to you.

Climatologists: "Yes governments,it's nothing to do with that great nuclear furnace that produces more energy per millisecond than we have ever done and ever will do during our remaing time here. Now can we have some more money please to carry on with our research and get to the bottom of this"? Governments: "Sure you can,whatever it takes to perpetuate the nonsense,just don't let on the truth"!

The 'deniers' are the ones who just cannot accept that there is something so completely out of our control that we may as well lay down and surrender to it's whims and vagaries right now.

I'll get me crash helmet... To avoid potential lawsuits,the above is my opinion, I'm perfectly entitled to it and you can take it or leave it.

[Yeti]

No 'sun link' to climate change. That's the sort of utter,utter nonsense,the final nail in the coffin if you like,that has caused my withdrawal from this futile arena. 'Good',some will no doubt say. Whatever,you just run along now and get on with 'saving the planet'. The very best of luck to you.

Climatologists: "Yes governments,it's nothing to do with that great nuclear furnace that produces more energy per millisecond than we have ever done and ever will do during our remaing time here. Now can we have some more money please to carry on with our research and get to the bottom of this"? Governments: "Sure you can,whatever it takes to perpetuate the nonsense,just don't let on the truth"!

The 'deniers' are the ones who just cannot accept that there is something so completely out of our control that we may as well lay down and surrender to it's whims and vagaries right now.

I'll get me crash helmet... To avoid potential lawsuits,the above is my opinion, I'm perfectly entitled to it and you can take it or leave it.

See my post, above, made at 10:27

So where is your evidence for this conspiracy theory? Please show it, otherwise your opinion is not justified! Then we can judge whether it outdoes the evidence made by academics (independent) at the top of their field. :lol: