« Happy Birthday - An Ode to Joy | Main | Sporting Waste »

It's not the sun wot done it?

BBC NEWS | UK | 'No sun link' to climate change
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.

Strangely it seems very easy to find graphs on line which claim to show the continued influence of cosmic rays on climate - for example Cosmic Rays and Climate Change, though I'm sure they haven't ignored this data.

After much searching, as the BBC doesn't seem to believe in linking to the real research, here is their paper.

Fighting talk - and there seems to be counter arguments in place already, but I look forward to a detailed response.


So if I understand this correctly - solar activity is declining and has been for several years. The measured warming on Mars, moons of Jupiter, Pluto and just about every other body of any significance is due to solar activity. Except on Earth where it's all down to us driving SUV's and leaving our tv's on standby overnight.

Am I the only one who is slightly confused here?

...just to add to it:


seems to be the debate will not be settled for at least a year.


"The measured warming on Mars, moons of Jupiter, Pluto ...is due to solar activity. Except on Earth where it's all down to us driving SUV's and leaving our tv's on standby overnight."

Ah, but there are no people on those other bodies. Therefore, it must be us that causes the warming!

After all, these are scientists. We should believe them implicitly.

Quite a modest wee chappie is our Dr Lockwood: "This should settle the debate,". Certainly puts young Popper in his place who had the temerity to suggest: "It thus lead, almost by necessity, to the realization that our attempts to see and to find the truth are not final, but open to improvement; that our knowledge, our doctrine, is conjectural; that it consists of guesses, of hypotheses, rather than of final and certain truths; and that criticism and critical discussion are our only means of getting nearer to the truth." But then Sir Karl lived in an age when science had not morphed into "The science", when science was still primarily concerned with expanding knowledge rather than serving the political agendas of unscrupulous politicians and NGOs. How could he foresee a glorious time when all science has been settled through consensus? The globe is warming and it is humans what done it, people are getting fatterer and will die before their great great grandparents, oil and all other resources are running out and humans don't have the igenuity to find solutions, recycling everything will save the planet, and capitalism (especially of the US of A variety) has been scientifically proven to be evil and the cause of all that is wrong in the world, including my asthma (sucks to it) and the recent poor performances of the England ODI team.

Post a comment