'No Sun link' to climate change

[Rog]

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.

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | 'No Sun link' to climate change

[forfismum]

That item looked OK until it came to this bit

He showed that over the last 20 years, solar activity has been rising, which should have led to a drop in global temperatures if the theory was correct.

?????Surely temps. have been dropping as many of our members have posted [quoting impeccable sources ]?

[bruce]

Just a 20 year analysis period too. Hardly inspires confidence.

[cbacba]

Originally Posted by forfismum

That item looked OK until it came to this bit


?????Surely temps. have been dropping as many of our members have posted [quoting impeccable sources ]?

Considering that increased solar activity in the magnetic field arena means fewer cosmic rays and hence less cloud cover. More solar activity should result in higher temperatures from less CR and less clouds.

Forfi - did you botch entering in the quote? Or did this fool actually try to disprove the CR theory without even understanding the basics????

Although not over twenty years, the last couple of years has seen a serious decline in magnetic solar activity and voila it's been cooling for a short while.

Whatever the case, clouds are far more influential than co2 at regulating or manipulating earth's climate. Also, intra year variations in W/m^2 and inter year variations in W/m^2 (In-Out) is significantly in excess of the presumed increase in W/m^2 which is supposed to happen at some time in the future when the CO2 levels actually double from the assumed value of the 1750s.

[forfismum]

Originally Posted by cbacba

Forfi - did you botch entering in the quote? Or did this fool actually try to disprove the CR theory without even understanding the basics????


.

Nope ,here it is with a bit more

The Svensmark hypothesis has also been attacked in recent months by Mike Lockwood from the UK's Rutherford-Appleton Laboratory.

He showed that over the last 20 years, solar activity has been slowly declining, which should have led to a drop in global temperatures if the theory was correct.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), in its vast assessment of climate science last year, concluded that since temperatures began rising rapidly in the 1970s, the contribution of humankind's greenhouse gas emissions has outweighed that of solar variability by a factor of about 13 to one.

Maybe using IPCC data has addled the mans brain.

[wolranes]

It's sad. My first reaction on reading this story was "Yes! Take that, deniers!"
Then I thought for a moment, and realised that if cosmic rays were found to be responsible, it would be a weight off everything. There would be nothing we could do, and we could live secure in the knowledge it would sort itself out while we went on polluting.

Says a lot for how the world is becoming polarised between believers and deniers. It's rather frightening, actually.

[cbacba]

Originally Posted by wolranes

It's sad. My first reaction on reading this story was "Yes! Take that, deniers!"
Then I thought for a moment, and realised that if cosmic rays were found to be responsible, it would be a weight off everything. There would be nothing we could do, and we could live secure in the knowledge it would sort itself out while we went on polluting.

Says a lot for how the world is becoming polarised between believers and deniers. It's rather frightening, actually.

Why don't you say what you really mean. Just substitute "Infidel" for your code word "denier".

[Cthulhu]

"He showed that over the last 20 years, solar activity has been slowly declining, which should have led to a drop in global temperatures if the theory was correct."

Global temperature decline over the past 20 years simply didn't happen.

Global temperature decline over the last 12 months is short term variability, very likely due to la nina and isn't relevant to the long term trend.

[cbacba]

Originally Posted by Cthulhu

"He showed that over the last 20 years, solar activity has been slowly declining, which should have led to a drop in global temperatures if the theory was correct."

Global temperature decline over the past 20 years simply didn't happen.

Global temperature decline over the last 12 months is short term variability, very likely due to la nina and isn't relevant to the long term trend.

The fact is global warming is waning!

"Paleo-climate scientist Bob Carter testifying before the US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works has noted that the accepted global average temperature statistics used by IPCC show no ground-based warming has occurred since 1998. A research led by David Bromwich, Professor of Atmospheric Science in the Department of Geography at Ohio State University and researchers with the Byrd Polar Research Centre at Ohio State University shows that during the late 20th century, the temperature in Antarctica did not rise to the level predicted by many global warming models. According to UN scientist Madhav L. Khandekar, a retired Environment Canada scientist and an expert IPCC reviewer in 2007, the recent worldwide analysis of ocean surface temperatures shows that sea surface temperatures over world oceans are slowly declining since mid-1998."

Funny, I could have sworn that there was more like 120 months between 1998 and 2008.

[Cthulhu]

As I said on other thread:

Rather than describing only part of the global temperature trend, it's better to let people judge the trends for themselves by giving them a graph. Unfortunately this is something media articles almost never do.
The world is cooling (apparently)

I think most people recognize when they see the temperature record that starting a comparison in 1998 is cherrypicking. 1998 is an obvious spike (with a known el nino cause) which should not be interpreted as the end point of a longterm gradual warming trend.

Second if you want to do a line of best fit from a past year to the present then if you start in 1996 you get a warming trend. If you start in 1998 you get a slight cooling trend. If you start in 2000 you get a warming trend. If you start in 2002 you get a slight cooling trend. When the choice of start date significantly influences the result, that indicates the method is poor. A longer time period for the trend must be used (say 20 years) to make more certain that you are getting the actual trend and not over influence of noise.

The incorrectness of making conclusions from short term trends is further emphasized by seeing how they fail when done against past temperature data:
Global warming stopped in 1981... no, wait! 1991!