Scientists find no link between climate change and the sun

[Atomic_Piggy]

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

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.

The IPCC has got it right, so we had better carry on trying to cut carbon emissions

Terry Sloan

This is the latest piece of evidence which at the very least puts the cosmic ray theory, developed by Danish scientist Henrik Svensmark at the Danish National Space Center (DNSC), under very heavy pressure.

Dr Svensmark's idea formed a centrepiece of the controversial documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle.

Wrong path

"We started on this game because of Svensmark's work," said Terry Sloan from Lancaster University.

Terry Sloan has simply failed to understand how cosmic rays work on clouds

Henrik Svensmark

"If he is right, then we are going down the wrong path of taking all these expensive measures to cut carbon emissions; if he is right, we could carry on with carbon emissions as normal."

Cosmic rays are deflected away from Earth by our planet's magnetic field, and by the solar wind - streams of electrically charged particles coming from the Sun.

The Svensmark hypothesis is that when the solar wind is weak, more cosmic rays penetrate to Earth.

That creates more charged particles in the atmosphere, which in turn induces more clouds to form, cooling the climate.

The planet warms up when the Sun's output is strong.

Professor Sloan's team investigated the link by looking for periods in time and for places on the Earth which had documented weak or strong cosmic ray arrivals, and seeing if that affected the cloudiness observed in those locations or at those times.

FEELING THE HEAT
Three theories on how the Sun could be causing climate change


In graphics


"For example; sometimes the Sun 'burps' - it throws out a huge burst of charged particles," he explained to BBC News.

"So we looked to see whether cloud cover increased after one of these bursts of rays from the Sun; we saw nothing."

Over the course of one of the Sun's natural 11-year cycles, there was a weak correlation between cosmic ray intensity and cloud cover - but cosmic ray variability could at the very most explain only a quarter of the changes in cloudiness.

And for the following cycle, no correlation was found.

Limited effect

Dr Svensmark himself was unimpressed by the findings.

"Terry Sloan has simply failed to understand how cosmic rays work on clouds," he told BBC News.

"He predicts much bigger effects than we would do, as between the equator and the poles, and after solar eruptions; then, because he doesn't see those big effects, he says our story is wrong, when in fact we have plenty of evidence to support it."

But another researcher who has worked on the issue, Giles Harrison from Reading University, said the work was important "as it provides an upper limit on the cosmic ray-cloud effect in global satellite cloud data".




Climate change: No Sun link
A cosmic climate connection?

Dr Harrison's own research, looking at the UK only, has also suggested that cosmic rays make only a very weak contribution to cloud formation.

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.

According to Terry Sloan, the message coming from his research is simple.

"We tried to corroborate Svensmark's hypothesis, but we could not; as far as we can see, he has no reason to challenge the IPCC - the IPCC has got it right.

"So we had better carry on trying to cut carbon emissions."

Owange. I wander what the climate skeptics will make up next. The Earths core?

 

[Pesmerga]

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

Isn't the whole point of solar climate changes is that it happens gradually over many centuries?

Nonetheless, the problem, allegedly, remains.

 

[repiV]

And the earth hasn't got any warmer in the last ten years, either.

 

[Raziaar]

The climate has been ****ed to hell.

 

[Pesmerga]

Scientists are worried about global change because you strut your hot stuff around all day, repiV.

 

[Krynn72]

Scientists are worried about global change because you strut your hot stuff around all day, repiV.

Even with a limp, repiV's strut is enough to set the world ablaze.

 

[Sulkdodds]

I thought Svensmark's theory had already been pretty badly torn up and was based on outdated/erroneous data.

 

[Evo]

I bet that the earth's orbit is changing, thus the climate change :dork:

 

[Raziaar]

All ****ing thanks to World Jump Day.

Thanks assholes, you screwed us all.

 

[Pesmerga]

Wouldn't that make for a pretty hilarious extinction? Future civilizations will look back on World Jump Day as the epitome of frivolity running rampant through humanity, causing their demise.

 

[highlander]

All ****ing thanks to World Jump Day.

Thanks assholes, you screwed us all.

Yay me.

 

[Adrien C]

Did you guys know that some Republicans and petrol/cars/heavy industries pay for this kind of "researchs" so they can down-grade the importance of climate change caused primarely by polution.

 

[Krynn72]

Must.... resist.... pointing out..... spelling and grammar.... mistakes....

Damnit.

 

[AtomicSpark]

Did you guys know that some Republicans and petrol/cars/heavy industries pay for this kind of "researchs" so they can down-grade the importance of climate change caused primarely by polution.

Global Warming is a big scam put out by green technology companies that make billions of dollars on this shit. Be scared. Watch FOX news.

20 years ago it was global cooling. Oh noes! Ice age! :upstare:

 

[Sulkdodds]

I imagine the Green World Order found it easy to get at least 30 reputable scientific societies in on the whole conspiracy.

 

[bbson john]

What is the difference between evolutionists and non-anthropogenic-global-warmingist in terms of stubborn and stupidity? Oops-

Global Warming is a big scam put out by green technology companies that make billions of dollars on this shit. Be scared. Watch FOX news.

Epic lulz.

 

[L3N!N]

Isn't the whole point of solar climate changes is that it happens gradually over many centuries?

Nonetheless, the problem, allegedly, remains.

Yeah, twas a natural cycle that some of us have to live through, me thinks. Happens over a few centuries, the wave happened to hit us... Ah well.

 

[AtomicSpark]

I imagine the Green World Order found it easy to get at least 30 reputable scientific societies in on the whole conspiracy.

Lol. You sir took me seriously. I'm all for making our impact on the environment a lot smaller, but there are times people take it too far. I don't like how we play the blame game instead of trying to actually do something.

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

Yeah, twas a natural cycle that some of us have to live through, me thinks. Happens over a few centuries, the wave happened to hit us... Ah well.

Yes, completely ignore the experts opionions :hmph:

Seriously, what is so difficult about accepting that humans are adversly affecting the environment? I agree that the whole situation is a little overblown, but to outright deny it is ridiculous.

 

[[Matt]]

I imagine the Green World Order found it easy to get at least 30 reputable scientific societies in on the whole conspiracy.

Most important post in this thread. The earth IS getting warmer and for that that there is no doubt. The only debate amongst scientific circles goes along the lines of 'is mankind the cause of the warming and if so how much of that warming is due to mankinds influence?' and its only is the last 5 years or so that weve been able to answer that question and sadly that answer goes along the lines of 'yes its more than probable that global warming is mostly down to humanity'.

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

To add to my previous post, we should explore alternative energy and stop polluting regardless of whether or not climate change is real. Its just the logical thing to do, and climate change just increases the need to.

 

[repiV]

Yes, completely ignore the experts opionions :hmph:

Seriously, what is so difficult about accepting that humans are adversly affecting the environment? I agree that the whole situation is a little overblown, but to outright deny it is ridiculous.

Probably the fact that environmentalism no longer has anything to do with ecology and is now a kind of religion instead.
There's far too much money and politics involved to take seriously anything that anyone says on the subject. Environmentalism is a socialist's wet dream.

Notice how it's "climate change" now instead of "global warming" - this way, even if the world gets cooler (as it has been doing for the past decade), it's still "climate change" and we're still doomed.

 

[[Matt]]

If you want to go with alternate energy then the worlds governments should stop the nonsense and just go with fission until fusion becomes workable... Its not a completely ideal or environmentally friendly solution to the issue but at least it would solve the biggest threat our world faces right now and that's climate change through greenhouse gasses emitted from fossil fuels.

 

[Acepilotf14]

I hate it when scientists say it's a natural cycle and there's no problem. Guess what happens during natural cycles...
EVERYTHING DIES.

 

[VirusType2]

I propose that the world is flat, and that it acts as a giant baking sheet.

 

[Eejit]

I hate it when scientists say it's a natural cycle and there's no problem. Guess what happens during natural cycles...
EVERYTHING DIES.

This.

And it'd be even easier to destroy modern civilisation than it would be to make the species extinct.

 

[bbson john]

If you want to go with alternate energy then the worlds governments should stop the nonsense and just go with fission until fusion becomes workable... Its not a completely ideal or environmentally friendly solution to the issue but at least it would solve the biggest threat our world faces right now and that's climate change through greenhouse gasses emitted from fossil fuels.

Wrong, they are completely ideal and eco-friendly solutions. Solar, wind and tidal energy can never meet urban need.

 

[Sedako]

Notice how it's "climate change" now instead of "global warming" - this way, even if the world gets cooler (as it has been doing for the past decade), it's still "climate change" and we're still doomed.

Except the warmest years since the late 1800 HAVE been in the last decade. Even it if has been cooling, in the last decade they're still the highest they've ever been. Perhaps the reason for this slight cooling since 1998 is because of all the recent measures that have been taken to to lower emissions and energy use, although there's no telling how quickly said measures would actually effect the temperature. We'll need another decade or so to really see where we stand as far as this whole debate goes. To be honest though, it's better that we do what we can now to cut down on any sort of pollution as to decrease the chances of negative implications at some point in the future. I'd certainly prefer it is all the world's cities didn't end up looking like LA:

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/earth_warm.html

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071213101419.htm

 

[Dan]

The study is far from exhaustive or conclusive. The description definitely oversteps the actual result of the study as "scientific" articles usually do.

 

[bbson john]

The study is far from exhaustive or conclusive. The description definitely oversteps the actual result of the study as "scientific" articles usually do.

Sometimes, it did. But that doesn't mean we have to wait and do nothing until we have a definite conclusion on the cause of global warming. Trimming down greenhouse gases emission is a must and has to be started now. Or in an alternative case, at the time we have the conclusion, scientists will say, "okay, greenhouse gases cause global warming, but it is too late for us to do anything now. We are all gonna to die no matter what lol." It sounds pitiful, right?

Start acting now.

 

[Dan]

Sometimes, it did. But that doesn't mean we have to wait and do nothing until we have a definite conclusion on the cause of global warming. Trimming down greenhouse gases emission is a must and has to be started now. Or in an alternative case, at the time we have the conclusion, scientists will say, "okay, greenhouse gases cause global warming, but it is too late for us to do anything now. We are all gonna to die no matter what lol." It sounds pitiful, right?

Start acting now.

Im just pointing out that the article is full of sensationalism and hyperbole masked behind the original research

 

[Eejit]

The scientific article? Really? Or just the news article?

The e-journal's site seems to be down.

 

[repiV]

Except the warmest years since the late 1800 HAVE been in the last decade. Even it if has been cooling, in the last decade they're still the highest they've ever been.

For a start, that's largely irrelevant. The global average temperature has not increased in a decade - in fact it has lowered slightly. Last time I checked, we were supposed to be terrified and begging the government for salvation over global warming, not global high temperature.
Secondly, all the global warming alarmism sounds pretty hollow when you consider that we have only been keeping accurate records of global temperature for the past 150 years, and that it is usually based on oft-discredited "predictions" of what will happen in the future.

Perhaps the reason for this slight cooling since 1998 is because of all the recent measures that have been taken to to lower emissions and energy use, although there's no telling how quickly said measures would actually effect the temperature.

That's ridiculous. All these measures amount to pissing in the wind of an enormous gas giant. No matter what we do, it won't make a damn bit of difference - even if the UK became emissions-free overnight, China's industrialisation would increase enough to completely nullify that within a few years.
So if you don't mind, I'd rather we didn't destroy our economy, industry, lifestyle and liberty based on junk science when even if said junk science was 100% accurate, it would achieve absolutely nothing.

We'll need another decade or so to really see where we stand as far as this whole debate goes. To be honest though, it's better that we do what we can now to cut down on any sort of pollution as to decrease the chances of negative implications at some point in the future. I'd certainly prefer it is all the world's cities didn't end up looking like LA:

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/earth_warm.html

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071213101419.htm

Urban pollution (localised climate change) is a completely separate issue from "global warming". London's climate is nowhere near that bad, on the whole I assume it's not too difficult an issue to keep within acceptable limits providing you have money to spend. You should see the Chinese cities - many of them are so polluted that they are dangerously toxic environments in which to live.

 

[kattmat]

"That's ridiculous. All these measures amount to pissing in the wind of an enormous gas giant. No matter what we do, it won't make a damn bit of difference - even if the UK became emissions-free overnight, China's industrialisation would increase enough to completely nullify that within a few years.
So if you don't mind, I'd rather we didn't destroy our economy, industry, lifestyle and liberty based on junk science when even if said junk science was 100% accurate, it would achieve absolutely nothing."



Haha, who's the alarmist here really? "Oh noes, the evil socialists will take our freedom and destroy my lifestyle!!". The idea that this is some kind of global socialist-enviromentalist-scientist conspiracy is ludicrous and just makes you look silly.

Also your reasoning about china and the rest of the world is exactly the kind of apathic thinking that makes Global warming such a huge threat. Just because China is going the industrialise doesn't mean the UK is absolved of responsibility or that you can continue to live exactly as you do today with China as your excuse. If the West acts quickly and sets an example that the rest of the world can follow then pollution talks with China will become much more productive, especially if the world opinion is against China heavily. If all other developed nations take action against Global warming China will look backwards and ridiculous.

 

[repiV]

Haha, who's the alarmist here really? "Oh noes, the evil socialists will take our freedom and destroy my lifestyle!!". The idea that this is some kind of global socialist-enviromentalist-scientist conspiracy is ludicrous and just makes you look silly.

Hardly alarmist. "Global action on climate change" is authoritarianism/one-world government with a pretty name. We're seeing this already in the form of EU legislation.
Telling people what they can drive or how and where they can drive it, or what else they're allowed to do is taking away people's freedom.
"Cutting emissions" on any meaningful level will destroy our industry and economy. It's quite simple really. The kind of measures that would need to be taken to have any impact at all would turn us into a third world country again. And anything less just means that ordinary people have to pay through the nose in taxes just to live their lives.

Also your reasoning about china and the rest of the world is exactly the kind of apathic thinking that makes Global warming such a huge threat. Just because China is going the industrialise doesn't mean the UK is absolved of responsibility or that you can continue to live exactly as you do today with China as your excuse. If the West acts quickly and sets an example that the rest of the world can follow then pollution talks with China will become much more productive, especially if the world opinion is against China heavily. If all other developed nations take action against Global warming China will look backwards and ridicoulus.

Oh, that's just bollocks. Like they're going to give up the modern, wealthy lifestyle they're moving towards because arrogant hypocritical Westerners like yourself tell them it's bad and they can't have what we have.
"If the West acts quickly" - I mean, what the hell does that even mean?
I hope you aren't taking the humanitarian angle with all this, because I find your suggestion that thousands or even millions of lives in the developing world should be sacrified at the environmentalist altar in the name of "cutting greenhouse gases" to be quite abhorrent. A third of the world's population (China and India) is finally finding their way out of abject poverty and into a new and better tomorrow, and you want to take that away from them? You think they will take it away from themselves? Hardly.

 

[bbson john]

"Cutting emissions" on any meaningful level will destroy our industry and economy. It's quite simple really. The kind of measures that would need to be taken to have any impact at all would turn us into a third world country again. And anything less just means that ordinary people have to pay through the nose in taxes just to live their lives.

A country's economy cannot be "destroyed" by an eco-policy. Even if, as a bold assumption, there will be a general economy depression over the world, it is still something far from as bad as the consequences of intensified global warming.

"If the West acts quickly" - I mean, what the hell does that even mean?
I hope you aren't taking the humanitarian angle with all this, because I find your suggestion that thousands or even millions of lives in the developing world should be sacrified at the environmentalist altar in the name of "cutting greenhouse gases" to be quite abhorrent. A third of the world's population (China and India) is finally finding their way out of abject poverty and into a new and better tomorrow, and you want to take that away from them? You think they will take it away from themselves? Hardly.

What makes you think cutting greenhouse gas emission will kill millions? What makes you think that millions of lives will not be taken away if such policy is not executed?

In fact, Chinese Government is doing very hard to reduce greenhouse gas emission. She signed the Kyoto Protocol and she means it. Reducing greenhouse gas won't take away a developing-country's tomorrow. Contrariwise, the United States didn't agree with the protocol, whilst the states are the worse greenhouse gas emitter. The total sum of greenhouse gas emission is great and the gas emission per person- i.e. the overall emission over country's population, is matchless. The west should act quick is correct at this point.

 

[repiV]

A country's economy cannot be "destroyed" by an eco-policy. Even if, as a bold assumption, there will be a general economy depression over the world, it is still something far from as bad as the consequences of intensified global warming.

Of course it can. Developed economies depend on industry, which depends on energy. The only realistic way we have of cutting emissions at the present time is to take away energy. In fact, our entire lives depend on energy. Your PC and internet connection uses energy, your house uses energy, getting to work uses energy (and in fact, taking the bus is actually a hell of a lot less efficient than using your car), everything you do is anti-green.
We don't have any realistic alternatives to the way we currently do things.

What makes you think cutting greenhouse gas emission will kill millions? What makes you think that millions of lives will not be taken away if such policy is not executed?

By increasing poverty and inequality and slowing or halting development, what do you think?
We have lots of green bullshit in this country, and all it does is make people poor. It doesn't accomplish anything else but to take money away from everyone and line the government's pockets. Environmentalism is also a convinient excuse for any hair-brained scheme you care to think of - like a 25 quid daily congestion charge to use a family car in central London, even if you live there. Or a 200 quid charge to drive a lorry full of supplies into London.

In fact, Chinese Government is doing very hard to reduce greenhouse gas emission. She signed the Kyoto Protocol and she means it.

Yeah, I'll believe it when I see it. 1.3 billion people seeing rapid industrialisation - doesn't take a genius to figure out that nothing we do here is going to make the slightest bit of difference in the face of that.

Reducing greenhouse gas won't take away a developing-country's tomorrow. Contrariwise, the United States didn't agree with the protocol, whilst the states are the worse greenhouse gas emitter. The total sum of greenhouse gas emission is great and the gas emission per person- i.e. the overall emission over country's population, is matchless.

Why should they? Like I said, it's pissing in the wind of a gas giant.

The west should act quick is correct at this point.

Based on junk science. Right.

 

[Eejit]

Junk science? So you're an accomplished climatologist now?

 

[repiV]

Junk science? So you're an accomplished climatologist now?

I could ask the exact same question of every single person here. It doesn't really achieve anything, does it?

 

[Eejit]

I'm asking how you're qualified to dismiss research published in peer-reviewed journals as junk science.
And actually I've at least studied some at uni as one of my options.