Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiNew Analysis Counters Claims that Solar Activity is Linked to Global Warming
It has been one of the central claims of those who challenge the idea that human activities are to blame for global warming. The planet's climate has long fluctuated, say the climate sceptics, and current warming is just part of that natural cycle - the result of variation in the sun's output and not carbon dioxide emissions.
But a new analysis of data on the sun's output in the last 25 years of the 20th century has firmly put the notion to rest. The data shows that even though the sun's activity has been decreasing since 1985, global temperatures have continued to rise at an accelerating rate.
The solar hypothesis was championed publicly in March by the controversial Channel 4 documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle.
The programme has been heavily criticised for distorting scientific data to fit the sceptic argument and Carl Wunsch, a professor of physical oceanography at MIT who featured in the programme, later said that he was "totally misled" by the film makers and that his comments were "completely misrepresented".
The new analysis is designed to counter the main alternative scientific argument put forward by the programme - that solar activity may be to blame for global warming.
"The temperature record is simply not consistent with any of the solar forcings that people are talking about," said lead author Mike Lockwood at the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory in Oxfordshire.
"They changed direction in 1985, the climate did not ... [the temperature] increase should be slowing down but in fact it is speeding up."
Global temperatures are going up by 0.2 degrees per decade and the top 10 warmest years on record have happened in the past 12 years.
One way that the sun affects the climate is through clouds. The sun's magnetic field shields the Earth from its high energy particles called cosmic rays. The rays help form clouds that reflect the sun's energy back into space and cool the planet.
So if the sun's magnetic field is high, there should be a fall-off in cosmic rays, fewer clouds and more warming. But Prof Lockwood's data, published today in the Proceedings of the Royal Society, shows the sun's magnetic field has declined since 1985, even as the world heats up.
James Hansen, a Nasa climate scientist who was once gagged by the Bush administration for speaking out on global warming, said the issue of whether the sun's activity is causing global warming had been dispensed with by most scientists long ago. "The reason [this paper] has value is that the proponents of the notion that the sun determines everything come up with various half-baked suggestions that the sun can somehow cause an indirect forcing that is not included in the measurements of radiation coming from the sun," he said. "These half-baked notions are usually supported by empirical correlations of climate with some solar index in the past. Thus, by showing that these correlations are not consistent with recent climate change, the half-baked notions can be dispensed with."
Prof Lockwood said the study was "another nail" in the coffin of the notion that solar activity is responsible for global warming.
Nir Shaviv, an astrophysicist at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and a proponent of the solar hypothesis, has tried to rescue the idea by invoking a time lag between changes in the sun and its effect on the Earth's climate. But Prof Lockwood dismissed this as "disingenuous".
"Nobody has invoked that kind of lag before. It's only been invoked now as a way out," he said. Even if the lag were 50 years then he believes we would begin to see the rise in global temperatures slowing down.
Even though there is almost no argument among scientific circles about the role of human activities as the main driver of climate change, a recent poll suggested that the public still believes there is significant scientific uncertainty. Despite the efforts of government and campaigns such as Live Earth to educate the public, the Ipsos Mori poll of over 2,031 people, released this month, found 56% of people thought there was an active scientific debate into the causes of global warming.
A spokesman for the Royal Society, the UK's leading scientific academy, said: "This is an important contribution to the scientific debate on climate change. At present there is a small minority which is seeking to deliberately confuse the public on the causes of climate change. They are often misrepresenting the science, when the reality is that the evidence is getting stronger every day. We have reached a point where a failure to take action to reduce carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions would be irresponsible and dangerous."
Channel 4 and Martin Durkin, producer of The Great Global Warming Swindle, declined to comment.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007
27 Comments so far
Show AllWhy doesn't every discussion about climate change and a sustainable environment - as it relates to the activity of humans begin with:
THE U.S. MILITARY AFFECTS THE ENVIRONMENT OF THE PLANET MORE THAN ANYTHING
Where are the statistics? How much gas, oil, and major resources such as steel, aluminum, plastic, rubber is wasted by the war machines? How much pollution can be attributed to the vast destruction and testing using bio chemical and radioactive materials - is discharged into the living space of all creatures?
We know that 50 cents of every US tax dollar (not including social security) goes to the killing apparatus of the US military.
To the experts: what are the statistics attributable to the military industrial complex? Is it not the biggest industry of the United States?
Not only the so called enemies suffer the consequences of criminal military behavior but the very innocents the militarists claim to be defending are also victims.
To the experts: give us some real, and important information about how the environment is really being destroyed and by whom. -Not by my little Ford escort or incorrect light bulbs.....
THERE IS AN ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM!
WHEN AL GORE BEGINS, " THE MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE GREATEST PORTION OF THE DESTRUCTION BY HUMANS OF THE ENVIRONMENT OF THE PLANET ... AND I WILL SHOW YOU HOW....."
then I will respect his information.
powerslave2 = (pathetic) Internet Troll
See Wikipedia "Troll (Internet)"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_trolls
Don't feed the trolls!
eh.. powerslave2
i understand where your coming from, it can get a bit fanatic and seem that way
but really, it's just facing facts and worrying about the human races continued survival, which.. is quite natural
i find it hard to believe you can look around you at all the stuff we are constantly burning and not think it might, you know, make stuff warmer.
powerslave2, Do you actually understand the role of carbon offsets? It's that people and companies are generally unwilling to enact the radical changes to our lifestyle to bring about positive change in our adversarial relationship with the natural world. They need to be enticed into action by some golden carrot, which comes in the form of reduced costs by not having to buy carbon credits if they modify their business to reduce carbon output. The theory, as championed by capitalists and neo-liberals sympathetic to our planet's plight, is that the market, if given sufficient incentives, will do what is necessary to keep itself viable in a way that is less harmful to the environment. It is a recognition, a caving, if you will, to the notion that humans will not act in any way that is not wholly governed by self-interest. So while you mock carbon offsets, which no one seriously thinks are the best answer to the problem, you are missing the very fact that the creation of that system was a concession to the business interests who oppose any change in the status quo, regardless of its necessity to prevent global environmental catastrophe. It is an indulgence given to YOU for your ignorance so that those who actually understand the severity of the issue might begin to move things in a positive direction for change.
And, by the way, nobody cares about Al Gore. He's just a spokesman, he didn't bring this problem to the world's attention, the world brought it to his and he felt he should do something about it. You are a blind fool if you think Al Gore is the reason people are clamouring for a reduction in carbon emissions. And you are an ignorant fool if you believe that people think carbon offsets and credits are the best answer to the problem.
Is powerslave2 really Alex Cockburn?
A lie that is not challenged after being repeated 3 times becomes a fact. If you own lots of media outlets and repeat the same lies for 10, 20 or 30 years, those lies become indisputable facts. The neocon propaganda machine has effectively created many facts using this tactic.
powerslave2 July 11th, 2007 3:47 pm
Ideologically you do yourself justice by peddling this type of gobbledygook at the Oreily factor on FOX NEWS....
GO THERE AND BUG THEM....
"A man convinced against his will - is of the same opinion still."
Lately on these forums there have been several interactions that seem juvenile.
This is a Progressive community forum where we discuss ideas and play with viewpoints not generally discussed in mainstream media. Humor and sarcasm can be great instigators to nudge us to look at different views, however if juvenile, abrasive shouting-matches are your forte, Hannity, Limbaugh, Coulter, O'Riley, or any of a number of blogs and editorial commentaries are available to peruse.
I cannot speak for the rest of Common Dreams readers/writers, but this site is my News Center - a place to learn and grow with many varied resources and "uncommonly" reported information. Discussions can be wonderful, astute, inciteful, and entertaining - slugfests have no place in the mix.
Let us share our Common Dreams for a better future rather than bash and denigrate those that we don't agree with - PLEASE?
Damn, all those capitalist opportunists that brought you the carbon credit have to abandon the idea of selling solar shade credits, whereby industries are allowed to spew more CO2 if they offset it with pollutants that has very high particulate matter count, causing the shading effect, which is the blocking out sunlight and cools the earth.
'Swindle' is to be shown this week on ABC, the Australian public broadcaster. The board of the ABC has been stacked with hard right wingers. The more sensible factions in the ABC are making sure that there is at least further debate after the programme using more reputable scientists.
This hasn't stopped the deniers chanting about achieving 'balance' in opinion as if climate experts were split 50-50 on this subject instead of 99-1 as it is in reality.
We've been hearing a lot of bleep about how nuclear power will save us from global warming. Have you ever looked at a nuclear power plant? Those huge towers are cooling towers, like radiators. The enormous heat generated by a nuclear power plant has to be dissipated somewhere. The units near rivers cycle the river water through the cooling coils. The river warms up and the ecology goes to hell, not to mention nuclear contamination. The plants without rivers vent their heat (and perhaps a bit of radiation) to the atmosphere using the cooling towers as radiators. Either way, the heat transfer is enormous. Another nail in the nuclear coffin, I hope.
"We have met the enemy and he is us!" Pogo, 1950's
bill peppin says,
"Remember, powerslave, it is utterly uncontroversial, and uncontested, that CO2 in the atmosphere is the highest it's been by some tens of percent than it has been at any time in the last 600,000 years, and also utterly uncontroversial that the recent, rapid increase in CO2 began at the start of the industrial revolution in late 18th century with the start of fossil-fuel burning, starting with coal. And, of course, use of fossil fuel is now rising rapidly due to the industrialization of China and India."
Ah ha, not if the earth was created only 10,000 years ago! The evangelical science deniers are always trying to have it both ways. The end is near, isn't it?
Pointless discussion - burning 21 million barrels of oil a day plus coal, nukes, pesticides and habitat destruction just to inefficiently waste energy is stupid and MUST affect something.
Safer, cleaner, more efficient use of energy will be good for the earth no matter how much global warming there is and what causes it.
i think you guys missed powerslave2 s point. completely.
.......the earth isnt flat???
Unfortunately, right wing talk radio has produced millions of powerslaves, using deliberately deceptive arguments. Unfortunately, although all reputable science bodies ,like the National Academy of Sciences, have established manmade global warming as both a fact and a concern, the comparatively few denier scientists get much more airtime, unopposed. The question is deliberately taken out of the scientific arena and placed into the political arena, where it now becomes just another liberal vs conservative debate. Thus, the science is effectively neutralized and deniers win.
It's good to hear from a real scientist, Bill. (Hope you are well and enjoying life). An issue that Powerslave2 and the other deniers never mention is ocean acidification. What is their theory about that? As you know, it's basic highschool chemistry, and may ultimately be as dangerous as the warming itself. Do they deny that CO2 dissolves in H20 and produces carbonic acid?
This story was really datelined April 1, right?
powerslave2 raises an issue that all must be clear about. His argument is that of the postmodernist, who maintains that, given any set of observations of the natural world, any number of interpretations of those observations are possible, and that scientists who form theories based on these observations do so based on their own bias. There is, unfortunately, partial truth to the statement that scientists are, indeed, biased for the "prevailing" viewpoint. Nevertheless, to those of you who would say that the scientists who argue for global warming caused by humans are faith-based, you ought to consider that the current scientific consensus is built upon a very large edifice of observations: of the atmosphere, the oceans, and paleorecords in the icecaps that go back most of a million years. Note that it is sophistry to say, Well, much ado about nothing because large, natural climactic variations have occurred in the past. This is sophistry, because if, for example, a climatic event such as associated with the Yucatan meteorite impact were to occur right now, though a 100% natural process, it would be utterly devastating to humankind. So the bottom line is: IF in fact global warming is being caused EVEN IN PART by human activity, and IF we can mitigate our contribution to it, then we should do it: the species can hardly suffer a rise of, say, 10 feet in the world's oceans occasioned by disintegration of the northern and southern icecaps. In fact, at this time, any action humans take may be insufficient to derail the warming process, since now so much by way of greenhouse gas has made it into the atmosphere (this, note, is unchallenged,) and likely to grow much worse, for the thawing of the polar permafrost regions is starting to release large quantities of methane, a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. Remember, powerslave, it is utterly uncontroversial, and uncontested, that CO2 in the atmosphere is the highest it's been by some tens of percent than it has been at any time in the last 600,000 years, and also utterly uncontroversial that the recent, rapid increase in CO2 began at the start of the industrial revolution in late 18th century with the start of fossil-fuel burning, starting with coal. And, of course, use of fossil fuel is now rising rapidly due to the industrialization of China and India.
powerslave, you are the religious worshipper at the cathedral of Denial. Unless you can explain why the rate of Earth's warming, ocean warming, plant and animal species migration to cooler altitudes and latitudes, 30% arctic ice melting since 1970 from satellite photos, and loss of glaciers is NOT caused by increased CO2, you must propose an ALTERNATE EXPLANATION. And, you'll have to present your incredible theory in front of a panel of science experts who will try to pick apart your theory. Afterwards, other scientists will try to contradict your theory with experiments and or scientific arguments. Now your high priests at your denier cathedral, Rush Limbaugh and other rightwing blowhards, present their uninformed views as FACTS to their unwashed, ignorant listening masses. Unfortunately, EVERY MAJOR SCIENCE ORGANIZATION SAYS manmade global warming is both real and DANGEROUS. While you chew on this, watch the sun pass across the sky and convince yourself that the Sun orbits around the Earth, another 'common sense' denier observation.
Hallelujah! Professor Truth, Hallelujah! You are one of the saved. Enjoy your new religion, it is better than having no religion at all, I guess.
Great sense of humor in the face of adversity cyberbrook July 11th, 2007 3:59 pm
"the Earth is flat, smoking is safe, Bush is smart, the Holocaust never happened, wars solve problems, global warming is a hoax, a plant will grow in your stomach if you swallow watermelon seeds…"
***But I think you missed the most important one, "Ignorance is bliss".***
power slave, being the ignorant denier you are, where does the heat that results from burning a billion gallons of gas every day go? Increased CO2 traps more outgoing heat, very simple.
Why does every SCIENTIFIC organization that does peer review accept manmade global warming as fact, while rightwing misinfotainers, a few skeptic scientists, and you think otherwise? Show your peer reviewed explanation in front of climate scientists if you are a denier? Go create your denier models, your denier explanations and let them be debated and analyzed by climate scientists. Otherwise, don't show your ignorance!
powerslave2
Typical thinking of the scientifically uneducated.
the Earth is flat, smoking is safe, Bush is smart, the Holocaust never happened, wars solve problems, global warming is a hoax, a plant will grow in your stomach if you swallow watermelon seeds...
Global warming is faith based religion, nothing more and nothing less. Either you accept the revealed truth that evil humans are warming up the world, repent of this, make penance by banning someone else's economic activities, or buy an indulgence (excuse me, carbon offset), and accept algore as the one true prophet
or you don't.
So Martin Durkin declined to comment, did he? I can't say I'm surprised. This is worth reading:
http://www.atlanticfreepress.com/content/view/1218/81/
George Monbiot also had a few things to say about him:
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2000/03/16/modified-truth/
It seems to me that there are some in this world who are simply hell-bent on denying the obvious. Whatever their reasons, they are WRONG! I hope this latest research, by Rutherford Appleton, will finally silence these clowns. It will not be before time.