'No sun link' to climate change

[1 2 free]

'No sun link' to climate change

By Richard Black
BBC Environment Correspondent

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.

Warming trend

The scientists' main approach on this new analysis was simple; to look at solar output and cosmic ray intensity over the last 30-40 years, and compare those trends with the graph for global average surface temperature, which has risen by about 0.4C over the period.

The Sun varies on a cycle of about 11 years between periods of high and low activity.

But that cycle comes on top of longer-term trends; and most of the 20th Century saw a slight but steady increase in solar output.

But in about 1985, that trend appears to have reversed, with solar output declining.

This paper re-enforces the fact that the warming in the last 20 to 40 years can't have been caused by solar activity
Dr Piers Forster

Yet this period has seen temperatures rise as fast as, if not faster than, at any time during the previous 100 years.

"This paper re-enforces the fact that the warming in the last 20 to 40 years can't have been caused by solar activity," said Dr Piers Forster from Leeds University, a leading contributor to this year's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessment of climate science.

Cosmic relief

The IPCC's February summary report concluded that greenhouse gases were about 13 times more responsible than solar changes for rising global temperatures.

But the organisation was criticised in some quarters for not taking into account the cosmic ray hypothesis, developed among others by Henrik Svensmark and Eigil Friis-Christensen of the Danish National Space Center.

Their theory holds that cosmic rays help clouds to form by providing tiny particles around which water vapour can condense. Overall, clouds cool the Earth.

During periods of active solar activity, cosmic rays are partially blocked by the Sun's more intense magnetic field. Cloud formation diminishes, and the Earth warms.

Mike Lockwood's analysis appears to have put a large, probably fatal nail in this intriguing and elegant hypothesis.

He said: "I do think there is a cosmic ray effect on cloud cover. It works in clean maritime air where there isn't much else for water vapour to condense around.

"It might even have had a significant effect on pre-industrial climate. But you cannot apply it to what we're seeing now, because we're in a completely different ball game."

Drs Svensmark and Friis-Christensen could not be reached for comment.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/uk/6290228.stm

[klinker]

More propaganda from the BBC and government funded so called 'experts'. :mad: All of a sudden after a five minute study the sun is now doing the opposite of what we have been told it's been doing for as many years as I can remember, ie, getting warmer and the suns activity is on the increase et cetera et cetera.

'This should settle the argument?' Rofl that just cracks me up.

[hagbard_celine]

The propaganda gets worse! If you can sleep tight after watcing this then you're well and truly free!:

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=39520879762623193&q=global+dimming&total=81&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

[klinker]

Brilliant. I've seen that prog. Cracks me up.

[harbingers_kiss]

The propoganda is that they are steering the real concern in the wrong direction. "Output" has little to do with it. We've got a double indemnity going on here. We are entering what is touted even by NASA to be the most agressive solar cycle possibly ever recorded. ( buy some 50,000 sun block )At the same time, our solar system is lining up with the galactic center. Frankly we don't know what exactly what the alignment will do if anything but the potentials are quite serious. Gravitational energies emanating accross the horizontal axis from the center, particularly during a raging solar maximum, might have some marked effects. Coincidently they think this alignment will occur sometime around 2012, but they can't calculate it precisely. These alignments have happened before but not with the current factors present. The scary thing is, we don't really know what is effecting all the planets and the cause being simply the galactic alignment is dubious. We have a completely unidentified anomaly going on in our solar system. Add to this Earth's Em field tickling the 0 point, us being due for a magnetic reversal etc... The fact is, right now, ALL of the planets in our solar system and even their moon's are experiencing "global warming". (NASA) ALL of the planets and active moons are experiencing turbulance via gaint storms and heightened volcaninc activity. These are facts. They tell you the oceans are heating and our glaciers are melting, but don't tell you that sub-marine volcanic activity has increased exponentially as well as top-side. Nobody knows the diff because all you know is what they report on t.v. and unless the volcanic activity hits a white tourist population it goes unreported in mainstream media.

Now, before anyone gets pissed, I'll tell you I am the environmentalist from hell. All my life I have done things for the environment and I even lived a good portion of my life without the use of vehicles or electricity. That being said... man's emissions are not the cause of earth's problem. Contributor yes, but not the cause. On top of the natural cyclic event that seems to be transpiring throughout our solar system, the powers that be are contributing to it with geo-experimentation/warfare.

[klinker]

The propoganda is that they are steering the real concern in the wrong direction. "Output" has little to do with it. We've got a double indemnity going on here. We are entering what is touted even by NASA to be the most agressive solar cycle possibly ever recorded. ( buy some 50,000 sun block )At the same time, our solar system is lining up with the galactic center. Frankly we don't know what exactly what the alignment will do if anything but the potentials are quite serious. Gravitational energies emanating accross the horizontal axis from the center, particularly during a raging solar maximum, might have some marked effects. Coincidently they think this alignment will occur sometime around 2012, but they can't calculate it precisely. These alignments have happened before but not with the current factors present. The scary thing is, we don't really know what is effecting all the planets and the cause being simply the galactic alignment is dubious. We have a completely unidentified anomaly going on in our solar system. Add to this Earth's Em field tickling the 0 point, us being due for a magnetic reversal etc... The fact is, right now, ALL of the planets in our solar system and even their moon's are experiencing "global warming". (NASA) ALL of the planets and active moons are experiencing turbulance via gaint storms and heightened volcaninc activity. These are facts. They tell you the oceans are heating and our glaciers are melting, but don't tell you that sub-marine volcanic activity has increased exponentially as well as top-side. Nobody knows the diff because all you know is what they report on t.v. and unless the volcanic activity hits a white tourist population it goes unreported in mainstream media.

Now, before anyone gets pissed, I'll tell you I am the environmentalist from hell. All my life I have done things for the environment and I even lived a good portion of my life without the use of vehicles or electricity. That being said... man's emissions are not the cause of earth's problem. Contributor yes, but not the cause. On top of the natural cyclic event that seems to be transpiring throughout our solar system, the powers that be are contributing to it with geo-experimentation/warfare.

Exactamundo on all counts. ;)

[sidewinder]

Great post.

[niftygifter]

This is all part of our ascension to 4th and 5th dimension, relax.;)

Nifty

[klinker]

This is all part of our ascension to 4th and 5th dimension, relax.;)

Nifty

That's another way of putting it. ;)

[mk72]

Can’t they just at least be bothered to swindle it more scientifically? First of all this is not a science paper it’s written by an Environmental Correspondent: He will be the first to loose his job if global warming is not caused by us – what will he be reporting on? Paris Hilton’s party life is what.
“It also shows that modern temperatures are not determined by the Sun’s effect” :confused::confused:– the sun got up one day, decided it is a modern era, no need to heat up because he can see we can generate our own heat now, and went back to sleep. And cosmic rays looked at sun snoozing and decided fuck you – in that case I’m not getting out of bed and affecting climate change anymore, nobody down there takes me seriously anyway.:rolleyes:
“The IPCC’s February summary report concluded that greenhouse gases were about 13 times more responsible than solar changes” – yes but which greenhouse gasses, the sea, the decomposing plant matter or the cow shit? :confused:

[klinker]

Can’t they just at least be bothered to swindle it more scientifically? First of all this is not a science paper it’s written by an Environmental Correspondent: He will be the first to loose his job if global warming is not caused by us – what will he be reporting on? Paris Hilton’s party life is what.
“It also shows that modern temperatures are not determined by the Sun’s effect” :confused::confused:– the sun got up one day, decided it is a modern era, no need to heat up because he can see we can generate our own heat now, and went back to sleep. And cosmic rays looked at sun snoozing and decided fuck you – in that case I’m not getting out of bed and affecting climate change anymore, nobody down there takes me seriously anyway.:rolleyes:
“The IPCC’s February summary report concluded that greenhouse gases were about 13 times more responsible than solar changes” – yes but which greenhouse gasses, the sea, the decomposing plant matter or the cow shit? :confused:

Perhaps they feel that they do not need to swindle it more scientifically. The masses (most of us) are programmed to accept what the authorities and scientific experts say because the masses (most of us) believe that they are totally benign and have nothing more than our best interests at heart. They love us and want to look after us. Bless 'em.

[mk72]

Perhaps they feel that they do not need to swindle it more scientifically. The masses (most of us) are programmed to accept what the authorities and scientific experts say because the masses (most of us) believe that they are totally benign and have nothing more than our best interests at heart. They love us and want to look after us. Bless 'em.

True. Thanks for bringing me back to this reality. And I agree Bless them:)

[klinker]

True. Thanks for bringing me back to this reality. And I agree Bless them:)

Don't worry about a thing. :)

[freespark]

Perhaps they feel that they do not need to swindle it more scientifically. The masses (most of us) are programmed to accept what the authorities and scientific experts say because the masses (most of us) believe that they are totally benign and have nothing more than our best interests at heart. They love us and want to look after us. Bless 'em.

If it comes from the BBC you can bet your ass that at least 99% of the people who read it would believe it no question. :(

[umbrex]

Yes, i guess this explains perfectly why ther planets are warming up..

http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/U/ukweather2080/guides/planets.html

http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/05/global-warming-on-jupiter.html

hmm hmmm hmmmmm

i must admit this impressive search took me 10 seconds.

[cruise4]

the sun got up one day, decided it is a modern era,

HeHeHe

[thunda]

Ha! Given the size of the Sun compared to the Earth and the entire Solar System (98% of it???) : if it decides to fart, we feel it.

We can all wear sandles, use potatoe peelings as soap, walk to our holidays in Spain and share a bath with the girl next door - if the Sun spews something out in our general direction the Earth is going warm up. Doesn't take a PHD in meterology and a hefty government bung to tell us that.

[harbingers_kiss]

My friend Chris posted this about the same article on another site. I know he won't mind my posting his blurb here.

The reasoning here is a little bit silly. From 1940 to 1970 global temperatures declined while CO2 levels rose dramatically. Using the same logic, shouldn't we then conclude that CO2 had no effect on global temperatures during this period?

Why don't we just admit that the earth's climate is a hugely complex and chaotic system with many, many feedbacks that are poorly understood at best. And this is even more true of our sun, because its trends in radiance operate on such large and complicated timescales that it's almost impossible to isolate a specific period and have any way of knowing what came before that is influencing matters now.

For example--and I know I post this link quite a lot--the time period that this study reportedly concludes that overall solar radiance has declined is the same one in which NASA has identified an upward trend in solar minimums that is quite possibly influencing current climate-change. The difference between the two articles is that the one from NASA will admit that we don't have enough modern satellite data to positively identify long-term trends beyond the last few decades.

So measuring overall radiance and then making conclusions based on incomplete data and an incomplete understanding of the sun-earth relationship is just silly. I would ask the authors to take a leaf out of their own book:

"You can't just ignore bits of data that you don't like,"

Here's the link he cited. http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2003/0313irradiance.html?ct=1

[1 2 free]

Sunspots reaching 1,000-year high

By Dr David Whitehouse
BBC News Online science editor

A new analysis shows that the Sun is more active now than it has been at anytime in the previous 1,000 years.

Scientists based at the Institute for Astronomy in Zurich used ice cores from Greenland to construct a picture of our star's activity in the past.

They say that over the last century the number of sunspots rose at the same time that the Earth's climate became steadily warmer.

The warming is being amplified by gases from fossil fuel burning, they argue.

'Little Ice Age'

Sunspots have been monitored on the Sun since 1610, shortly after the invention of the telescope. They provide the longest-running direct measurement of our star's activity.

The variation in sunspot numbers has revealed the Sun's 11-year cycle of activity as well as other, longer-term changes.

In particular, it has been noted that between about 1645 and 1715, few sunspots were seen on the Sun's surface.

This period is called the Maunder Minimum after the English astronomer who studied it.

It coincided with a spell of prolonged cold weather often referred to as the "Little Ice Age". Solar scientists strongly suspect there is a link between the two events - but the exact mechanism remains elusive.

Over the past few thousand years there is evidence of earlier Maunder-like coolings in the Earth's climate - indicated by tree-ring measurements that show slow growth due to prolonged cold.

In an attempt to determine what happened to sunspots during these other cold periods, Dr Sami Solanki and colleagues have looked at concentrations of a form, or isotope, of beryllium in ice cores from Greenland.

The isotope is created by cosmic rays - high-energy particles from the depths of the galaxy.

The flux of cosmic rays reaching the Earth's surface is modulated by the strength of the solar wind, the charged particles that stream away from the Sun's surface.

And since the strength of the solar wind varies over the sunspot cycle, the amount of beryllium in the ice at a time in the past can therefore be used to infer the state of the Sun and, roughly, the number of sunspots.

Latest warming

Dr Solanki is presenting a paper on the reconstruction of past solar activity at Cool Stars, Stellar Systems And The Sun, a conference in Hamburg, Germany.

He says that the reconstruction shows the Maunder Minimum and the other minima that are known in the past thousand years.

But the most striking feature, he says, is that looking at the past 1,150 years the Sun has never been as active as it has been during the past 60 years.

Over the past few hundred years, there has been a steady increase in the numbers of sunspots, a trend that has accelerated in the past century, just at the time when the Earth has been getting warmer.

The data suggests that changing solar activity is influencing in some way the global climate causing the world to get warmer.

Over the past 20 years, however, the number of sunspots has remained roughly constant, yet the average temperature of the Earth has continued to increase.

This is put down to a human-produced greenhouse effect caused by the combustion of fossil fuels.

This latest analysis shows that the Sun has had a considerable indirect influence on the global climate in the past, causing the Earth to warm or chill, and that mankind is amplifying the Sun's latest attempt to warm the Earth.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/sci/tech/3869753.stm

Published: 2004/07/06 16:07:14 GMT

[klinker]

Are we not still coming out of the last ice age anyway?

[mari]

Great post, Klinker.
Mother Earth is preparing to throw a gigantic wobbly on or around 2012. All these signs point towards it. Expect more 'expert' dislosures as the elite start crapping their collective pants as they come to realise what this will mean for their dream of power.............:D

[harbingers_kiss]

I'm not wholly sure what will happen. Personally I am doubting if whatever it is will be on an exact date much less overnight, although I do believe the Mayan and Egyptian predictions indicate some kind of major change with that date as merely a marker for it's beginning and this epoch's end.

I don't think the elite will be caught by surprize. They are the ones who are more into this stuff than any of us. The Egyptians talked of this coming epoch as well as the Mayans and as up as the elite are on Egyptian ritual etc... I'm thinking the elite probably have the most in depth predictions and facts about the 2012 epoch and will use it to their advantage. Populatrion control in both aspects of the term. I would if I were them. This is more like insurance to their "dream of power".

[draver]

Guys this is where i always get confused. There is certainly something happening on the 5 sense of this reality with the earth and so many massive changes and also the massive changes happening to many of us within this forum. And its all so positive but then we are on the David Icke website ad Dave made the point that he reckons the 2012 wakeup call is no the real awakining and that a true return to the oneness is the real awakining.

I just don't know it does get confused don't it

[mari]

The trouble is that we each put our own interpretation on what we read, & this leads to confusion all around. You are not alone! Trouble is, certain people think they have the monopoly of whats going to happen. We all sense something is in the air & each has to find their own 'truth'.
I haven't got a bloody clue whats going to happen - I just read & discuss stuff, absorb what resonates with me & discard the rest.
Trust your intuition. It works every time.

[harbingers_kiss]

I'm going to post this here and give it it's own thread. This talks about the galaxies, our sun, what could be causing the system's global warming and perhaps why the Mayans picked this date. Very interesting !

http://viewzone.com:80/milkyway.html