Much is being made of the report in the Journal of the Royal Society by Mike Lockwood (see pic) and his -pals at the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory in Oxfordshire and and Claus Froehlich of the World Radiation Centre in Davos, Switzerland in debunking the recent book by Nigel Calderwood about the effect of cosmic rays in cloud formation and consequent effects on the Earth's climate.
"The temperature record is simply not consistent with any of the solar
forcings that people are talking about," said lead author Mike Lockwood (see pic) at the
Rutherford Appleton Laboratory in Oxfordshire... which is correct but only for the last 20 years or so of observations.
"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 appear to have accelerated recently and are going up by 0.2 degrees per decade and the top 10 warmest years on record have happened in the past 12 years. The major problem is that the UN IPCC climate panel, caliming to draw on the work of 2,500 scientists, said this year it was "very likely" human activities were the main cause - the implication that this is due to emission of carbon dioxide as a result of burning fossil fuels whilst widely accepted , does not resolve or explain why the apparent effects of solar changes over centuries shows such an apparent congruence and then a sudden disconnect in the 80's. The data raises more questions than it resolves.
To suggest that the causes of recent climate change is a resolved question and is not the subject of considerable debate and discussion is dishonest.
The role of the Royal Society in this tendentious and tedious attempt to force public opinion is blatant and it would appear politically motivated - no wonder there are those who see it as a bold attempt to snaffle research funds.
There are a complex of factors affecting the climate, and especially temperature and it's rate of change at any time and anywhere on the globe, the sun evidently has the principal role in providing the initial source of heat - Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere has been identified as acomponent since Ahrrenius in the 20th century.
The way this single factor theory in climate change is peddled is not scientific - the unqualified acceptance and re-gurgitation by the press is a further dishonesty.
Edited highlights from the Press releases here at New Scientist - We now realise at Patel Towers that Lockwood (see pic) is associated with Southampton University (natural habitat of the Media Lens deaf to argument Global Warmongers).
Lockwood (see pic)tells the New Scientist ..
"The upshot is that somewhere between 1985 and 1987 all the solar factors that could have affected climate have been going in the wrong direction. If they were really a big factor we would have cooling by now," . He adds that he wishes he knew why the Sun's activity had changed in this way.
Well this was described previously and the apparent change in the sun's internal activity is a puzzle to more than Lockwood and has been for several years.
That a study of the last 20 years of climate change is in geological time a fraction of a second and to extrapolate backwards or forwards on the basis of this brief period cannot be sustauined as an argument. ... he attempts by ignoring the whole available sequence of data for the previous 140 odd years to confuse the issue and the gullible and possible uninformed reader - ie politicians and Newspaper Editors.
"The findings debunk an explanation for climate change " says the New Scientist - they highlight the complexity and the many unknowns that affect change globally.
Here is the data that NS have put online but this is clear and can be easily read
The caption is theirs.
Solar activity (a: sunspots, b: solar cycle, c: magnetic field, d: cosmic rays, e: solar irradiance cf: the Max Planck data) made a U-turn around 1985; meanwhile, global temperatures continued to rise (f) (Image: Lockwood / Fröhlich)