The Sun Sets (finally) on the Solar Radiation Myth
While the "cosmic ray" theory of climate change will probably still continue to be put forward by the persistent little army of global warming deniers, there's a new study to be published in the Proceedings of the Royal Society that appears to put the myth to rest once and for all.
Researchers have found that the Sun's output has actually fallen over the past 20 years, while temperatures continue to rise.
Any global warming denier who continues to defend this myth is more than welcome to send their scientific findings to the Proceedings of the Royal Society or any other peer-reviewed scientific journal for review and possible publication.
If rejected, Fox News is always on the look-out for scientific opinion that does not stand up to the process.
H/T to Conscious Comment.
You don't need to be concerned that "real science" is not possible in climate science. Despite the deliberate efforts of some to muddy the public understanding of the science, the science continues regardless.
Our current understanding of the quantum mechanical behaviour of matter makes Newtonian Physics seems quite primitive. Newtonian physics is still largely correct however, just that at very small scales the simple Newtonian understanding fails to work properly. Similarly, no doubt in 100 years much of our current science may seem naive. That does not mean it will be wrong. Science does not re-write all theories every 6 months. It is possible to know things, absolutely. Until you understand that it is possible to know a thing absolutely and therefore understand other ideas to be wrong the scientific method will continue to confuse you.
In any case this new science is a new observation, not a theory. As observations often do it demolishes some theories (in this case the idea that the sun is responsible for current warming) and indirectly lends support for other theories. This interplay of "observation" and "theory" is science.
I think if you read it again you'll see that that quote was probably in the context of the awful docudrama The Great Warming Swindle -- the debate regarding cosmic rays being responsible for warming and not CO2.
But I want to take issue with another attitude you express -- you seem to think that scientists should never be closing off avenues of research. What you're suggesting is anethema to Popperian science which strives to operate by eliminating less likely hypotheses. Science has eliminated many and those have remained eliminated. Thank goodness we now know that spontaneous generation is wrong. Do you think there's a chance that science will find that it's not?
Demi, you are repeating a whole lot of the nonsense carried by the right wing blogs. Go over to RealClimate.com and spend some time there with an open mind. You will find that most of what you have said in your post is just not true.
The climate deniers are not wrong because they received money from Exxon. They are wrong because they are not doing research but are distorting the findings of the real climate scientists according to a political agenda. None of them have published papers in the peer reviewed scientific literature (well a couple have but there are very dark clouds hanging around those papers).
And by the way, there was no "scientific consensus" regarding "global cooling" in the 1970's, only a few scientists speculating but no hard data and no consensus, not like now regarding AGW.
Ian Forrester
Robert in Calgary should be upset that Exxon et al are spending money on spreading garbage in the media (what about those graphs ending in 1980?) rather than funding poor Svensmark. In addition, any idiot who sends $$ to NRSP should, rather than supporting PR, probably send their dough to RESEARCHERS who claim that they can't get funding through supposedly pro-AGW-biased channels.
"Realclimate is the most closed minded place next to...next to, this place." Robert, to call RealClimate closeminded is to tell a lie; and anyone who spends much time at RealClimate knows it. Whatsamatta, did they give your pet theories short shrift? Or are you just afraid that more and more people will see through your nonsense?
Edited to clarify.
I'm getting very concerned that it's now impossible to have any real science around evolution. What real scientist would say we can now "put to rest" any research/discussion around the possibility that living things were created as described in the Old Testament. How can so-called scientists generation after generation claim to have all the answers when their theories are constantly disproven. It seems completely insane to close off any area of discussion or research around any area related to evolution. Our current understanding of the complexities of life will seem primative to people 100 years from now - but that doesn't stop us for arrogantly claiming the "debate is over - we have all the answers!.
You say you've learned that "pro-AGW reseach (and analysis) needs to be investigated very, very, very carefully." What about efforts in the media by the AGW-is-a-lie crowd, like ignoring the last 20 years' data? How come Robert in Calgary didn't think it was worth commenting about that?
PS> I'm sure the Max Plank Institute has found out. In fact, the link you posted provides this quotation: "On the other hand, the rather similar trends of solar activity and terrestrial temperature during the last centuries (with the notable exception of the last 20 years) indicates that the relation between Sun and climate remains a challenge for further research."
Robert in Calgary said: "ps-early indications are that Lockwood's "analysis" is.. to be charitable...flawed".
This is quite correct, however, the flawed work is by a completely different Lockwood to the one writing the paper under discussion. G. W. Lockwood wrote a number of papers suggesting that there was global warming on Neptune which was caused by changes in solar irradiance. This hypothesis has recently been shown to be wrong since recent research obtained using the Hubble telescope shows that the changes observed by G. W. Lockwood are in fact caused by seasonal (orbital) variation. This paper can be found at:
http://hubblesite.org/pubinfo/pdf/2003/17/paper.pdf
The work by M. Lockwood, under discussion on this thread, shows that there is no correlation between solar output and global temperature over the past 20 years.
The paper can be found at:
http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/media/proceedings_a/rspa20071880.pdf
So, Robert in Calgary, check up on your Lockwoods before claiming the wrong one is guilty of "flawed analysis".
Ian Forrester
"poo-poo the growing evidence supporting the solar/cosmic line of research"
Are you kidding me? Where is you research? Where is the "growing evidence?"
Fox News, Glenn Beck and the Great Global Warming Swindle are not peer reviewed journals. Please, this thing is getting a little ridiculous.
Just send along the peer-reviewed research.
Sorry, I've never understood this comparison. Galileo lived during the time of witch-hunts and super-power religions.
Are you saying that our culture today is the same as that of Galileo's time? Would be strange because I think there has never been a time in history like ours where scientific advancement has been so embraced.