Wednesday, July 11, 2007

Shaming of a great institution

In a remarkable departure from scientific process, the Royal Society has concluded that the sun plays no part in the current climate change - even though it has in the past. The "study" was initiated as a response to the Channel 4 film "The Great Global Warming Swindle" which was first broadcast last March.

This means that this Royal Society "study" has been completed in just 3-4 months!


To think they could analyse all the data, comb through the hundreds of scientific papers including many that have been published recently and reach a level of certainty in conclusion in just 4 months on a subject that others have been studying for decades without being able to be anywhere near as certain in their conclusion. Wow - those Royal Society boys must really know their stuff. They must have had a team of hundreds working flat out to reach that conclusion so quickly.

"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.

So, not hundreds - just two. And these two guys have managed to reach a conclusion which "settles the debate" in just 4 months which many other eminent scientists after years of painstaking research disagree with.

Prof Lockwood claims there has actually been a decline in solar activity since 1985 and this proves that the sun can not be the main driver behind climate change. Remarkably enough, Prof Lockwood insists it is caused by CO2 even though CO2 rose rapidly between 1940 and 1970 and yet temperature declined enough to cause a global cooling scare. If two decades of sun activity data proves that the sun can not cause climate change then surely three decades of CO2 data trumps that?

"You can't just ignore bits of data that you don't like," Prof. Lockwood is quoted as saying. Really, Mike?

Sounds like Prof. Lockwood is having his cake and eating it.

This isn't "science". It's propaganda. The Royal Society should be hanging it's collective head in shame.


Anonymous said...

I couldn't agree more Stan.

I too read this, on the BBC website this morning.

My own conclusion was how much it appeared to be published to merely stifle 'an inconvenient claim about climate'.

The gall of the man to selectively choose just 30 years of data to debunk a theory, and then to reprimand other scientists for choosing a different x-axis..

This smells of a panic response. Can't be having the public thinking too much about the issue eh..? Get it stifled and do it quickly..
What a crock.....

Anonymous said...

A May 2005 SCIENCE Magazine article says the sun's radiance INcreased from 1990 to 2005. Who's right?

From Dimming to Brightening: Decadal Changes in Solar Radiation at Earth's Surface
Martin Wild,1* Hans Gilgen,1 Andreas Roesch,1 Atsumu Ohmura,1 Charles N. Long,2 Ellsworth G. Dutton,3 Bruce Forgan,4 Ain Kallis,5 Viivi Russak,6 Anatoly Tsvetkov7
Variations in solar radiation incident at Earth's surface profoundly affect the human and terrestrial environment. A decline in solar radiation at land surfaces has become apparent in many observational records up to 1990, a phenomenon known as global dimming. Newly available surface observations from 1990 to the present, primarily from the Northern Hemisphere, show that the dimming did not persist into the 1990s. Instead, a widespread brightening has been observed since the late 1980s. This reversal is reconcilable with changes in cloudiness and atmospheric transmission and may substantially affect surface climate, the hydrological cycle, glaciers, and ecosystems.

Stan said...

Thanks for the link, anon - good, interesting stuff.

One wonders what the Royal Society is up to allowing purely political statements with no scientific foundation to be made under their name.

Steve said...

"It's the large, fiery ball at the center of the solar system, but that's not important right now."

Sorry, couldn't resist.