Mike Lockwood – Sun Has No Influence On Climate, Except When It Does!
By Paul Homewood
h/t Chris Manuell
July 2007
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.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6290228.stm
June 2015
The past few decades have been characterized by a period of relatively high solar activity.However, the recent prolonged solar minimum and subsequent weak solar cycle 24 have led to suggestions that the grand solar maximum may be at an end
As a result of the decrease in solar irradiance, both experiments show widespread cooling with respect to CTRL-8.5 (Fig. 2). The relative annual global mean near-surface temperature change for the period 2050–2099 is a cooling of 0.13 and 0.12 °C for EXPT-A and EXPT-B, respectively.
http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2015/150623/ncomms8535/full/ncomms8535.html
If Mr Lockwood is not careful, he might end up joining David Viner in the Hall of Fame!
Trackbacks
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
“The relative annual global mean near-surface temperature change for the period 2050–2099 is a cooling of 0.13 and 0.12 °C for EXPT-A and EXPT-B, respectively.”
Always beware modelled results written in the present tense!
A new age of lunacy I now fear is dawning,
When temperatures cool it’s called global warming,
The logic is clear,
‘Man-made’ is still here,
And to pseudo-science it keeps conforming.
http://rhymeafterrhyme.net/man-does-not-know-everything/
I’m glad that’s settled that the sun has no influence on Planet Earth. Now we should investigate the other theory that Earth’s heat comes from the trillion gigawatt fusion reaction going on down in the molten core that we suspect exists. Maybe we could drill a hole and see.
This of course opens up a whole new can of worms for them because if the sun’s inactivity can cause cooling then when it is higher it can cause warming. It’s then a question of how much.
I guess that means the Warmists are of the opinion that all money spent on solar panels is being wasted; after all if the sun is not heating up planet earth, there is zero chance of it heating up solar panels either.
It shows that for the last 20 years, the Sun’s output has declined, yet temperatures on Earth have risen.
Considering the time it takes for the ocean current to circulate, I’d have thought that 20 years is a short time for the Earth to respond to changes in the Sun’s output.
The missing heat will be hiding under the ice if ‘scientists’ say so 😉
Check out these images from 2007 and this year, http://home.comcast.net/~ewerme/wuwt/cryo_compare.jpg
the change in snow cover for the first week of summer is amazing. I would love to see how CO2 induced warming can explain it.
Not only that, but check http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries.png
And according to http://www.iup.uni-bremen.de:8084/amsr2/extent_n_running_mean_amsr2_previous.png it’s even worse (I don’t like ice).
Cryosphere Today’s snow coverage has not been updating for over a month now. However the ice coverage is accurate.
Thanks, Paul.
If the Sun couldn’t influence Earth’s climate, then I guess nothing could, not even mighty CO2.
Hangon surely that first BBC article is Richard Blacks hype ?…er no I checked it quotes ML all the time.
eg. “You can’t just ignore bits of data that you don’t like,” he said.
– Be great if Mick Lockwood would comment here to set the record straight.
I’m sure he is welcome.
For the last 18 years temperatures have not risen, also it has been reported that at least 45 Royal Society members have expressed concerns about the validity of AGW. Most amusing of all is Met Office scientist Sarah Ineson warning about a mini ice age to come, but do not worry it will not affect global warming. I do not know what substances Sarah is taking, but I would like some.
Temperature does rise and fall with solar activity.
Claiming to be a scientist whilst also claiming the Sun does not influence the Earth’s climate are mutually exclusive positions.
Is there supposed to be a contradiction between the two pieces quoted? The first says that a cooling, less-active sun would cause a cooler Earth, whether through EM radiation or (much less important) cosmic rays. The Nature article says the same thing.
The first article points out that if the sun is cooling, then changes in solar output cannot account for past global warming (yes, there may be a multi-decade time lag because of thermal inertia but that seems to be taken into account). However, a cooling sun could account for there being less global warming (the so-called “hiatus” or “speedbump”) than predicted. The worrying thing is that this can cause unwarranted complacency: change in solar output is cyclical (I don’t just mean the 11-year sunspot cycle), while greenhouse gases are a long-term accumulation.
The series of strong solar maxima during the last half of last century, didn’t cause ant warming ?
But a drop to a solar minimum is causing warming??? Which way do you want it.
Sorry, but “they” said that the sun had little effect.. and the only reason they are now changing their story, is because that can see the cooling trend coming.
FACT, most of the small amount of warming during the last 25 years of last century was to do with a stronger Sun.
That sun is now having a snooze, and there is a cooling period coming.
CO2 has basically NOTHING to do with it.
CO2 at any level it will ever reach is totally beneficial to the whole planet.
Letting the CO2 level drop back down to 350ppm or below would cause a lot of problems with food supply, because all our food comes from one basic chemical reaction, Photosynthesis, which requires sunlight, H2O and the trace molecule of life, CO2
“didn’t cause ant warming ” typo correction.. again. !
didn’t cause any warming ?
I have got to stop posting before my morning coffee kicks in !!!
second point should read..
“But a drop to a solar minimum isn’t causing cooling???”
Yes, these so-called scientists don’t know what they’re talking about, do they? Logical and experimental rigour are unknown to them.
15-20% chance of UV minimum causing a 0.12 °C Northern hemisphere cooling effect, indeed. If this is only “a small fraction of projected anthropogenic warming”, the projected cooling must still mean there’s no overall warming. FACT.