Solar effects only cause cooling

Thames Frost Fair, 1694

Climate scientists in the consensus camp are scrambling to find a reason for the slowing of the global temperature rise in the last decade. According to their models, in which climate sensitivity is very high and positive feedbacks rule, temperatures should have continued rising with CO2.

Solar effects are to all intents and purposes ignored, since as the IPCC states in AR4, changes in solar irradiance are too small to affect the climate, and other methods such as cosmic ray modulation are “controversial” [translation: they don’t fit our agenda – Ed]. So they are simply glossed over.

Just yesterday, we read that the additional aerosols from burning coal have “offset” the greenhouse warming over the past decade and are actually cooling the planet, and today, we read that solar effects may cause UK winters to become colder, as the BBC reports:

Britain is set to face an increase in harsh winters, with up to one-in-seven gripping the UK with prolonged sub-zero temperatures, a study has suggested.

The projection was based on research that identified how low solar activity affected winter weather patterns.

However, the authors were keen to stress that their findings did not suggest that the region was about to be plunged into a “little ice age”. [Note the essential caveat – don’t anyone start thinking this is some kind of global effect – Ed]

The findings appear in the journal Environmental Research Letters.

“We could get to the point where one-in-seven winters are very cold, such as we had at the start of last winter and all through the winter before,” said co-author Mike Lockwood, professor of space environment physics at the University of Reading. (source)

There is a clear double standard at work here. The IPCC and the consensus scientists are terrified of investigating solar links to climate change too closely, since it may blow their CO2 driven cash cow out of the water. In their book, virtually none of the current warming is linked to increased solar activity or other solar-related phenomena, it’s all down to man-made CO2. That’s despite the fact that by their own admission, the level of scientific understanding of forcing by solar irradiance is “low” and that of cosmic rays “very low” [translation: “virtually zero” and “zero” – Ed].

But suddenly, as soon as there is a need to find a reason for cooling, the fog clears, as it were, and they invoke the sun as a cause.

Either we understand enough about the sun to link it to regional or global changes in climate or we don’t. You can’t have it both ways.


  1. What excuses have we heard so far for the lack of warming? Aerosols, solar activity, ocean occilations like el nino and la nina, noise, it’s only a decade, deniers, shut up we’re scientists you’re not.

    They IPCC claims they cannot account for 20th century warming without CO2. Now they can’t account for the lack of it in the last decade without CO2. Perhaps, as Bob Carter says, it is time to return to the null hypothesis, the simplist explanation: as for the last 4 billion years, it is natural climate change.

  2. Yes and in section 2.9.1 in the IPCC AR4 report , over 90% of factors thought to cause “global wamring” were found to have little or no consensus.


    90% – no consensus.

    Funny isnt it – how do you get “Were all gunna die!!!!!!!!!!!” from only 10% of what …oh never mind……

  3. Baldrick says:

    Remember how many people were conned by the supposed Y2K Millennium Bug? The United Nations even set up committees and held conferences and forums on the supposed effects. They said it could affect power supplies, telecommunications, financial systems, public health, food supplies, emergency services, utilities and the organization of social welfare, and advised coordinated efforts by governments and private, public and international organizations to address the year 2000 problem.

    The World Bank and the United Nations Development Program (UNDP), in cooperation with the G8 and other donor nations, set up a network of experts in key sectors to assist national Y2K coordinators in assessing the problem.
    The UN was also set to help countries that require long term or expensive technical assistance to obtain funding and provide humanitarian assistance as needed.

    … and what happened? Nothing, which goes to prove bad science makes great religion!

  4. The funny thing about the paper talking about chinese emissions is (a) it admits no warming for a decade or more (thus cancelling out the chorus of ‘it’s still getting warmer’ and (b) the admission that large coal burning is net negative. While the co2 from burning coal creates heat, the sulphur creates cooling.

    So it’s either let the coal burn and have no net effect, or stop burning it and have no net effect. But you can’t say it is both simuntaneously warming and cooling the climate at the same time.

    Besides, the ‘aerosols’ argument is a load of old hooey anyway. It’s the convenient excuse for the 1940-1975 cooling, when plainly a couple of laws passed in one or two countries couldn’t possibly reverse the trend overnight.

    The truth is, nobody knows, but it’s clearer with each passing year, it’s not solely co2 to the exclusion of all else.

  5. “one-in-seven winters are very cold, such as we had at the start of last winter and all through the winter before,” Isn’t that two in seven already?? Therefore blowing a gaping great hole in that line of thinking. Or even 2 of 2!!!

  6. Mervyn Sullivan says:

    Jasper Kirkby is a particle physicist at CERN – the Swiss-based European Organization for Nuclear Research. Check this presentation, which indicates there is a significant role played by the sun and cosmic rays that could account for somewhere between a half and the whole of the increase in the Earth’s temperature that we have seen in the last century.

    Kirkby has also exposed a major error in climate models during the course of the study, which means the climate model based predictions are simply wrong.

    The results of the team, led by Jasper Kirkby, cannot be dismissed by the IPCC.

  7. froggy uk says:

    Heres the latest from the nutty climate scientists, It seems that as their predicted sea level rise from supposed ice melt was a non event they have now come up with this conclusion as to where all the water went to try & cover themselves,,,,,,,

    These idiots just dont know when to stop digging do they.

%d bloggers like this: