Solar decline "unlikely to offset greenhouse warming": Met Office

Irrelevant, apparently

Naturally, nothing the Sun (1.9891×1030 kg of blazing hot nuclear fusion right on our doorstep) can do compares with what our omnipotent man-made CO2 can do – all, er, hundred odd parts per million of it. Another study,  undertaken by the University of Reading and the UK Met Office, dismisses solar effects on the climate:

New research has found that solar output is likely to reduce over the next 90 years but that will not substantially delay expected increases in global temperatures caused by greenhouse gases.

Carried out by the University of Reading and the Met Office, the study establishes the most likely changes in the Sun’s activity and looks at how this could affect near-surface temperatures on Earth.

It found that the most likely outcome was that the Sun’s output would decrease up to 2100, but this would only cause a reduction in global temperatures of 0.08 °C. This compares to an expected warming of about 2.5 °C over the same period due to greenhouse gases (according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s B2 scenario for greenhouse gas emissions that does not involve efforts to mitigate emissions).

Gareth Jones, a climate change detection scientist with the Met Office, said: “This research shows that the most likely change in the Sun’s output will not have a big impact on global temperatures or do much to slow the warming we expect from greenhouse gases.

“It’s important to note this study is based on a single climate model, rather than multiple models which would capture more of the uncertainties in the climate system.”

And just to ram home the “it ain’t the sun, stupid” point even further:

Peter Stott, who also worked on the research for the Met Office, said: “Our findings suggest that a reduction of solar activity to levels not seen in hundreds of years would be insufficient to offset the dominant influence of greenhouse gases on global temperatures in the 21st century.” (source – University of Reading)

Focussing on TSI as the only variable ignores many other possible mechanisms of climatic influence, not least cosmic ray modulation, which, whilst not proven, is about as convincing as the CO2 argument right now.

The abstract from JGR is here.


  1. Lew Skannen says:

    “It’s important to note this study is based on a single climate model, rather than multiple models which would capture more of the uncertainties in the climate system.”

    There is only one globe so why are there dozens of models? Surely if they are correct then they should all agree shouldn’t they?
    These people are lost in fantasy and… and paid by us… 😦

  2. Ken Ward via Facebook says:

    We’re fighting the same “green” Communists in America.

  3. Given the Met Office track record on forecasts for more than a week, I’d say it’s time to buy a very good coat that will last a very long time. I’d might also add, that there is more to this story than just Svensmark’s theory. Remember that the height of the atmosphere dropped to its lowest level ever measured at the solar minimum in late 2008 and early 2009. A year later, the US capital region where I live got 25% more snow than it had ever gotten before and the negative arctic oscillation was some of the strongest measured. There are solar affects on stratosphere that just aren’t that well understood that lead to tremendous changes in the weather, changes that don’t require invoking Svensmark at all. This is going to be an interesting time but I shudder to think of how mother nature is going to show the Met Office just how little it understands about the weather and the climate.

  4. The mere fact that it comes from the spectacularly failing Met Office speaks volumes, however since studies shouldn’t be dismissed out of hand based on a poor record, a deeper analysis is needed; unfortunately it shows they’re clueless on this occasion, too.

  5. Largest CME in a while just got hurled towards us. What decline? Was quieter than normal over December, the Sun had a short break. But it is alive and activity continues to grow in a big way. They planning on blocking coverage of the Sun and going to take advantage of it for AGW? LOL

  6. The Loaded Dog says:

    “unlikely to offset”….

    But it “could” though…if they’re proven to be wrong. Just more fudge factor weasel words that say NOTHING from the political spin machine. They make me SICK.

  7. That of course would be the same Met Office who have just been awarded a rather healthy bonus from the government coffers,Its amazing how a financial incentive brings a desired result isnt it?.

  8. One can always very safely bet that the lame horse will come in last.

    Considering that MET offices worldwide have a very good track record of being always wrong in medium to long term crystal-ball predictions, I am pretty sure that the current solar dip WILL offset any rise in temps due to increased CO2.

  9. One does need to point out that Svenmark et Danish al had proved to the world that CGR’s do amplify solar variablity. CERN have practically confirmed it, only CERN have said that they will not issue their opinion, or similar words that mean: We shall not be the ones to overturn the climate-gravy-applecart.

  10. gyptis444 says:

    It’s GLOBAL COOLING that we should really be worried about.

  11. Blair Giles via Facebook says:

    MET Office seems to have completely missed the relevance of the CERN experiment, and it’s impact re the IPCC’s own acknowledged uncertainties about clouds.

    Less solar output should equate to less magnetic field to block cosmic rays. The increase in cosmic rays then hitting the earth should equate to more clouds, resulting in greatly decreased temperatures.

  12. Charles Higley says:

    “a reduction of solar activity to levels not seen in hundreds of years would be insufficient to offset the dominant influence of greenhouse gases on global temperatures ”

    These guys are flipping’ idiots. They certainly have bought the IPCC junk science hook, line and sinker!

    On the contrary, there is every reason to predict that CO2 causes a tiny bit of cooling, but it’s fertilizing effects, on land and in the seas, is huge and we should focus on making as much as we can. With cooling, we need the crop production boost from the added CO2.

    – office buildings operate at about 5000 ppm CO2 (390 ppm currently in the atmosphere)
    – submarines are operated with 8000 ppm
    – big concerts can have CO2 above 10,000 ppm
    Nobody is bothered by these concentrations.

  13. Laurie Williams says:

    Piers Corbyn of is the man to watch. Consistently accurate long range weather forecasts which private customers including farmers willingly pay for with their own money, unlike any of the government funded weather offices and their efforts.

    Plenty of worthwhile analysis from Corbyn, including his comments on the “Church of CO2 Delusion”, on YouTube.


  1. […] can alter the climate is by means of changes in solar irradiance. Earlier this week, the Met Office insisted, despite a predicted reduction in solar output over the next few years, that it would be too small […]

%d bloggers like this: