Wetenschappers presenteren alternatief IPCC-rapport

[Henk op xp]

REPLY TO: D66 at nic.surfnet.nl

Mark Giebels schreef:
> REPLY TO: D66 at nic.surfnet.nl
>
> Ik hoorde vanochtend op radio1 dat een paar Britten die
> 'zonneintensiteitstheorie' recentelijk hebben weerlegd. Sinds 1980 is
> er blijkbaar een afname van die zonnenvlekke (oid) maar de temperatuur
> daalt niet, in tegendeel. Dit schijnt in die documentaire van morgen,
> die jij ook aanhaalde op deze lijst, ook genegeerd te worden: De
> cijfers zouden manipulatief maar tot 1980 worden gepresenteerd.

Refereren ze hiernaar,  mark ...

http://environment.independent.co.uk/climate_change/article2753395.ece

"
11 July 2007 13:16


  Solar activity 'not the cause of global warming'


      By Steve Connor, Science Editor


        Published: 11 July 2007

Claims that increased solar activity is the cause of global warming - 
rather than man-made greenhouse gases - have been comprehensively 
disproved by a detailed study of the Sun.

Scientists have delivered the final blow to the theory that recent 
global warming can be explained by variations in the natural cycles of 
the Sun - a favourite refuge for climate sceptics who dismiss the 
influence of greenhouse-gas emissions.

An analysis of the records of all of the Sun's activities over the past 
few decades - such as sunspot cycles and magnetic fields - shows that 
since 1985 solar activity has decreased significantly, while global 
warming has continued to increase.

Mike Lockwood, of the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory in Chilton, 
Oxfordshire, said: "In 1985, the Sun did a U-turn in every respect. It 
no longer went in the right direction to contribute to global warming. 
We think it's almost completely conclusive proof that the Sun does not 
account for the recent increases in global warming."

The study, published today in the journal Proceedings of the Royal 
Society A, shows there is no doubt that solar activity over the past 20 
years has run in the opposite direction to global warming, and therefore 
cannot explain rises in average global temperatures.

Dr Lockwood and his colleague Claus Fröhlich, of the World Radiation 
Centre in Davos Dorf, Switzerland, have produced the most powerful 
counter argument to suggestions that current warming is part of the 
natural cycle of solar activities. "There is considerable evidence for 
solar influence on Earth's pre-industrial climate, and the Sun may well 
have been a factor in post-industrial change in the first half of the 
last century," they write.

However, since about 1940 there has been no evidence to suggest that 
increases in global average temperatures were caused by solar activity. 
"Our results show that the observed rapid rise in global mean 
temperatures seen after 1985 cannot be ascribed to solar variability, 
whichever of the mechanisms is invoked and no matter how much the solar 
variation is amplified," the two scientists said.

The theory that past changes in solar activity may have explained some 
changes in the climate before the industrial revolution is not in 
dispute. In previous centuries, for instance, notably between about 1420 
and 1570, when the Vikings had to abandon their Greenland settlements, 
solar minima corresponded with unusually cool weather, such as the 
"little ice age" of the 17th century.

But climate sceptics have exploited this to dispute the idea that 
man-made emissions are responsible for global warming. In the recent 
Channel 4 programme The Great Global Warming Swindle, the rise in solar 
activity over the latter half of the 20th century was erroneously 
presented as perfectly matching the rise in global average temperatures.

Dr Lockwood said he was outraged when he saw the documentary, because of 
the way the programme-makers used graphs of temperature rises and 
sunspot cycles that were cut off in the 1980s, when the two trends went 
in the opposite direction.

"The trouble is that the theory of solar activity and climate was being 
misappropriated to apply to modern-day warming. The sceptics were taking 
perfectly good science and bringing it into disrespect," Dr Lockwood said.

The Royal Society said yesterday: "There is a small minority which is 
seeking to confuse the public on the causes of climate change. They are 
often misrepresenting the science, when the reality is that the evidence 
is getting stronger every day."
"

 . . . ?

Henk Elegeert

**********
Dit bericht is verzonden via de informele D66 discussielijst (D66 at nic.surfnet.nl).
Aanmelden: stuur een email naar LISTSERV at nic.surfnet.nl met in het tekstveld alleen: SUBSCRIBE D66 uwvoornaam uwachternaam
Afmelden: stuur een email naar LISTSERV at nic.surfnet.nl met in het tekstveld alleen: SIGNOFF D66
Het on-line archief is te vinden op: http://listserv.surfnet.nl/archives/d66.html
**********