So, the BBC finally wakens up to the fact that the Sun has been dimming and that sunspot activity is very low but yet it manages to find a scientist in the form of Mike Lockwood who ameliorates the impact this may have have on climate change on Earth. It would have been nice had the BBC been able to locate at least one of the many scientists who can demonstrates that our climate is massively influenced by solar activity but then again they are “sceptics” and they spoil the narrative.

Bookmark the permalink.

48 Responses to SEASONS IN THE SUN

  1. Liquid P Gasse says:

    Well, archeology shows us that there have been cycles in the Worlds climate – and we are in one now – similar to lots of previous. There is also evidence for the activity of the Sun influencin g these cycles – and we can now see variations on the other planets in the Solar System.

    No preconceptions by the eco-lobbyists out there please.


  2. Ken MacLean says:

    In the summer of 2007 the BBC gave prominence to a report by Lockwood et al which purported to disprove the theory put forward by Svensmark et al that the sun has a major effect on the earth’s climate. At the time, it was stated on the BBC website that Svensmark et al could not be contacted for comment.

    However. when 2/3 months later Svensmark et al published a reply to Lockwood et al entitled The Persistent Role of the Sun in Climate Forcing (Danish National Space center Scientific Report 3/2007), the BBC ignorred the reply and refused to give it any publicity even when it was drawn to the BBC’s attention.

    There is one thing you can rely on from the BBC: it sticks rigidly to its biased agenda.


  3. mat says:

    Right so the object with the greatest influence in our galaxy has no effect on its 3rd nearest rock ?.


  4. Tom says:

    Even before the budget speech the BBC is cheerleading for Mr Darling’s amazing discovery that he can find £15 BILLION in efficiency savings.

    No one so far has pointed out the obvious fact – if Darling can find so much fat to cut, his predecessor must have been INCOMPETENT.


  5. Roland Deschain says:

    I’m not sure I’d go so far as to say the sun has the greatest influence in our galaxy!


  6. JohnA says:

    Yes, typical of the BBC to give a slight nod towards the mere possibility that solar activity affects our climate – but ensuring that a known opponnent of that theory is there to knock it on the head.

    Am I going deaf – did I miss the other interviewee, the one putting forward the case that solar activity has a crucial impact on climate change ? Obviously the BBC had invited someone, they always strive for balamce on climate issues.


  7. Tom says:

    oops. sorry to interrupt the interesting climate discussion with my O/T rant about the budget – I thought I was posting on a different thread!


  8. Martin says:

    Roger Harrin assures us the Sun has nothing to do with climat change. He should know, he’s an expert in ……. English.

    So if the Sun went ‘out’ tomorrow the Earth would continue to warm would it?


  9. ady says:

    The Kim Jong il Gore cultists will deal with this fact by simply ignoring it.

    The global warming emperor has no clothes kiddies.


  10. Chris says:

    What Mike Lockwood surely knows but is not saying is that because of the solar maximum in 1985 a lot of latent heat built up in the Oceans just like it does in the seas around Britain in the summertime causing mild Autumns, if the oceans warm it takes several years to cool them. All the main world average temperatures have dipped since 2002 and world sea ice is 1,000,000 sq Km above average see the Cryosphere today website, scroll to the bottom of the page for world ice figures.
    Also the Pacific Decadel oscillation has now gone into the cold phase and is likely to stay there for the next 30 years
    Even William Herschel knew that the sunspot cycle affects weather on earth and he died in 1822
    But you won’t hear that on the BBC.


  11. Cassandra says:

    I noticed the usual line at the end stating that ‘scientists say that the lack of solar activity is UNLIKELY to save us from manmade global warming’.

    Who are these ‘scientists’ are they AGW supporters or they impartial, when did they state this this overly confident and unscientific dismissal?
    Again and again the BBC refers to unamed scientists making unscientific statements and they never explain further.

    The giveawy statement at the end implies that they have been forced to admit this report in response to a miriad of complaints, then being forced to actually comply with their own impartiality rules they just had to add their true believers tuppence worth at the end.

    The fact is that the current solar minimum is close to becoming a maunder minimum it is now pretty much past the stage of being just a dalton minimum, whats the difference between them? the BBC didnt seem to find the time to explain it to us.
    Suffice to say that IF and its looking a real possibility, IF we experience a maunder minimum then we are going to experience a mini ice age or worse.
    A century of sharp cooling ending god knows when and goodness knows how deep.
    Smug and frankly moronic dismissals by the AGW believers about the solar minimum danger are going to make many people look very stupid indeed!

    We as a planet are preparing for exactly the opposite of what is coming our way, we are wasting valuable time and trillions of badly needed dollars to shore up the wrong rampart, just as we are starting to realise the danger, the fake consensus attacks the very scientists trying to warn us of the possible catastrophe in the making and the BBC is the main voice of the new witch burning scapegoat industry.

    It wouldnt be so bad if millions of human beings were not being sentenced to a lingering and painful death due to starvation on the alter of a failed political narrative.

    The frustration of being a spectator to the biggest mistake in human history is often more than I can bear and I suspect I am not alone!


  12. Dr S Lathwell says:

    NASA’s GISS keep trying to push the ‘CO2.1’ argument.

    Keep getting caught out – 1934 is still the hottest year, until next time GISS find another way to ‘fix’ the numbers!!

    (Dates 2007)
    Global Warming all-gone!


  13. Umbongo says:

    BTW for those interested in ad hominem arguments, all us MMGW “deniers” out here are likened by this economic genius to those who denied the AIDS-HIV link. Of course, Lord Stern (who, I suspect not by coincidence, has prospered mightily under this government!) was one of the famous 364 economists who were themselves in denial concerning Mrs T’s efforts to rescue this country from the ruin caused by – surprise, surprise – an incompetent and spendthrift Labour government.


  14. Grant says:

    Cassandra 11:26
    Most Beeboids don’t have the intellect to understand science, and ,like many luvvies, actually take a pride in their ignorance.
    But , for them, it doesn’t matter as this is a political issue , not a scientific one.
    BBC, ignorance and bias, that is what we do !


  15. Grant says:

    Dr. Lathwell 11:50
    The fact that the warmists doctor
    ( apologies , no pun intended ! ) the evidence demonstrates that they are aware of the weakness of their case.


  16. Grant says:

    Umbongo 12:59
    We have also been linked to Holocaust deniers, the ultimate aim to make Global Warming denial a criminal offence.


  17. Idiotboy says:

    James Naughtie would have to get eaten by a polar bear in Portland Place before the BBC would entertain the possibility that the climate was cooling.


  18. mat says:

    Roland Deschain er ok what is then ? as last time i checked we went round the sun and all the other bodies in the galaxy do as well !


  19. jimbob says:

    ken mclean – Henrik Svensmark is the man to watch

    this was cut from “watts up with that” –

    “the Sun has entered a period of deep slumber. The number of sunspots for 2008 was the second lowest of any year since 1901. That matters less because of fluctuations in the amount of heat generated by the massive star in our near proximity (although there are some fluctuations that may have some measurable effect on global temperatures) and more because of a process best described by the Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark in his complex, but elegant, work The Chilling Stars. In the book, the modern Galileo, for he is nothing less, establishes that cosmic rays from deep space seed clouds over Earth’s oceans. Regulating the number of cosmic rays reaching Earth’s atmosphere is the solar wind; when it is strong, we get fewer cosmic rays. When it is weak, we get more. As NASA has corroborated, the number of cosmic rays passing through our atmosphere is at the maximum level since measurements have been taken, and show no signs of diminishing. The result: the seeding of what some have taken to calling “Svensmark clouds,” low dense clouds, principally over the oceans, that reflect sunlight back to space before it can have its warming effect on whatever is below.

    Svensmark has proven, in the minds of most who have given his work a full hearing, that it is this very process that produced the episodes of cooling (and, inversely, warming) of our own era and past eras. The clearest instance of the process, by far, is that of the Maunder Minimum, which refers to a period from 1650 to 1700, during which the Sun had not a single spot on its face. Temperatures around the globe plummeted, with quite adverse effects: crop failures (remember the witch burnings in Europe and Massachusetts?), famine, and societal stress.

    Many solar physicists anticipate that the slumbering Sun of early 2009 is likely to continue for at least two solar cycles, or about the next 25 years. Whether the Grand Solar Minimum, if it comes to pass, is as serious as the Maunder Minimum is not knowable, at present. Major solar minima (and maxima, such as the one during the second half of the 20th century) have also been shown to correlate with significant volcanic eruptions. These are likely the result of solar magnetic flux affecting geomagnetic flux, which affects the distribution of magma in Earth’s molten iron core and under its thin mantle. So, let us say, just for the sake of argument, that such an eruption takes place over the course of the next two decades. Like all major eruptions, this one will have a temporary cooling effect on global temperatures, perhaps a large one. The larger the eruption, the greater the effect. History shows that periods of cold are far more stressful to humanity than periods of warm.”

    are we entering a mini ice age ?

    whatever else is clear the science is not settled. the bbc will not be happy.


  20. Mesmereyesed says:

    mat: Roland Deschain er ok what is then ? as last time i checked we went round the sun and all the other bodies in the galaxy do as well!

    mat, delete ‘galaxy’ insert ‘solar system’


  21. Robert S. McNamara says:

    as last time i checked we went round the sun and all the other bodies in the galaxy do as well !

    You’re thinking of the solar system. Our galaxy, the Milky way, is home to up to 400 billion stars and our sun is just one of them. Our sun is tens of thousands of light years away from the galactic centre, which contains a supermassive black hole. That’s what the stuff in our galaxy goes around, not our relatively weak, relatively cool, relatively tiny sun.


  22. pete says:

    How about a scheme whereby those who don’t want to pay for the BBC could elect to have their TV tax going towards building windmills, nuclear power stations or other green energy sources?

    That’d soon shut the BBC up about one of their obsessions.


  23. Dave S says:

    Our distant ancestors, no less intelligent than ourselves, had an obsession with the sun and the stars.
    They knew just how critical was our dependence upon the Sun
    I was always taught that life on Earth was only possible because the earth is precisely at a distance that makes life possible and that the tilt as we rotate produces the seasons in the more temperate zones where crops can grow.
    Global warning obsessives display an arrogance in believing that we can control our environment and that we ,rather than the Sun, are in control.
    It was never so and our ancestors knew this.
    This said only a fool would willingly pollute the world.
    But pollution and ultimate control are very different.


  24. Derek W. Buxton says:

    Since the sun is the major, only source, of energy, it drives all weather systems and so must drive the climate. Physics 101, isn’t it?


  25. Jeff Todd says:

    Don’t panic.

    The Beeboids will drag some eco-friendly psuedo-scientist blinking into the fading sunlight.

    His copius (and taxpayer-funded)research will prove that all the lemonade bubbles (CO2) produced by 4x4s, sportscars, aeroplanes, F1, coca-cola and TV remotes are causing the sun to fade.

    However another 10p a litre on petrol will fix all that.

    The abolition of a major elctricity, flights and taxis user (BBC) will however be ignored.


  26. moorlandhunter says:

    Global warming caused by man is a con, earning many eco people millions £ in cash.
    High on hype, low on facts the BBC, like the Eco goons, troll out the GW and Carbon lie.
    I’m off to burn a few tyres in my garden, just to warm up the coming summer!


  27. mikef says:

    What I found most disingenuous in the part I heard, and apologies if I missed a reference, was that the Expert stated that low sun spots were nothing new, and mentioned how very few there were a few hundred years ago. What was crafty was he failed to mention the terms ‘Maunder’ & ‘Dalton’ minimum which as we all know were blooming cold, a time we call the Little Ice Age. If he had said that of course, the listener might have put ‘low sunspots’ and ‘cold’ together in mind – & we can’t have that can we…
    He was also a bit naughty in suggesting that telescopes in the C17 could see what we can see today by not pointing out that its quite likely that the Maunder/Dalton minimums had more spots than today – they just could not see them.

    Having said all that, I’m not sure we should go overboard on “it was the Sun wot won it” as we really do not know enough. We now know enough to state that its not CO2, but lets not do another ‘CO2’ and put all our eggs in the Suns basket. We just do not know.
    Personaly, I think Svensmark is onto something, but if the truth is how he sees it we do not know, there are too many contradictions in his theory too. But methinks the interaction of cosmic rays/magnetism/ozone etc is all so much of a black art to us we just need to brave enough to say we do not know.
    We know the oceans drive our climate, its what drives the oceans?


  28. pete says:

    All BBC programmes shoud have CO2 production amounts associated with them and published prominently on the credits at the end.

    We could then see what the greens thought about the environmental costs of such gems as Eastenders and Cash in the Attic. Do we really need such stuff when we a facing Mr Gore’s ‘global emergency’?

    Shut down 95% of the BBC so we can save the planet! Bring back the test card.


  29. Grimer says:

    Robert S. McNamara:
    as last time i checked we went round the sun and all the other bodies in the galaxy do as well !

    You’re thinking of the solar system. Our galaxy, the Milky way, is home to up to 400 billion stars and our sun is just one of them. Our sun is tens of thousands of light years away from the galactic centre, which contains a supermassive black hole. That’s what the stuff in our galaxy goes around, not our relatively weak, relatively cool, relatively tiny sun.
    Robert S. McNamara | 21.04.09 – 3:01 pm | #

    Well, as Einstein pointed out, it’s all relative. The universe does revolve around the Earth, just in a really weird orbit…


  30. jimbob says:

    interesting example of how fairly the bbc used to deal with ” deniers” in this 1998 bbc item.

    bbc’s tone has become more hysterical and politicised over recent years.


  31. David H says:

    Anytime you hear the BBC start to bang on about `climate change’, just switch off – its easier than putting up with such garbage.


  32. Neil says:

    1998, that was back in the day when the BBC news output sounded like this:

    Funny how pretty much EVERYTHING about the BBC was better back then, and all for a much lower price!!!


  33. Mike Spilligan says:

    What I’m really looking forward to is the day that the BBC has to admit, by force of evidence, that there’s no such thing as MMGW.
    I’d like to think that there’ll be red faces all round, together with the usual insincere apologies – but no, they’ll think of some “escape clause”, which maybe is already being discussed now.


  34. Jon says:

    Mike Spilligan | 21.04.09 – 8:16 pm |

    That will never happen – the BBC are like politicians they will never say they were wrong.

    I have no problem at all with the BBC putting forward the CO2 hypothesis but anytime scientific reports blow holes in the theory they never mention them.

    The MMGW theory is just that, a theory and everytime one of the ingrediants of this theory are shown to be false (eg the hockey stick), the BBC just ignore it.

    Harrabin is the real force behind the BBCs agenda and the longer him and his apprentices Black and Shukman are allowed to live off our money the truth will never be found.

    mikef | 21.04.09 – 5:20 pm | is spot on – we know very little about what causes climate change – and if only one mad theory gets all the media attention and money we will never find the truth.


  35. Sarah Jane's Ghost says:

    it seems you guys have an unlikely ally, it was only on the last line I remembered this was satirical rather than a short documentary:

    that’s about as good an explanation as I have seen for why two different and opposing groups can find bias in the same piece of news at the same time.


  36. archduke says:

    no sunspots scares the bejesus out of me.

    being a bit of an amateur astronomy buff since i was a mini-me makes it all the more frightening.

    telescope projecting onto white paper to see the sunspots back in the 70s – thats me. and there were tons of them. very very easy to see.

    nowadays – zip. nada. not a sausage…


  37. archduke says:

    and mark my words – no sunspots is far more scarey and real than all the bollocks about CO2 and other greenie pseudo-science.

    sunspots, or rather the lack of them, are the real deal.


  38. archduke says:

    “Quiet sun baffling astronomers”

    and get this first sentence

    “The Sun is the dimmest it has been for nearly a century.”

    oh wait. isnt the earth supposed to be warming up – according to the Goracle and the eco-fascists?


  39. archduke says:

    “This has resulted in some people suggesting that a similar cooling might offset the impact of climate change. ”

    ah right. they’ve got their excuses lined up already. we’re not warming up because the sun is dimming.

    so therefore we STILL have to cut our CO2 emissions. cos the sun dimming is counteracting the global warming effect.

    ah right. ok so. see that white rabbit? feel free to go down that rabbit hole if you want to.


  40. Martin says:

    Of course it would be interesting to see if the climate on Mars has changed over the last 30 years.


  41. Anonymous says:

    Sarah Jane’s Ghost | 21.04.09 – 9:13 pm

    that’s very good.

    “it’s like living in the mind of a depressed hippy”

    could this be the new bbc mission statement ?


  42. Red Lepond says:

    By strange coincidence, I’m also a HIV-AIDS denier.


  43. ady says:

    We’re learning something new and we’re really confused!!!!

    ‘Quiet Sun’ baffling astronomers
    There are no sunspots, very few solar flares – and our nearest star is the quietest it has been for a very long time.

    The observations are baffling astronomers, who are due to study new pictures of the Sun, taken from space, at the UK National Astronomy Meeting.

    Well golly gosh, welcome to reality.

    Once I realised that scientists couldn’t even sort out sea waves until the mid 1990s, their understanding of the rest of our planet, and our universe, quickly fell into place.

    i.e. They aint got a clue.


  44. Cassandra says:

    Red Lepond,

    “I am an HIV-AIDS denier”

    What has that got to do with the subject at hand?

    Your only post is a stupid insult to people who suffer from a terrible illness, My best friend died of an AIDS related illness so would you care to explain and/or retract your post please?

    AIDS aint pleasant and it aint funny to watch someone close to you waste away.

    Care to debate the facts relating to the post? I would be happy to debate you all day, if you wish to posit that AIDS/HIV is somehow a fake illness then please explain so I can go explain that to my best friends partner.


  45. Tim says:

    The Catlin fraud;

    The title sponsor of this expedition is an insurance company that plans to use the data in the following way:

    “as a specialty insurance/reinsurance company, the potential effects of global warming will have a direct impact on our business”
    Therefore, Catlin
    “manages risk based on hard facts, so we believe that obtaining this information is vital. The Catlin Arctic Survey will help inform all those who must plan for the potential effects of global warming.”

    -Stephen Catlin, Catlin’s Chief Executive.

    I’m so glad that data gathering is performed by an insurance company that “help(s) inform all those who must plan for the potential effects of global warming”

    would you buy insurance from this company?


  46. Peter says:

    As Michael Caine would say; ‘Not a lot of people know that’.

    would you buy insurance from this company?
    Tim | 22.04.09 – 9:10 am | #

    Me? no. Sadly, there may be others that ‘buy’ around £150 of enhanced, interpreted ‘news’ daily without a second thought.


  47. Peter says:

    As some here seem to know stuff, as I look at endless sticks (the problem of having all day free to exercise to be pretty) and slobs (the problems of being a single Mum making you stuff your brood with chips) on Aunty’s ‘news’ sofa, I was just wondering if there were any stats on the consumption, and hence impact of peroxide between the BBC teleprompter-reading talents, their guests, their core story-fodder and sofa-bound viewers.

    Where does all this stuff go and what it does. Spoken like a true weekly wash with cheap shampoo male (with a brunette missus pondering a monthly dye-job), but it would be fun to weigh the eco-impact of the sisterhood’s (and certain appearance over-obsessed males) vanity vis a vis a few other things given maximum finger wag.

    Just stirring it a bit as I am not big on planet ban-its, but some actual info to throw back at a nanny-statist with a perm when in full finger point might be fun.