Lockwood disputes journalist Hudson's misinterpretation of his results: "It's amazing how one can be misrepresented no matter how clear one tries to make it! One point I made to Hudson is that many of the so called bits of "evidence" for solar influence on global temperature actually come from Europe in winter (cf Eddy and all that) and so are not global at all. Depressing....so there is absolutely no misunderstanding here - I too am 'vociferous advocate' of (the known science that anthropogenic greenhouse gases causes) global warming!"
To say that the Sun can not be contributing to global warming because it's activity has been declining for the last 20 years =/= the Sun having no effect. For most of the past 20 years, the negative forcing from the Sun was less than the positive forcing due to carbon dioxide. In the recent past, and perhaps in the near future, the negative forcing from the Sun could match or even exceed the positive from carbon dioxide, leading to a slowdown in the warming, or even to cooling.
But if the Sun could talk, it would quote Arnold Schwarzenegger and say "Ah be Bach!" and global warming will return with a vengeance.
And, you should also note, that since carbon dioxide was working against a cooling Sun, it looks like climate sensitivity is quite high.
Madd Maxx
No. It was not wrong.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/pmod/fr...
High =/= Rising
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/sidc-ss...
He says no such thing. I'd tell you to stop lying, but I'd have better luck telling a dog to stop barking.
This is why AGW advocates like Professor Lockwood are a laughing stock. Look how silly and obviously wrong his statements are.
In the first article you linked in 2007, Lockwood says the Sun's activity has been declining for past 20 years... THAT'S WRONG. http://lasp.colorado.edu/lisird/tsi/hist...
Solar activity moved above average in the late 1940's and has remained far above average until very recently. (That's what caused the small amount of warming, NOT human activity)
Then in the second article he tries to tell us that the Sun can make the climate cooler but not warmer... how ridiculous it that? But he is not done yet, in the same article he tries to convince us that a change in solar activity would only be regional... not global. If you believe that, I've got a really nice bridge in London I'd like to sell you at a bargain basement price.
Now in the most recent article Lockwood steps in 'it' again, making his dumbest comments yet. He seems to imply that we are very likely to be facing Maunder minimum conditions where it could get very cold ---- BUT, he still wants to remind us while we are freezing, he is still sure that the globe is warming, and man is causing it.
And true believing AGW climate scientists wonder why nobody takes them seriously.
-----------------------
Thanks Pendar !
-----------------------
Climate Realist - I'm not lying about anything. I'm not the liar. And you need to take a course on how to read a graph.
-----------------------
Max's analysis is spot on.
When you cut through the waffle he seems to be saying we need to increase co2 emissions to offset our cooling star. What a nut job.
This sounds to me like a man who in reviewing the different evidence, comes to different conclusions, obviously he has gone from a confirmed AGW proponent to more of a skeptic, which I applaud.
Dogmatic people who start off believing in one thing, and stick with it, even when proven wrong are the people I don't like.
Guess you haven't seen the NASA article? http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/predic...
a lot of words for a question. Has anyone asked him directly what he meant by political implications?
that could be a stronger response to greenhouse gases, a greater reliance to Russia's gas, a social unrest dues to crop failures or gas shortages.
Tuesday, 10 July 2007: Professor Lockwood comes out with study which shows the Sun's activity has been declining for past 20 years and thus cannot be responsible for recent warming. "This should settle the debate," said Mike Lockwood. He also had some harsh criticism for the the TV documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle. "You can't just ignore bits of data that you don't like," he said. Amen, brother Lockwood. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6290228.stm
Wednesday, 14 April 2010: In an interesting turn, now Lockwood seems to acknowledge that cold UK winters could be related to declining solar activity. He and his research team suggested lower solar activity contributed to "blocking" patterns which locked in cold air masses. But he did mention this was a regional effect, not a global one. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8615789.stm
Monday 28 October 2013(today): Professor Lockwood believes solar activity is now falling more rapidly than at any time in the last 10,000 years. "And a repeat of the Dalton solar minimum which occurred in the early 1800s, which also had its fair share of cold winters and poor summers, is, according to him, ‘more likely than not’ to happen."
"Although the biggest impact of such solar driven change would be regional, like here in the UK and across Europe, there would be global implications too." "He says such a change to our climate could have profound implications for energy policy and our transport infrastructure." http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/posts/Real-risk-of-a-Maunder-minimum-Little-Ice-Age-says-leading-scientist
_____________________________________________________________________
The quote I found most interesting is this one from the latest BBC article: "But should North Western Europe be heading for a new "little ice age", there could be far reaching political implications..."
What implications do you think those could be?
Hey, does anybody have a link to the IPCC temperature projections for UK and Europe?
