BBC Report on Sun and Climate Change Contradicts Its Own 2004 Story

Photo of Noel Sheppard.
By Noel Sheppard | July 12, 2007 - 17:34 ET

On Thursday, Jules Crittenden wondered if American media are lazy, stupid or willfully ignorant with how they’ve been reporting events in Iraq.

Given the BBC’s recent piece concerning the relationship between the sun and climate change which hysterically ignored an article it published almost three years ago with a completely diametric view, one might ask the same question of that British television network.

To set this up, as NewsBusters reported Thursday, the BBC.com published a piece concerning Mike Lockwood’s paper discrediting a connection between the sun’s activities and global warming in the past 22 years.

However, on July 6, 2004, BBC.com published an article entitled “Sunspots Reaching 1000-year High” (h/t Global Warming Hysteria):

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

A new analysis shows that the Sun is more active now than it has been at anytime in the previous 1,000 years.

Scientists based at the Institute for Astronomy in Zurich used ice cores from Greenland to construct a picture of our star's activity in the past.

They say that over the last century the number of sunspots rose at the same time that the Earth's climate became steadily warmer.

In fact, this report included the following (emphasis added):

Over the past 20 years, however, the number of sunspots has remained roughly constant, yet the average temperature of the Earth has continued to increase.

Hmmm. Yet, three years later, the BBC reported this:

A new scientific study concludes that changes in the Sun's output cannot be causing modern-day climate change.

It shows that for the last 20 years, the Sun's output has declined, yet temperatures on Earth have risen.

Fascinating, wouldn’t you agree?

Now, to be sure, these articles are reporting the findings of different scientists. However, shouldn’t the BBC have done some back-checking to identify articles that it had published on this subject in the past?

This is especially the case given statements made in the current piece (emphasis added):

The IPCC's February summary report concluded that greenhouse gases were about 13 times more responsible than solar changes for rising global temperatures.

But the organisation was criticised in some quarters for not taking into account the cosmic ray hypothesis, developed by, among others, Henrik Svensmark and Eigil Friis-Christensen of the Danish National Space Center.

Their theory holds that cosmic rays help clouds to form by providing tiny particles around which water vapour can condense. Overall, clouds cool the Earth.

During periods of active solar activity, cosmic rays are partially blocked by the Sun's more intense magnetic field. Cloud formation diminishes, and the Earth warms.

Mike Lockwood's analysis appears to have put a large, probably fatal nail in this intriguing and elegant hypothesis.

Given the BBC’s report three years earlier based on a Zurich study, along with the countless other papers on this subject supporting the connection between solar activity and climate, it hardly seems Lockwood has put a “probably fatal nail” in this “elegant hypothesis.” 

Furthermore, it seems the BBC ought to do a better job of checking its own articles on such subjects before asserting questionable conclusions. This seems especially critical given the recent self-examination the network went through concerning its reporting activities, and the findings related to global warming:

Climate change is another subject where dissenters can be unpopular. There may be now a broad scientific consensus that climate change is definitely happening, and that it is at least predominantly man-made. But the second part of that consensus still has some intelligent and articulate opponents, even if a small minority.

[...]

But these dissenters (or even sceptics) will still be heard, as they should, because it is not the BBC’s role to close down this debate.

[...]

They cannot be simply dismissed as ‘flat-earthers’ or ‘deniers’, who ‘should not be given a platform’ by the BBC. Impartiality always requires a breadth of view: for as long as minority opinions are coherently and honestly expressed, the BBC must give them appropriate space. ‘Bias by elimination’ is even more offensive today than it was in 1926. The BBC has many public purposes of both ambition and merit – but joining campaigns to save the planet is not one of them. The BBC’s best contribution is to increase public awareness of the issues and possible solutions through impartial and accurate programming. Acceptance of a basic scientific consensus only sharpens the need for hawk-eyed scrutiny of the arguments surrounding both causation and solution. It remains important that programme-makers relish the full range of debate that such a central and absorbing subject offers, scientifically, politically and ethically, and avoid being misrepresented as standard-bearers.

Sounds like good advice, folks. Maybe you should take it.

—Noel Sheppard is an economist, business owner, and Associate Editor of NewsBusters.

Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Why are they calling it &quot

Why are they calling it "climate change?"  Is it so they can incorporate anything into their dogma and rebuke any dissenter?

Is it even be possible that changes in anything could have a greater impact on the climate than than the sun's output? 

I'd be willing to bet that a 50% increase in atmospheric CO2 would have less of an impact on climate than One Tenth of one percent of a change in the sun's output.

And while were at it, lets as

And while were at it, lets ask for reparations for all the Climate Changes in the past.

The liberal MSM has become an enemy of the USA.

mattm

If memory serves me correct, a 50% increase in atmospheric CO2 would increase the amount of CO2 (as a % of the atmosphere) from approximately 0.03% to about 0.06% (oops, 0.045. HT to Mattm). Meanwhile Nitrogen makes up 78% and Oxygen accounts for 21%.

Hi! My name is CO2. I feel so small. I'm not even 1%. I'm not even 1/2 of 1%. I'm only 0.03%. Help me.

Geez, we've been trying, CO2.

Geez, we've been trying, CO2.  We just don't seem to make much difference ...

Natural Increase in Atmospheric Temperature

The following article is by Denis Avery. 

Two weeks ago from Germany's Max Planck Institute. Ilya Usoskin of the Planck Institute says the sun is now more active than it's been for 1000 years based on direct measurements of beryllium10 in polar ice cores that go back thousands of years. (Less beryllium 10 in the ice core means a more active sun, and the ice core samples show a lower concentration than in the last millennium.)

Usoskin's research adds weight to the theory that the Earth's Modern Warming—since 1850—is produced by the sun's increased magnetic activity.

History is on the side of the German researcher. History confirms that Earth had a Roman Warming about 2000 years ago, followed by the cold Dark Ages, a Medieval Warming about 1000 years ago, and then a Little Ice Age that ended about 150 years ago.

The physical evidence is also favors the German research. Over the last 20 years, ice cores retrieved from Greenland and the Antarctic, seabed sediments in four oceans, and tree rings and cave stalagmites around the world have shown us a long natural, moderate global warming/cooling cycle. The Earth warms 2 degrees C or so for 500-800 years, and then cools about the same amount for about the same length of time.

We used to think there was a "solar constant," but recent satellite measurements of the sun show moderate changes in its irradiance.

Scripps has only a computer model and a set of ocean temperatures going back about 60 years.

Also last week:

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070705191403.gahmdtoi&show_article=1

"Oldest DNA ever recovered shows warmer planet"

  Scientists who probed two kilometers (1.2 miles) through a Greenland glacier to recover the oldest plant DNA on record said Thursday the planet was far warmer hundreds of thousands of years ago than is generally believed.
DNA of trees, plants and insects including butterflies and spiders from beneath the southern Greenland glacier was estimated to date to 450,000 to 900,000 years ago, according to the remnants retrieved from this long-vanished boreal forest.

That contrasts sharply with the prevailing view that a lush forest of this kind could only have existed in Greenland as recently as 2.4 million years ago, according to a summary of the study, which is published Thursday in the journal Science.

The samples suggest the temperature probably reached 10 degrees C (50 degrees Fahrenheit) in the summer and -17 C (1 F) in the winter.

They also indicated that during the last period between ice ages, 116,000-130,000 years ago, when temperatures were on average 5 C (9 F) higher than now, the glaciers on Greenland did not completely melt away.

"These findings allow us to make a more accurate environmental reconstruction of the time period from which these samples were taken," said Martin Sharp, a glaciologist at the University of Alberta, Canada, and a co-author of the paper.

"What we've learned is that this part of the world was significantly warmer than most people thought."

In a separate paper, also published in Science, European experts said they had analysed the world's deepest ice core, enabling them to reconstruct patterns of warming and glaciation over the past 800,000 years.

The 3,260-metre (10,595-feet) core was drilled into the East Antarctica icesheet at the Franco-Italian base, Dome C. The drillers, gathered in a venture called the European Project for Ice Coring in Antarctica (EPICA) stopped just 15 metres (48.75 feet) short of the bedrock.

Using traces of the hydrogen isotope deuterium in air bubbles trapped in the ice layers, the scientists built a record of greenhouse-gas concentrations over the aeons, which in turn provides a record of temperature.

They found the temperature varied widely, by as much as 15 C (27 F) over the 800,000 years. In the last Ice Age, which ended around 11,000 years ago, the temperature was 10 C (18 F) lower than today.

The EPICA team had previously analysed the Dome C core to a depth equivalent to 650,000 years ago.

These are published scientific papers, using hard data and measurements.

NOT COMPUTER MODELS.

Cheers

 

How DARE you bring facts into

How DARE you bring facts into this conversation! The Goracle has spoken! Repent of your carbon using ways and be saved!

Mother nature is a bitch - Ninth Corollary of Murphy's Law

That's their problem. To many

That's their problem. To many facts get in the way. What are some of them. Old tree trunks above timber line. In the Sierras, Urals. Tree trunks North of the northern tree line. C14 dated to the medieval warm period. Under the glaciers that we're told never before have retreated. We're finding the remains of peat bogs. Again dated to the medieval warm period. In the perma frost they find plant roots. Plant's can't grow roots into perma frost. And sometimes they find masterdons in the perma frost.

But we're told this is the warmest it's ever gotten.

Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of truth and knowledge will be shipwrecked by the laughter of the Gods. Albert Einstein

Excellent info.... er, I mean

Excellent info.

... er, I mean, how are we going to make the case for AGW with facts?  We must focus on the computer models.

Those IDIOTIC Scientists!!!

Don't they know that the Sun is absolutely not responsible for earth's temperature! It's completly irrelevant! It's all the C02 in the atmosphere. We are awash in C02. We are starting to gag on it. Any day now, all the CO2 detectors that FirstAlert has sold are all going to go off.

We will have to work on a massive machine that takes in C02 and converts it to something like, oh, maybe oxygen. Yeah. Thats it. O2! Just strip off the C and throw it in the sink.

The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic

We will have to work on a mas

We will have to work on a massive machine that takes in C02 and converts it to something like, oh, maybe oxygen

Already have it.  It's called plant life from the algae in the oceans to the Sequoias in the Sierras and the plants love it!

"The more I study science, the more I believe in God."     Einstein

You're trying to posion us? D

You're trying to posion us? Don't you know about oxygen toxicity? Which can cause seizures.

Pulling tongue from cheek.

Oxygen toxicity does exist. And people have died due to it. It makes as much sense as calling CO2 a pollutant.

Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of truth and knowledge will be shipwrecked by the laughter of the Gods. Albert Einstein

Futile Attempts at Rebuttal

Just as the MWP and LIA had to be removed, so does the inconvenient fact that the Sun is the most likely driver of climate.   Not a whole lot in this for the enlarging of government since there's not much we can do about the Sun except for the insane ideas of loading up the upper atmosphere with particulates to block its energy. 

What this rebuttal fails to take into account is the probability that responses to the various solar cycles contain lag times of (currently) unknown amounts.  Also, this theory demands amplification from assorted feedback factors just as the GHG theory does.  Since we know that the temperature in the lower troposphere hasn’t warmed in almost a decade despite the ongoing increase in CO2 emissions, perhaps solar irradiance is already diminishing as many astrophysicists have predicted. 

It is also very foolish to claim the solar influence isn’t enough to explain the increases in surface temperatures since we are now beginning to see how invalid these weather station measurements have been and how overstated they are likely to have been (thanks to Anthony Watts’ efforts).