UPDATED: This opinion piece from Professor Henrik Svensmark was published September 9th in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten. Originally the translation was from Google translation with some post translation cleanup of jumbled words or phrases by myself. Now as of Sept 12, the translation is by Nigel Calder. Hat tip to Carsten Arnholm of Norway for bringing this to my attention and especially for translation facilitation by Ágúst H Bjarnason – Anthony

Translation approved by Henrik Svensmark
While the Sun sleeps
Henrik Svensmark, Professor, Technical University of Denmark, Copenhagen
“In fact global warming has stopped and a cooling is beginning. No climate model has predicted a cooling of the Earth – quite the contrary. And this means that the projections of future climate are unreliable,” writes Henrik Svensmark.
The star that keeps us alive has, over the last few years, been almost free of sunspots, which are the usual signs of the Sun’s magnetic activity. Last week [4 September 2009] the scientific team behind the satellite SOHO (Solar and Heliospheric Observatory) reported, “It is likely that the current year’s number of blank days will be the longest in about 100 years.” Everything indicates that the Sun is going into some kind of hibernation, and the obvious question is what significance that has for us on Earth.
If you ask the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) which represents the current consensus on climate change, the answer is a reassuring “nothing”. But history and recent research suggest that is probably completely wrong. Why? Let’s take a closer look.
Solar activity has always varied. Around the year 1000, we had a period of very high solar activity, which coincided with the Medieval Warm Period. It was a time when frosts in May were almost unknown – a matter of great importance for a good harvest. Vikings settled in Greenland and explored the coast of North America. On the whole it was a good time. For example, China’s population doubled in this period.
But after about 1300 solar activity declined and the world began to get colder. It was the beginning of the episode we now call the Little Ice Age. In this cold time, all the Viking settlements in Greenland disappeared. Sweden surprised Denmark by marching across the ice, and in London the Thames froze repeatedly. But more serious were the long periods of crop failures, which resulted in poorly nourished populations, reduced in Europe by about 30 per cent because of disease and hunger.

It’s important to realise that the Little Ice Age was a global event. It ended in the late 19th Century and was followed by increasing solar activity. Over the past 50 years solar activity has been at its highest since the medieval warmth of 1000 years ago. But now it appears that the Sun has changed again, and is returning towards what solar scientists call a “grand minimum” such as we saw in the Little Ice Age.
The match between solar activity and climate through the ages is sometimes explained away as coincidence. Yet it turns out that, almost no matter when you look and not just in the last 1000 years, there is a link. Solar activity has repeatedly fluctuated between high and low during the past 10,000 years. In fact the Sun spent about 17 per cent of those 10,000 years in a sleeping mode, with a cooling Earth the result.
You may wonder why the international climate panel IPCC does not believe that the Sun’s changing activity affects the climate. The reason is that it considers only changes in solar radiation. That would be the simplest way for the Sun to change the climate – a bit like turning up and down the brightness of a light bulb.
Satellite measurements have shown that the variations of solar radiation are too small to explain climate change. But the panel has closed its eyes to another, much more powerful way for the Sun to affect Earth’s climate. In 1996 we discovered a surprising influence of the Sun – its impact on Earth’s cloud cover. High-energy accelerated particles coming from exploded stars, the cosmic rays, help to form clouds.
When the Sun is active, its magnetic field is better at shielding us against the cosmic rays coming from outer space, before they reach our planet. By regulating the Earth’s cloud cover, the Sun can turn the temperature up and down. High solar activity means fewer clouds and and a warmer world. Low solar activity and poorer shielding against cosmic rays result in increased cloud cover and hence a cooling. As the Sun’s magnetism doubled in strength during the 20th century, this natural mechanism may be responsible for a large part of global warming seen then.
That also explains why most climate scientists try to ignore this possibility. It does not favour their idea that the 20th century temperature rise was mainly due to human emissions of CO2. If the Sun provoked a significant part of warming in the 20th Century, then the contribution by CO2 must necessarily be smaller.
Ever since we put forward our theory in 1996, it has been subjected to very sharp criticism, which is normal in science.
First it was said that a link between clouds and solar activity could not be correct, because no physical mechanism was known. But in 2006, after many years of work, we completed experiments at DTU Space that demonstrated the existence of a physical mechanism. The cosmic rays help to form aerosols, which are the seeds for cloud formation.
Then came the criticism that the mechanism we found in the laboratory could not work in the real atmosphere, and therefore had no practical significance. We have just rejected that criticism emphatically.
It turns out that the Sun itself performs what might be called natural experiments. Giant solar eruptions can cause the cosmic ray intensity on earth to dive suddenly over a few days. In the days following an eruption, cloud cover can fall by about 4 per cent. And the amount of liquid water in cloud droplets is reduced by almost 7 per cent. Here is a very large effect – indeed so great that in popular terms the Earth’s clouds originate in space.
So we have watched the Sun’s magnetic activity with increasing concern, since it began to wane in the mid-1990s.
That the Sun might now fall asleep in a deep minimum was suggested by solar scientists at a meeting in Kiruna in Sweden two years ago. So when Nigel Calder and I updated our book The Chilling Stars, we wrote a little provocatively that “we are advising our friends to enjoy global warming while it lasts.”
In fact global warming has stopped and a cooling is beginning. Mojib Latif from the University of Kiel argued at the recent UN World Climate Conference in Geneva that the cooling may continue through the next 10 to 20 years. His explanation was a natural change in the North Atlantic circulation, not in solar activity. But no matter how you interpret them, natural variations in climate are making a comeback.
The outcome may be that the Sun itself will demonstrate its importance for climate and so challenge the theories of global warming. No climate model has predicted a cooling of the Earth – quite the contrary. And this means that the projections of future climate are unreliable. A forecast saying it may be either warmer or colder for 50 years is not very useful, and science is not yet able to predict solar activity.
So in many ways we stand at a crossroads. The near future will be extremely interesting. I think it is important to accept that Nature pays no heed to what we humans think about it. Will the greenhouse theory survive a significant cooling of the Earth? Not in its current dominant form. Unfortunately, tomorrow’s climate challenges will be quite different from the greenhouse theory’s predictions. Perhaps it will become fashionable again to investigate the Sun’s impact on our climate.
–
Professor Henrik Svensmark is director of the Center for Sun-Climate Research at DTU Space. His book The Chilling Stars has also been published in Danish as Klima og Kosmos Gads Forlag, DK ISBN 9788712043508)
Sponsored IT training links:
Interested in CISA certification? We offer complete collection of dumps questions to successfully pass NS0-163 and 642-566 exam.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Phil’s Dad (12:44:14)
Well between us then, we’ve now solved most of the world’s problems without even leaving the room. Thanks for being a politician who seeks and considers views outside the party line. I hope you can find a way to steer your less enlightened fellows away from Luddite dogma. I’m trying to convert my friends one mind at a time, but not ready to go public either. I might find myself swinging from the UCD water tower. All praise to the Swenmarks (and Watts’, Pielkes, and McIntyres and McKittricks, et. al.) of the world be they right or wrong. A scientist’s first duty is to be skeptical; maybe it should be a layman’s and politician’s, too.
Ron de Haan (06:01:30) : If this hoax is stopped however, it has to be stopped in the USA.
It won’t be. It will be stopped in Russia, China, and India.
Russia only bought into Kyoto since they got paid to play by western europe sending them ‘offset’ dollars since their industry collapsed with the USSR and they could count it is “CO2 reduction”. Copenhagen will not have that “juice” for them, and their scientists are already calling “bunk” on AGW. China is only going to do what improves the riches and power of China. THAT is blowing off AGW “mitigation” but asking for western money anyway. India is in roughly the same position, but more importantly, there is no effective way to control India; so they will ask for western money too and assert their right to continue growing as is.
The end result is that with about 1/2 the world population and about 3/4 the economic growth saying “no thanks”, the effort will collapse.
The only real question is how impoverished the west becomes as we go down the path.
The “3rd world”, Russia, et. al. have their hands out. China has the door open to industry, as does India. The money and factories will run that way until the flow dries up. Then they will politely inform us that AGW is no longer of interest to them, but would we like to buy any cars, food, coal, toys, tools? Oh, no money to buy? So sorry…
Think this is fantasy? China is busy buying resources all over the world. Trading U.S. Treasuries for future delivery of oil (200 $B to Petrobras IIRC), coal and minerals (Australian and Brazilian miners), etc. Hit the biz news, the deals are published. They have absolutely NO intention what so ever of reducing production nor energy use. Ever.
So, frankly, the USA is irrelevant and a “write off” with the UK just a bit further down the road ahead of us in the race to bankruptcy. (California is already there. We have AGW laws galore, but no jobs and industry is packing up and moving to China and Brazil… gee just like my investment money…) Mainland Europe is a bit lagging largely due to their protectionist economics, but that barrier can not stand forever. Not against China.
E.M.Smith (14:43:52) :
What the MODELS predict (pardon, project, like projectile v..) is rising temps. So the MODELS are bunk since they cannot predict (or project) a cooling trend. Oh, and they are fed on broken temperature series from GIStemp et.al. G. in G. out …
————————-
Do they now. All of them? And your source for this statement is………
Or is it what you want to believe?
dorlomin (15:38:22) :
E.M.Smith (14:43:52) :
What the MODELS predict (pardon, project, like projectile v..) is rising temps.
Do they now. All of them? And your source for this statement is………
Or is it what you want to believe?
Graphs?
dorlomin (15:38:22) :
Busted sensors. Seen it myself, the tech replaced the berserk sensor with another one from a failing site. Swaperoo.
Now I can tell when one of them is on the fritz: They overexpand & get stuck when it gets hot. Design flaw.
E.M. Smith is telling it like it is.
Fred Lightfoot (02:44:03) :
Fred, great story. Nature has a way of humbling human hubris. I think the Sun is now pointing its big gun at us, particularly at those who are addicted to man-made global warming hysteria. Hopefully it’s just a gun, not a cannon.
Robert Phelan, would you have been happier if he had simply listed “disease” and left off the starvation? How do you know the black death hit the well fed and hungry equally? I’ve never seen any historical records that would support that. I have read that the well off resisted the black death better than the poor. Some attributed that to the silver spoon effect, but better immunity through eating might have been at work. Poor harvests are supported by the historical record, and in an agricultural society successive poor harvests are devastating. What was your purpose in picking on that detail?
Stephen Wilde (14:36:10) says “Thanks for the clarification. I see your position more clearly now and don’t disagree with what you say.”
Mea culpa Mr Wilde – communication is the responsibility of the sender.
I am in favour of reducing the size of government as you (and a number of others above) have suggested. If, as a result, I am not one of those that remain then I don’t deserve to be here.
(And yes we do need to be told)
So in many ways, we stand at a crossroads. The near future will be extremely interesting and I think it is important to recognize that nature is completely independent of what we humans think about it. Will Greenhouse theory survive a significant cooling of the Earth? Not in its current dominant form. Unfortunately, tomorrow’s climate challenges will be quite different than greenhouse theory’s predictions, and perhaps it becomes again popular to investigate the sun’s impact on climate.
That makes no sense. If the output of the sun reduces, then there is another forcing at work on the climate. AGW theory has never ignored other forcings, and they are incorporated in climate models. That one forcing unexpectedly increases it’s influence does in no way deny that CO2 is a significant forcing at present.
Having been away for awhile – it is refreshing to see there remains a foundation of sober thought on this subject. And it is expressed with courtesy in one of the leading new media publications, WUWT. That’s What’s Up.
ann riley (16:54:05) :
What was your purpose in picking on that detail?
Maybe because I know something about it.
E.M. Smith wrote:
That was an interesting post Smith, although completely off-topic, if I may say so ;). I disagree however. I think China is dependent on the West (exports) as much as we are dependent on it. China has £2,000,000,000,000 in USA government bonds just for starters. That much will evapourate if the West fails economically. Rest assured that as with Japan, if the West wants China to fail, it will make it happen. The vast majorty of wealth is still in Europe and the USA and combined they can crush the Chinese economy regardless of their policy objectives. It’s advantageous to us to trade with them on current terms however, so that is why things are so.
With respect to the original post, concerning Svensmark, he is stating what is pretty obvious to us sceptics but as usual I fear he is preaching to the converted, as this website does. Where is our anti-AGW poster-boy? Where is our Al Gore? We don’t have one (I don’t think the Czech President has a high enough profile to count). It’s a shame, but that’s the way it is. Sure, the Science will win out over time, but long before it does our economies will have been changed beyond recognition.
I speak as one who only recently started to drive a car, so I feel it in my wallet now whereas I didn’t before ;). I have always been a sceptic however.
bugs (17:05:29) :
“AGW theory has never ignored other forcings, and they are incorporated in climate models. That one forcing unexpectedly increases it’s influence does in no way deny that CO2 is a significant forcing at present”.
Excuse me? Have I arrived in Allice in Wonderland or am I really dreaming?
Animation of Henrik Svensmarks theory :
E.M.Smith (14:58:45) :
But that plague spread, in part, due to the poor nutritional status of the population. Plague did not just evolve overnight as a new species… The outbreak of plague had causes too…
No it was not a new species. Europe experienced the same disease in the 7th Century. Back then it ws called the “Plague of Justinian”. The Black Death of the 14th century started in China nearly a quarter century before, carried by flea-infested rats, crossed Asia and ended up in Constaninople around 1346. Trading ships carried the rats and their fleas to Genoa. Within five years 40% of Europe’s population was dead. My point is that absent a particularly virulent disease vector like the Black Death, it is more likely that Europe’s population would have continued to expand as it in fact did for the century and a half after the plague. Claiming that poor harvests caused by global cooling had anything to do with the massive death toll in the 14th century is the kind of logic I expect to see over at RC. A tertiary factor, perhaps, but as I said somewhere earlier here, the plague killed the well-fed and emaciated equally well. The difference was not in caloric intake but how many rats lived with you. The well-to-do arguably had fewer rats in their living spaces, were able to more successfully segregate themselves or flee, and so survived. Boccaccio and Chaucer both lived through the plague and the Decameron and the Canterbury Tales are both set in that time period, with religious pilgrims setting off on religious quests to avoid the plague. Interesting first hand accounts of the period.
With Professor Svalgaard’s pardon, I want Dr. Svenmark to be correct. Just don’t go all algore on us.
Robinson (17:57:10) :
“…if the West wants China to fail, it will make it happen. The vast majorty of wealth is still in Europe and the USA…”
Sorry, I’m with Smith on this one. Let’s take a step back. By WWII the US was probably already the largest manufacturer in the world, certainly larger than the previous title-holder, England. By the late 1960’s the United States manufactured more than 60% of everything produced in the world. Today that figure stands at 20%, while China’s share is also 20%. The difference is that the US is producing 20% of the world’s goods and an agricultural labor force of only a half percent of our population. If we wanted to expand manufacturing we would have no where to draw the labor from. Forget the 10% unemployment rate, a lot of them are people like me who swore they could never export IT jobs to Bangalore. China has more than 40% of its population still engaged in agriculture. As they mechanize agricultural production and move from peasant farming to industrial farming, that most of that 40% will be released for work in the factories. Since labor costs are nearly 60% of the cost of manufactured goods, what makes anyone think that those jobs are coming back here? The goods will flow from China to the world and the money will flow from the world to China. India is right behind them, with 60% of their labor force still engaged in agriculture. If the Chinese own our debt, how the *&^%!!! can you suggest that our economy can break theirs?
When I think of 5 years from now I can’t imagine what those perpetrating the AGW movement will have come up with to perpetuate the farce till then.
But I am entirely certain they will indeed produce whatever it takes to maintain the AGW movement in order to preserve themselves and their careers.
I am an expert in how the left operates. I have read, listened to and watched them regularily for years. I live in Oregon where the left has taken control of every institution and arena. Their agenda is alway front and center and never recognizes any shortcomings in any way.
Only now, with the AGW movement, have they inadvertantly comitted to the irreversible path to their own doom.
Thank God for the global warming fraud.
What was the term warmist use concerning political action ieven if warming ultimately turns out not to be so severe? The principle of “abundance of caution” or some such term. That is: act and if it turns out not to be a serious problem, well then …etc. etc. The illogic of this idea becomes clear when the possibility that we are destined to freeze rather than fry hasn’t been ruled out.
It would be “an abundance of foolhardiness” if we were to wipe out at least the modest share of warming that we all agree CO2 causes and along with it wipe out the wealth needed to adjust to the change and wipe out the supply of CO2 that plants may need to shoulder up to a cooling climate. The sensible solution that all reasonable non political people would choose to adopt would be to maintain the resources to be able to adjust to whatever is coming. Surely we can stick some guages on the Maldives and other sensitive low relief islands to get better probability data on future trends. Whatever is going to happen, waiting a few decades for more info is not going to hurt.
Remember it is exactly the same type of alarmist and maybe even the same persons in the 1970s that had us all freezing and starving to death by the year 2000, with India and China being the first to go. Ironically, these two countries went the opposite way and ruined the upside down hockey stick of the time. The common problem here is that linear regression arithmetic, being easy and understandable by all gets trundled out every 30 years with the opposite slope.
RR Kampen (08:53:46) “The rise in [CO2] is not the only thing driving global temperature. It is only by far the most important.”
Suggested: Read Yu.V. Barkin.
I looked up the great famine,found some good articles.
Fourthly, the Great Famine marked a clear end to an unprecedented period of population growth that had started around 1050; although some believe this had been slowing down for a few decades already, there is no doubt the Great Famine was a clear end of high population growth. Finally, the Great Famine would have consequences for future events in the 14th century such as the Black Death when an already weakened population would be struck again.
http://www.amazon.com/Great-Famine-William-Chester-Jordan/product-reviews/0691011346/ref=dp_db_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1
E.M, Smith says:
You might want to look at what the models actually predict: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/what-the-ipcc-models-really-say/ What the models predict is that on average there will be warming. However, each individual model run shows the sort of noise that is inherent in the real climate system and thus it is not uncommon to have approximately decade-long periods with little trend or even a negative trend. What the models cannot predict is WHEN these periods will occur because the “climate noise” is chaotic and thus very sensitive to initial conditions.
(There have been a few papers recently that have tried to make decadal predictions of the climate by trying to initialize the models with the current ocean conditions…and there is some hope that this is possible because the timescales for some of the ocean processes are long enough that the divergence from perturbed initial conditions may be slow enough to allow prediction of the climate noise a decade or so into the future. However, this has yet to be convincingly demonstrated.)
Oh, here http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/csi/images/GRL2009_ClimateWarming.pdf is a peer-reviewed paper that has now appeared in Geophysical Research Letters that has shown again what that RealClimate post showed, which is that periods of a decade or so of negative trend are in fact not uncommon in climate models forced with greenhouse gases.
So expect that this new evidence will now greatly increase your faith in climate models?
jlc (13:42:28) : “…Not at all uncharacteristic for the smug, sanctimonious and omniscient Lief.”
How did you manage to fit smug and sanctimonious into the same sentence as omniscient (all-knowing: infinitely wise), jlc?
Joel Shore (20:28:41) : “So expect that this new evidence will now greatly increase your faith in climate models?”
NO.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Phil’s Dad (09:44:49) :
I accept the cowardly label – I use a pseudonym here because even being seen to consider “skeptical” views can affect my job as a European politician with an environment brief.
So much for free speech and democracy in Europe.