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.
savethesharks 22:22:32
The vision of the oceanic oscillations running climate has offended him, so he has gouged out his eyes.
=========================================
Will someone tell me if this is just me, but as I said above, here in England the Met Office issues its forecast that, to me, are just so ‘covering all bases’ as to make it completely worthless. To prove my point, here is the Wednesday forecast for my area in England issued today…
“Largely dry with variable amounts of cloud and some sunshine at times. A few showers are possible on Wednesday. Windy at times.”
Now, it would appear to me that no matter what happens (short of snow) on Wednesday, they covered it – so they cannot lose. Am I right? Is it me?
Joel Shore (19:29:16) :
tallbloke,
For completeness, here is a full plot of the HADCRUT3 data from 1970 to the present also showing the linear trend over that full time period and the linear trends over the various decadal time periods that I mentioned: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1970/to:2010/mean:12/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1970/to:2010/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1992/to:2001/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1998/to:2007/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1987/to:1996/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1974/to:1983/trend
Hi Joel,
so the two periods in the record you show where there was a warming in excess of 1.7C/decade are from 1974-1984 and 1992-2002. Lets look at these.
The first goes from the trough following an el nino event at the end of a thirty year cooling period to the peak of the 1983 el nino.
The second includes the big el nino spike of 1998.
But when we skeptics include the big el nino spike of 1998 in a graph showing a 11 year decline in temps to the present, we get accused of ‘cherry picking’. Seems like a double standard to me.
You chose not to include the thirty year cooling 1940-1970 in your graph, and you also chose not to answer my query about what caused it which I asked in the same post you are replying to. Why is that?
And what about the thirty year increase in temps from 1910 to 1940 I also asked about?
If you are skeptical about longer term ocean oscillations, what natural factors do you think could have caused these long term fluctuations which can’t be accounted for by ‘random noise’?
Anna and Joel
Anna said
“Beck’s measurement compilations show that CO2 levels depend crucially on location, something that is logical for a gas that has a surface source of many origins.”
I absolutely agree. The newest thread on co2 hotspots seems to bear this out. Becks measurements (not all of which can be verified and are therefore disarded) are of their specific time and place. They were taken from the arctic to the oceans, from the mountains to inside factories. Those compiling them had considerable expertise developed over 130 years. Yet Joel believes they were all wrong and Mr Keelings device-invented from scratch with no prior knowledge of the subject-is the source of all knowledge.
A surprising thing to say especially as Keeling himself admits to the accuracy of these older studies.
Joel
“Why do you think that CO2 underwent violent fluctuations that somehow weren’t captured even in an average sense in the ice core data…and that these fluctuations settled down to a nice steady rise right around when Keeling started his measurements?”
I dont know. However the natural flux (which is the overwhelming component of co2 is said to be 90gt. Very slight changes in the natural flux will mean considerable fluctuations in what should be measured, which means a steady consistent rise seems unlikely.
Incidentally I read Taminos post that you linked to earlier and it is not his finest hour. He knows little as to how CET was constructed or amended and conveniently discards many of the older warm periods-these are authenticated by separate ‘anecdotal’ references, crop records etc.
His comments about theremometers-used to support his theories are also way off beam. This is an article I wrote on the subject, sorry about its length:
” That thermometers were primitive and only accurate from 1850 onwards is a popular misconception;
This from Wikipedia.
“The thermometer was invented in the sixteenth century, but it is disputed who the inventor was. The claims of Santorio are supported by Borelli and Malpighi, while the title of Cornelius Drebbel is considered undoubted by Boerhaave. Galileo’s air thermometer, made before 1597, was the foundation of accurate thermometry. Galileo also invented the alcohol thermometer about 1611 or 1612. Spirit thermometers were made for the Accademia del Cimento, and described in the Memoirs of that academy. When the academy was dissolved by order of the Pope, some of these thermometers were packed away in a box, and were not discovered until early in the nineteenth century. Robert Hooke describes the manufacture and graduation of thermometers in his “Micrographia” (1665).”
The next two links refers to the invention of the ‘accurate’ Galileo thermometer in 1597
http://www.thermometershop.co.uk/more_about____.htm#how
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_thermometer
This is the “Micrographia” referred to above:
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/15491/15491-h/15491-h.htm
The thermometer- or thermoscope- became all the rage in Europe from the 1620’s. The Royal Society created the ‘standard’ thermometer in 1663, described in detail here
http://www.jstor.org/pss/227641
This standard was the basis for all subsequent thermometer technology and followed on from the original written instructions on how to calibrate thermometers made in 1659, and which was formalised as referenced above in 1665.
The Hadley CET records derive from 1659 following this new calibration standard, although the Fahrenheit scale did not come about until 1724, as linked here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Gabriel_Fahrenheit
The original measurements from 1659 were converted to the Fahrenheit scale by Manley, who also adjusted the readings to take into account the transition from the Julian calendar introduced by Julius Caesar in 45BC to the Gregorian calendar. Manley considered the readings to be perfectly accurate to around a quarter to half a degree in the Fahrenheit equivalent. It is thought the Galileo thermometers were accurate to a little more than half of a degree of the Fahreheit equivalent.
As might be expected Pepys got his hands on one of the new thermoscopes. This text was written as a footnote in the 1893 Wheatley transcription of Pepys diary and is the one Wikipedia have used in the first link given above. It refers to 23 March 1663
http://www.pepys.info/1663/1663mar.html
The instrument referenced above was given to Pepys in 1663 by Greatorex who had been advised by Robert Boyle. This gift is referenced here.
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=jeOMfpYMOtYC&pg=PA267&lpg=PA267&dq=pepys+thermometer&source=web&ots=aBavR_-kac&sig=GA1EQl04anW85TuIEwrdZZ2iJAc&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=10&ct=result#PPA267,M1
So from around the year 1600, measurements of uncalibrated thermometers were being taken, which became increasingly accurate as the technology improved. By 1659 the measurements were being calibrated to some degree of accuracy, and as the instruments were expensive were generally being read by trained people who handled them carefully.
During the 1700’s there was a vogue for placing thermometers in unheated north facing rooms so temperatures could be taken in comfort, but this was seen as a backward ‘country’ habit which was frowned on by those with a more scientific approach.
The measurements taken under proper conditions from 1660 were accurate to levels not surpassed until well into the 1900’s. The thermometers used in ‘global temperatures from 1850’ were often of poor quality, uncalibrated, placed in inappropriate positions (such as in full sun) and read by people who had no training.
GS Callendar complains in his notebooks about the variability of these readings from 1850 when there were less than 100 global stations- of whom around half had much credibility. He restricted his investigations of his belief in rising temperatures caused by man to as few as 200 stations worldwide in 1936-38, during his investigation for his thesis that rising levels of co2 were driving global warming, which resulted in his seminal paper about CO2 in 1938.”
I do agree with you about the scientific worlds dismissal of Becks work and he has said before he regrets the way in which he naively introduced them which reduced their credibilty. However the actual details of the readings are fascinating and I have followed up the circumstances of around fifty of them. I do not think they should be dismissed out of hand. Measurements taken at the time by qualified people seems to me much more capable of producing accurate co2 readings of their precise location than ice core proxies requiring complicated interpretations.
tonyb
Joel Shore (19:05:40) :
Although, I broadly agree with most of your earlier posts, this is is speculative drivel.
The warming from 1910 to 1940 is generally attributed to a variety of factors including some increase in solar irradiance, a lack of major volcanic eruptions, the rise in CO2 and other greenhouse gas levels that was already occurring, and perhaps also some internal variability. The cooling from 1940 to 1970 (which was fairly modest) is generally attributed mostly to an increase in aerosol pollutants (and this is supported by the fact that the cooling was more pronounced in the Northern Hemisphere) with some contribution from volcanic eruptions.
I suspect even you are not convinced since you use the term “generally attributed” twice. Let’s look at factors you cite for the 1910-40 warming
1. “some” solar irradiance
Leif may have something to say about that but whatever there was no decrease in solar irradiance after 1940.
2. a lack of major volcanic eruptions,
Interesting that a lack of something produces such a sustained positive forcing over several decades. However there were major eruptions in 1883 and 1902. There has not been a major eruption for since 1991 (Pinatubo) – is the warming since then related to “a lack of volcanic eruptions”?
3. perhaps also some internal variability
Love it. What does this mean? Is this the ‘catch all’ in case the solar/volcano stuff goes belly up. The IPCC has undertaken rigorous “Attribution and Detection” studies which supposedly show that the late 20th century warming can only be explained by including an increase in ghg concentrations. It now appears that there may also be some “internal variability – perhaps”.
The explanation for the 1940-70 cooling is worse.
1. There was NO increase in aerosol pollutants in the 1940s – show me the data. (**see below)
2. To explain he temperature decline between 1945 and 1951, the aerosol increase would have to be on a phenomenal scale and sustained over many years. Remember the aerosols would not only have to induce a cooling effect they would also need to reverse a strong warming trend. Aerosols are not like CO2. They are short-lived in the atmosphere. Industrial (tropospheric) aerosols are nowhere near as plentiful or effective as volcanic (stratospheric) aerosols.
3. The effect of aerosols is regionally specific. There is some dispersal but they get “rained out” fairly quickly.
4. Between 1940 and 1970 – the Arctic cooled at 4 times the rate of the NH in general. How did this happen? See GISS zonal data. Note that the arctic also warmed at 4 times the rate of the NH in the 1910-40 period (again see GISS zonal data). And guess what happened between 1970 and 2000 ……?
5. Aerosols which do eventually find their way to the arctic actually produce warming due to the arctic haze effect ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_haze )
6. If aerosols did cool the arctic there should be a strong seasonal signal, i.e. aerosols can only reflect sunlight when the sun is shining. Between Sept and March their effect would be non-existent.
** Re: aerosol data. There is very little before ~1970. However we can probably get a rough estimate of any change in aerosol production from proxy data – namely CO2 emissions. Between 1920 and 1950 global CO2 emissions were broadly flat.
In a nutshell. No-one can explain the the early 20th century warming or mid-20th century cooling – and probably not the late 20th century warming either. Internal variability, including ocean oscillations, is probably the most likely candidate for the fluctuations with CO2 a possible candidate for the weak underlying trend.
It is some what ironic that the upcoming global warming “climate change” conference will be held in Copenhagen, Denmark. Not only because many of the contributors in the climate debate are from Denmark, of which some contribute to this blog. But, also because Denmark lost its eastern part in the war of 1658 as a result of the cold winter of 1657-1658 and therefore Denmark became a direct victim of natural climate change during the Maunder Minimum.
As has been mentioned here the Swedes were able to march over the frozen ice and lay siege to Copenhagen in 1658 and as a result, what is now southern Sweden had to be given over to Sweden after the following peace deal in Roskilde.
This is a short history of what happened. The Swedish king invaded and concurred most of Poland. The Poles which naturally didn’t want to become part of the Swedish kingdom, revolted and started a guerilla war uprising.
The Danish king, while the Swedes were bug down in Poland, saw this as an opportunity for reducing the growing Swedish power in the Baltic and declared war.
What happen then was that the Swedish army broke up from Poland and invaded Denmark from the south, from Germany. They invaded and occupied Jutland as this is a peninsula directly connected to Germany.
They didn’t have access to transportation to move the army and invade Zealand, the island on which Copenhagen is located. Because the water way over the Belts froze they were able to march over to Zealand where they planned to lay siege on the capital. The Danes had no alternative, than to ask for peace.
Anna V:
I write to support your comments concerning the attempts to dispute Beck’s data merely because it does not fit a paradigm.
Please see one of our 2005 papers for a much more complete assessment of what is and what is not known about the causes of changes to atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration:
ref. Rorsch A, Courtney RS & Thoenes D, ‘The Interaction of Climate Change and the Carbon Dioxide Cycle’ E&E v16no2 (2005).
Concerning the specific question of whether or not Beck’s data could be correct. Yes, it could.
There is much more that is not known than is known about the carbon cycle. Investigation of the unknowns is inhibited by a completely unjustified certainty that the carbon cycle is being significantly affected by the anthropogenic emission of carbon dioxide. And the fact is that the uncertainties in the magnitudes of the fluxes of the carbon cycle are so large that almost anything can atributed as being the cause of the recent rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration. And the only dispute of this is by comparison with ice core data which purport to show little variation of atmospheric carbon dioxide at levels all below ~280 ppmv over many recent millenia. But that ice core data does not agree with stomata data which indicate much greater variability and much higher levels (up to 400 ppmv) over the same time periods.
During each year the oceans release much, much more carbon dioxide than human activity. They release it in the summer and take it back during the winter. So, an increase to atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration would result from lowered oceanic emission and/or sequestration. And altered oceanic emission and sequestration would occur when the temperature and especially the pH of the ocean surface layer varies. Indeed, the temperature effect as a result ocean upwelling is an observed effect of ENSO.
Hence, it is not strictly true that there needs to be additional oceanic emission to increase atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration because reduced oceanic sequestration would do it, too. And the cold water that upwells has a pH affected by the history of its travel around the globe (that has taken centuries).
Quirk’s analysis of the geographical distribution of atmospheric carbon isotopes agrees with this interpretation.
Furthermore, this interpretation provides an explanation of Beck’s data which indicates large, rapid fluctuations in atmospheric carbon dioxide that were simultaneous at several localities in the nineteenth century. The pH of cold ocean waters may have been altered by transient volcanism at sea bottom centuries ago, their pH affected atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration when those waters were returned to the surface by the thermohaline circulation.
I repeat for emphasis that there is much more that is not known than is known about the carbon cycle. Investigation of the unknowns is inhibited by a completely unjustified certainty that the carbon cycle is being significantly affected by the anthropogenic emission of carbon dioxide. And the uncertainties in the magnitudes of the fluxes of the carbon cycle are so large that almost anything can atributed as being the cause of the recent rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration. This is covered in our paper that I reference above. The pertinent information is as follows.
Atmospheric CO2 rises and falls each year by much, much more than the increase to CO2 in the air over a year. Therefore, the annual increase is the residual of the rise and fall each year.
The amount of CO2 emitted from oceans and biosphere is an order of magnitude greater than the increase to CO2 in the air each year. And the amount of CO2 sequestered by the oceans and biosphere is an order of magnitude greater than the increase to CO2 in the air each year.
Hence, any small change in the behaviour of the emitting and/or sequestering parts of the carbon cycle results in a change to the CO2 in the air.
The accumulation rate of CO2 in the atmosphere is equal to almost half the human emission. The human emission is about 6.5 GtC/year but the accumulation rate is about 3 GtC/year (these figures are very conservative). However, this does not mean that half the human emission accumulates in the atmosphere, as is often stated. The system does not ‘know’ where an emitted CO2 molecule originated and there are several CO2 flows in and out of the atmosphere that are much larger than the human emission. The total CO2 flow into the atmosphere is at least 156.5 GtC/year (it is probably much more, but I am being very, very conservative) with 150 Gt of this being from natural origin and 6.5 Gt from human origin. So, on the average, about 2% of all emissions accumulate.
This is a small change to the atmosphere. And it is the observed change to a single sensitive part of the carbon cycle.
The carbon in the air is less than 2% of the carbon flowing between all the parts of the carbon cycle. And the recent increase to the carbon in the atmosphere is less than a third of that less than 2%. Furthermore, the annual flow of carbon into the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels is less than 0.02% of the carbon flowing around the carbon cycle.
It is not obvious that so small an addition to the carbon cycle is certain to disrupt the system because no other activity in nature is so constant that it only varies by less than +/- 0.02% per year.
There are many possible reasons why such small changes could be expected to any natural system. And the uncertainties (i.e. inherent errors in the estimates) of the flows between parts of the carbon cycle are much greater than the observed changes to atmospheric CO2.
Thus, there are several methods that can be used to model the system. Our paper provides six such models with three of them assuming a significant anthropogenic contribution to the cause and the other three assuming no significant anthropogenic contribution to the cause. Each of our models matches the empirical data without use of any ‘fiddle-factor’ such as the ‘5-year smoothing’ the IPCC uses to get its model to agree with the empirical data.
So, whichever of our models one chooses to champion then there is a 5:1 probability that the choice is wrong. And other models are probably also possible.
Also, the models each give a different indication of future atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration for the same future anthropogenic emission of carbon dioxide.
Data that fits all the possible causes is not evidence for the true cause. Data that only fits the true cause would be evidence of the true cause.
But there is no data that only fits either an anthropogenic or a natural cause of the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration. Hence, the only factual statements that can be made on the true cause are
(a) the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration may have an anthropogenic cause, or a natural cause, or some combination of anthropogenic and natural causes,
but
(b) there is no evidence that the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration has a mostly anthropogenic cause or a mostly natural cause.
Hence, it cannot be known what if any effect altering the anthropogenic emission of carbon dioxide will have on the future atmospheric CO2 concentration.
I presented a summary of that work at Heartland-1. The paper is dry as dust but I tried to present it in an entertaining way. There is an audio and a video of that presentation on the web but neither shows the PP illustrations and the video is very poor quality.
To hear the audio go to
http://www.heartland.org/events/NewYork08/newyork2008-audio.html
Then scroll down to
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
8:45 – 10:15 a.m.
Track 2: Climatology
Then click on my name.
I hope this is useful addition to the discussion.
Richard
A thousand little people were seen melting away in the sweltering heat at Berlin’s Gendarmenmarkt Square – and there was no saving them, because these little guys were sculptures made out of ice by Brazilian artist, Nele Azevedo.
The Melting Men exhibit is part of the Minimum Monument movement, started by the artist in 2005. However, her first few exhibits, which comprised only of single ice sculptures, was to protest against big monuments, which honor only heroes.
While she still does it to highlight her stance against large monuments, global warming activists have found them to be the ideal icons to highlight our Earth’s plight!
The two have found a perfect way to blend their agendas by holding their exhibitions in large city squares with monuments. The artist has come a long way since her first solitary ice sculpture – her latest exhibits comprise of hundreds of little ice sculptures all gradually ‘dying’ in the sun.
Source: – http://lifeofearth.org/2009/09/ice-sculptures-highlight-global-warming.html
Re: Paul Vaughan (15:16:15) :
“Let me point out exactly where you are going wrong:
1) “end of story” — We’re nowhere near “end of story” in the climate discussion.”
That is both true and an entirely different subject. We were studying the random features of data.
2) ““The data pass all tests for randomness.” Tests for randomness are based on assumptions.”
Or by definitions e.g. of what randomness is. Of course tests are based on assumptions and definitions. Without them there is no test!
“Suggested: See beyond your assumptions.”
What then? Will I operate forever without assuming anything? End of discussion: the if…then-construction forbidden (remember: after ‘if’ comes an assumption).
So sorry, I will remain locked up in assumptions and will never be able to talk with the angels.
Richard S Courtney.
Those of us who battle to say that Becks measurements should not be ignored have an uphill task. People seem to think that co2 measurements sprang fuilly formed from Charles Keeling in 1957-as I have tried to demonstrate in earlier posts measuring co2 wa embedded in 19th century life.
Hopefully your words will give pause for thought to Joel and others to open their minds a little more.
tonyb
Stefan:
You raise an important point. It pertains to Anthony Watts’ investigation of meteorological measurement stations, the different understandings of Svensmark and Svalgaard concerning solar effects on climate, and the above discussion of Beck’s data concerning historic atmospheric CO2 concentration.
You ask:
“This aspect of science has puzzled me. How can intelligent people come to different conclusions about the same data? Surely if different conclusions are available, nobody should be coming to any one conclusion. Rather, we should add the two as two possibilities.”
The answer is that a scientific conclusion is always an interpretation of the available data. And all scientific conclusions are valid in so far as they do not violate known physical laws. But all scientists are human beings and, therefore, they each have personal preference as to which interpretation they adopt for further study.
Indeed, an interpretation of available data remains a theory (n.b. not a fact) when all (or almost all) scientists agree that interpretation. And this induces the most acrimonious scientific disputes. For example, the phlogiston theory remained the main paradigm of combustion long after Lavoisier published his findings, and it was not abandoned until a generation of scientists had died of old age.
Simply, in the conduct of science, data tells nothing but interpretation of data provides conclusions. This is because data is only a tool to aid understanding of an idea.
Data on its own tells nothing about an idea being considered and/or the worth of the idea. This is simply demonstrated by the following three statements.
STATEMENT 1
See the graph at
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/
STATEMENT 2
A process of global cooling began two decades ago and became established a decade ago. The temperature of the Southern Hemisphere reached a peek two decades ago and started to cool. This cooling spread to include the Northern hemisphere a decade ago when the process of global cooling became complete. This cooling process is not consistent with anthropogenic global warming (AGW) because the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration has increased throughout that time.
See the graph at
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/
STATEMENT 3
A process of global warming has existed since the start of the twentieth century. Variations in the trend of the warming have occurred and are known as weather. This trend is consistent with anthropogenic global warming (AGW) because the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration has increased throughout that time.
See the graph at
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/
Statement 1 is meaningless except to say that the HadCRUT3 data exists and to say where it can be seen. Statements 2 and 3 cite the same data (i.e. the same graph in the same reference) in support of mutually exclusive ideas (examples of the promotion of each of these ideas can be seen in above postings here).
So, data is only useful as support of ideas. This opens the ideas to debate and evaluation (e.g. by consideration of the pertinence, accuracy, precision and validity of the data), but the data (as cited in Statement 1) is worthless on its own.
Importantly, the ideas remain valid scientific conclusions supported by the data so long as they are not contradicted by physical laws and/or empirical data.
Therefore, AGW and the Svensmark Hypothesis are both valid scientific conclusions although they are mutually exclusive (as are Statements 1 and 2 above). The history of science is replete with similar examples (e.g. wave and particle theories of light, Steady Sate and Expanding Universe, etc.). As empirical evidence mounts one of the competing conclusions becomes rejected (by the additional evidence) and its competitor remains as an accepted theory until it, in its turn, is refuted by additional evidence (e.g. Newtonian and Einsteinian theories of gravity).
But a theory remains a valid conclusion from the data until additional data clearly refutes the theory. And many good scientists cannot bring themselves to abandon an idea they have cherished even when the idea is clearly contradicted by additional data; for example, many clung to the phlogiston theory long after the evidence of Lavoisier’s work, and many now cling to the AGW hypothesis despite the evidence of ‘the missing hot spot’.
I hope this clarifies the matter.
Richard
tallbloke says:
Okay, let me explain to you very clearly why it is not a double standard: The whole point that I was making is that decadal-long temperature trends can be vary by quite a bit. I admitted that there were 10-year periods with slopes quite a bit low of the ~30-year trendline and pointed out there were also 10-year periods with slopes considerably above the ~30year trendline. However, I did not tell you to ignore everything but the high slope decadal periods…and did not advocate using them to conclude that climate change is rapidly accelerating. Do you understand the difference now?
As for the 1910-1940 warming and the 1940-1970 cooling, I did address those in my post above (19:05:40 on 13 Sept 2009).
John Finn says:
You make lots of arguments as to why the effects that I mentioned can’t account for it. Yet it is true that the GCMs with these various effects included do a pretty good job reproducing these aspects of the temperature record. (They do tend to underestimate the early 20th century warming somewhat, although this may be due in part to the problems involving the SST measurements during WW II.) So, I don’t really see your arguments that it can’t be done as being very convincing. I admit that these attribution issues are not easy to prove (hence my wording about “generally attributed to…”) especially given the uncertainties in the aerosol concentrations and such.
Joel, you know that the models predicting observed values has never happened unless they were programmed to do so. You also know that their ability to predict weather or climate more than a few days advance is weak and totally non-existent beyond that time scale. A touch of honesty and humility would be very appropriate at this stage. You add very little to the climate debate and have nothing other than troll status here unless you can start adding value such as answering how cooling can occur under AGW, why there is no Tropospheric hotspot, how Antarctica is robustly cold and why Arctic ice is recovering rather than disappearing. Any of the above or a sensible discussion on how Anthropogenic CO2 is causing such catastrophic climate change that we have to act immediately. Joel, you are an educated person, you know that it’s BS. Yes there are many acts of environmental vandalism that humans have to address in the area of poverty, child mortality and deforestation (all politically inspired) but CO2 emissions is not one of them and it is a myth that is costing real lives because we are diverting our massive talents and resources from where it is really needed to an argument over a very weak hypothesis that my wife could falsify whilst washing the dishes (it really is that easy).
Anyone getting nervous yet?
During the 20th century, we were blessed by a rare combination of benign climate, a “can do” attitude in the US, and several key scientific and technological breakthroughs. All three factors are symbiotic. Now, with the climate worsening, the “can do” attitude fading and, the absolute pace of breakthroughs slowing, things do not look good. Nietzsche forecast a rough 21st century and he was only looking at the social element.
Martin Mason
Whatever Joel is he is no troll. He makes us think about our position which is a good thing. I don’t think he will ever convert anyone here to his viewpoint but he makes a good case, even if he can be evasive sometimes or seems reluctant to face the possibilty that some of what we say might be right.
I am looking forward to his comments on Richard Courtneys post. Also he might clear up why he thinks that in 1957 a complete amateur managed to do what hundreds of clever scientists had obviously failed to do in the preceding 130 years-read co2 measurements accurately. Sayng that technology moved on sudenly isn’t really good enough, nor is citing a tamino post that is full of inaccuracies.
tonyb
Martin Mason: I’ve already given answers to most of the questions that you, some in this very thread. They are really just the standard “skeptic talking points”, which makes it strange to me that I am the one accused of being a troll. To gives brief answers to some of them:
(1) How cooling can occur under AGW? As I have discussed ad nauseum in this very thread, trends of less than a decade or so vary considerably. This can be due to internal variability alone although it certainly can be aided by effects such as a minimum in the sunspot cycle, a volcanic eruption, etc. If you live in a place with a strong seasonal cycle in temperature, you will understand this intuitively: Certainly here in Rochester, we have weeks in the fall where the temperature trend is upward but that doesn’t lead people to conclude that the seasonal cycle is a myth or that it is very weak because it can be overwhelmed by natural variability on shorter time-scales. (And, believe me, if they do fool themselves into believe this in October, they are in for one heck of a rude awakening by January!) Note also that the people who show you a (slight) negative trend are always very careful to cherrypick the time period over which they are showing it; right now, to get a negative trend over a period of time of a decade or more, one has to carefully choose the time period to be basically exactly 11.5 years, so that one includes the El Nino peak in 1998 right at the beginning of the record. If one chooses any longer time period or a shorter period of, say, 10 years, one does not get a negative trend (at least with HADCRUT3).
(2) Why is there no Tropospheric hotspot? The technical term for what you are talking about is tropical tropospheric amplification…and it is something that is expected based on a very basic piece of physics that is independent of the cause of the temperature trend or fluctuations. Namely, it has to do with the fact that the lapse rate in the tropical atmosphere is basically expected to be pegged to the moist adiabat. As such, it is expected to occur whether warming is due to greenhouse gases, solar irradiance increases, or internal variability in the climate system (like El Nino and La Nina). And, in fact, such amplification of the temperature fluctuations that occur on timescales of a year or so is predicted by the models and seen in the data. The only part of the data for which such amplification is not necessarily seen is for the multidecadal temperature trends and I say “necessarily” because it depends on which satellite analysis one looks at or which radiosonde data analysis or re-analysis one looks at. This is not surprising since the satellite and radiosonde (weather balloon) data is very reliable on the shorter time scales of a year or so but the long-term trends in the data are very difficult to measure because of artifacts such as piecing together data from different satellites for the satellite record and changes in shielding of the temperature sensor for the radiosonde record. So, in other words, the data agrees with basic theory except for a deviation in some data sets that occurs over the timescale for which the data is least reliable. And, even if this disagreement is not a data artifact, it wouldn’t directly say anything about the cause of the warming (e.g., whether or not it is due to greenhouse gases) because the prediction of such a “hotspot” is independent of the mechanism causing the warming.
(3) Why is Arctic ice recovering rather than disappearing? The answer to this is basically the same as the answer to (1). Scientists have not expected that the trend in the yearly summer Arctic sea ice minimum would be perfectly monotonic. 2007 turned out to be an exceptional year…and if the sea ice had continued to decay at the rate it was going, it would have been gone in no time. As it turns out, the following years have had some partial recovery from that extreme low but the long-term trend is still down…and down a lot faster than had been predicted only a few years ago.
You say, that AGW is “a very weak hypothesis that my wife could falsify whilst washing the dishes”. You might ask yourself how this reconciles with the fact that it is accepted by almost all the major scientific societies in the world, including the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and the analogous bodies in all of the other G8+5 nations, AAAS, the councils of the AGU, APS, and AMS. Is it that you and your wife really understand that much more science than these people or is it possible that you folks are actually fooling yourselves?
My attitude is that you should never rely on a model that does not show predictive power. Remember that science involves three steps:
1. Observations
2. Formulation of a theory that explain the observations and give predictions
3. Testing of the theory with future and unknown experiments.
It is crucial that the predictions are unknown and in nature essentially different from the initial observations. If these fail to agree with future experiments the theory is falsified. In my opinion the HADCRUT3 data are the initial observations only, and I am a little pessimistic with the respect to the possible testing of any climate model. The reason is that you cannot verify a theory since a theory in most cases may agree with experiments for the wrong reason which is overwhelmingly the most probable scenario for a successful climate theory.
The main point with the scientific process is to eliminate theories that do not agree with future and unknown experiments. However, some theories are so “well formulated” which is bad science since it makes them difficult or impossible to eliminate with the result that we cannot distinguish between falsifiable and non-falsifiable theories. Thus we can rank theories in the following order
1. Not wrong (yet).
2. Wrong.
3. Not even wrong.
The phrase “not even wrong” was coined by the early quantum physicist Wolfgang Pauli, who was known for his colourful objections to incorrect or sloppy thinking. A friend showed him the paper of a young physicist which he suspected was not of great value but on which he wanted Pauli’s views. Pauli remarked sadly, “That’s not right. It’s not even wrong.”
The climate is so complex that I suspect that any climate theory will fall into the third category “not even wrong”.
RR Kampen (06:27:21) “End of discussion […] I will remain locked up in assumptions […]”
Based on some of your upthread comments I was going to ask you if you are assuming unconditional periodicity, stationarity, & fixed spatiotemporal scale…
…but I agree we should efficiently agree to disagree since our disagreement appears to be at a fundamental level (and thus too pedantic to be of practical value in a context such as this).
Cheers! (we can move on to more productive pursuits… & avoid exchanges like this in future)
This is very good, thank you.
Unfortunately, it will be rubbished by Governments because no taxes can be applied to it and by environmental/political pressure groups as there is nobody to blame.
Nobody likes the truth when it doesn’t work for them.
Joel Shore (09:53:04) :
John Finn says:
You make lots of arguments as to why the effects that I mentioned can’t account for it. Yet it is true that the GCMs with these various effects included do a pretty good job reproducing these aspects of the temperature record.
This is pretty much my point, Joel. The GCMs have managed to roughly simulate the 20th century temperature record – despite using questionable as well as patently incorrect assumptions. Even some of the Realclimate contributors are starting to realise that their initial assumptions are ‘incomplete’. An example is this response by Raypierre to a comment
[Response: Wayne, please note that this is Kyle’s article not mine, though I did encourage him to write it for us. I think the interesting question raised (though not definitively answered) by this line of work is the extent to which some of the pause in warming mid-century might have been more due to decadal ocean variability rather than aerosols than is commonly thought. If that is the case, then a pause or temporary reduction in warming rate could recur even if aerosols are unchanged. Learning how to detect and interpret such things is important, lest a temporary pause be confused with evidence for low climate sensitivity. –raypierre]
As for your comment …
I admit that these attribution issues are not easy to prove
The massive increase in aerosols is difficult to prove. That’s because it didn’t happen. You need to look elsewhere to explain why warming stopped and cooling started. There was no sudden drop in solar irradiance. No volcanic effect. In any case, Pinatubo (the largest eruption of the 20th century) only caused a short term drop in temperatures. Finally, there was no increase in aerosols. Check the PDO index, Josh, and see what you reckon.
Re: previous post
Sorry, Joel, I appear to have renamed you as “Josh”
Check the PDO index, Josh, and see what you reckon
I can’t think why – I don’t even know a Josh.
John Finn (14:20:58): You need to look elsewhere to explain why warming stopped and cooling started.
In 1963 Lorenz told us that our climate is sensitively dependent on the initial conditions. I suspect that our global temperature may be surprisingly sensitively dependent on the various forms of solar activity.
Martin Mason (11:10:50) :
“Joel, you know that the models predicting observed values has never happened unless they were programmed to do so. You also know that their ability to predict weather or climate more than a few days advance is weak and totally non-existent beyond that time scale. A touch of honesty and humility would be very appropriate at this stage. You add very little to the climate debate and have nothing other than troll status here unless you can start adding value such as answering how cooling can occur under AGW, why there is no Tropospheric hotspot, how Antarctica is robustly cold and why Arctic ice is recovering rather than disappearing. Any of the above or a sensible discussion on how Anthropogenic CO2 is causing such catastrophic climate change that we have to act immediately. Joel, you are an educated person, you know that it’s BS. Yes there are many acts of environmental vandalism that humans have to address in the area of poverty, child mortality and deforestation (all politically inspired) but CO2 emissions is not one of them and it is a myth that is costing real lives because we are diverting our massive talents and resources from where it is really needed to an argument over a very weak hypothesis that my wife could falsify whilst washing the dishes (it really is that easy).”
Bingo.
Jeez … Here’s some facts to chew on. The Earth has been cooling and may do so for some decades. Even a scientist from the IPCC sees and admits that. Because of the measured data, not some FORTRAN computer game. If Hendrick Schon could get busted for manufacturing data for his carbon based computer (nanotechnology) experiments, why do people even believe the “smoothed” or “adjusted” data of the computer models, many of which will not be releasing their algorithms or raw data for perusal by reason of copyrighted intellectual property (standard protection for software) in their computer games, I mean, models? Nothing the IPCC has predicted has come to pass, even by the deadlines suggested. Certainly none of Gore’s claims or Hansen’s claims have been anywhere close. Whatever happened to observing data and not assuming causality without some analysis or even basic logic. Saying that human CO2 creates global warming not only violates basic physics and the observed behavior of CO2, it is similar to saying that Nike shoes keep one in athletic shape because athletes wear them. Coincidence does not automatically equally causality. The globe has cooled .74 degrees F since the release of “An Inconvenient Truth.” Then again, there some people who will not believe the sun is shining, even as they get sunburned. Now, that’s faith.
Tony B. said:
Whatever Joel is he is no troll. He makes us think about our position which is a good thing.
Very much second that. Joel has very good command of the science on his side of the fence. Some may disagree with Joel, but indeed he is no troll.
Joel, you owe me a beer (with CO2 intact!)