Svensmark: "global warming stopped and a cooling is beginning" – "enjoy global warming while it lasts"

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

Catainia photosphere image August 31st, 2009 - click for larger image
Spotless Cueball: Catania observatory photosphere image August 31st, 2009 - click for larger image

While the sun sleeps

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.

"The March across the Belts was a campaign between January 30 and February 8, 1658 during the Northern Wars where Swedish king Karl X Gustav led the Swedish army from Jutland across the ice of the Little Belt and the Great Belt to reach Zealand (Danish: Sjælland). The risky but vastly successful crossing was a crushing blow to Denmark, and led to the Treaty of Roskilde later that year...." - Click for larger image.

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.


4.5 4 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

638 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Joel Shore
September 26, 2009 5:18 pm

Stephen,
So, you are saying that orbital changes, despite causing essentially no change in global annual mean radiative forcing, produces these cycles. And yet, the radiative forcings due to changes albedo from ice sheets and changes in greenhouse gas levels had no significant effect?

September 26, 2009 5:55 pm

Joel,
You aren’t going to let me get away are you ?
Orbital changes alter the amount of energy from the sun capable of getting past the region of ocean surface involved in the evaporative process so as to affect ocean heat content.
That affects the amount of energy available for release by the oceans to the air.
That obviously does affect the radiative balance and is on such a scale that enough of a reduction of the energy going into the oceans can overwhelm the ability of the air to pull more energy from the oceans during a period of cooling so that the whole system gets colder and ice cover expands.
Radiative forcings from those other changes are on a far smaller scale and are easily dealt with by a change in the speed of the hydrological cycle.
It boils down to this:
1) The composition of the air dictates the speed of the hydrological cycle at any given temperature and not the temperature of the Earth.
2) The temperature of the Earth being set by the interaction of sun and oceans (if one ignores geothermal influences).
3) The temperature of the air being set by sea surface temperatures.
I don’t expect you to accept that proposition but I do expect it to become the establishment view in years to come.

Joel Shore
September 26, 2009 6:12 pm

Stephen Wilde:

1) The composition of the air dictates the speed of the hydrological cycle at any given temperature and not the temperature of the Earth.

What are you saying precisely here? Are you saying that the increase in the speed of the hydrological cycle transports more heat up higher into the atmosphere? And, how is this different from the conventional lapse rate description? And, how is it that one can neglect the contribution of the increase in CO2 and the increase in water vapor to the change in the amount of radiative emission that escapes the earth…Or, are you saying the atmosphere just warms up at the effective radiating level without actually warming at the surface.
All your statements are very vague and you have made no connections to the well-understood conventional physics of radiative balance and so forth.

2) The temperature of the Earth being set by the interaction of sun and oceans (if one ignores geothermal influences).

Again, I don’t know what you mean by this and how it is consistent with the known fact that the temperature ultimately has to be set by radiative balance…i.e., the earth receives a certain amount of radiation from the sun and must re-radiate the same amount back out into space (otherwise, if there is an imbalance then over time, it will either warm or cool depending on the direction of the imbalance).

I don’t expect you to accept that proposition but I do expect it to become the establishment view in years to come.

Well, I have to give you one thing – You certainly don’t suffer from false modesty!

September 27, 2009 4:50 am

The speed of the hydrological cycle is variable and that variability is forced by variability in the rate of energy release from the oceans or by changes in the composition of the air. It is that variability that is not properly reflected in the models.
The rate of energy emission from the Earth does change as a result of such forcings but in the end it all has to balance as you say.
The air circulation has to achieve two mutually incompatible functions over time:
That the surface air temperature always approximately matches sea surface temperatures
and
that the energy lost to space always approximately matches energy received from the sun.
It is that interplay which causes observed climate change. Whatever happens the surface air temperature cannot for long diverge from the sea surface temperature and the energy lost to space cannot for long exceed the energy received from the sun so the ‘well understood conventional physics of radiative balance and so forth’ is duly complied with.

V Wilkinson, UK
September 29, 2009 3:26 pm

http://www.climate.noaa.gov/images/about_climate/bigger_images/observing2.gif
The graph above, published by the NOAA ties in generally with the periods discussed in this article. “But after about 1300 solar activity declined and the world began to get colder.” There is a general cooling, I assumed this was the result of the tiling of the earth on it’s axis pushing the northern hemisphere away from the sun but how would I know.
“over the past 50 years solar activity has been at its highest since the medieval warmth of 1000 years ago.”. This may be so, but the graph of global temperatures for the last 150 years in totally anomalous when compared with the former period. How can the last 50 years be compared with the period from 1000 to 1300. The evidence at face value would imply a mechanism which is not strongly dependant on sun spot activity. Is this the case?
Maybe someone with more knowledge than myself could enlighten me on this question.

ron from Texas
October 3, 2009 6:53 am

A person said that there wasn’t proof that cosmic rays affected cloud formation. Another person said that was a good example of being a skeptic. Good point. Now, can the other person be skeptic enough to accept that Svenmark did produce laboratory results that cosmic rays do affect cloud formation and cloud cover? It’s one thing to doubt a theory or even just hold off some judgement until evidence is presented. At what point does a seeming skepticism become a religious faith if one rejects scientific evidence in front of one’s own face?
A number of people have been skeptical because of lack of evidence, one way or another. Of weak theories, here and there. But if I tell you that letting go of the apple will allow it to fall and that’s due to an effect we’ll call gravity and you choose not to believe that no matter how many times I drop an apple on your head, when do we quit calling that skepticism or even standard denial and call it a religious faith or a willful ignorance? “There are none so deaf as those who will not hear, none so blind as those who will not see.”

V Wilkinson, UK
October 11, 2009 4:13 am

“The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for August 2009 was 0.62°C (1.12°F) above the 20th century average of 15.6°C (60.1°F). This is the second warmest such value on record” – source NOAA

October 19, 2009 8:12 am

The threats are very uncertain and unprecedented………….. Related to global warming and climate change issues and I have published my views through these papers as listed below:
“A Sustainable Development and Environmental Quality Management Strategy for Indore” (Published
Online in “Environmental Quality Management”, 15 (4), pp. 57-68, Summer 2006, Tampa, USA)
Authors : H.K. Gupta, K. Gupta, P. Singh, R.C. Sharma
“Toward a Consistent Approach for Managing Air-Environmental Quality in Indore” (Published in
“Environmental Quality Management”, 17 (1), pp. 65-69, Autumn 2007, Tampa, USA)
Authors : H.K. Gupta, K. Gupta, P. Singh, R.C. Sharma
“A Comparative Study of Air Pollution in Indian Cities” (Published in the Bulletin of “Environmental
Contamination and Toxicology”, The University of Florida, USA, June 2007, 78: pp. 411-416) On-line
(http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/klu/128/2007/00000078/00000005/00009220)
Authors : A.K. Singh, H.K. Gupta, K. Gupta, P. Singh, V.B. Gupta, R.C. Sharma
“A Comparative Emission Profile of Urban City, Madhya Pradesh, India” (Published in the Bulletin of
“Environmental Contamination and Toxicology”, The University of Florida, USA, Tuesday, July 17, 2007, 79:
pp. 202-208) On-line (http://www.springerlink.com/content/728n1p662812p856/)
Authors : H.K. Gupta, K. Gupta, P. Singh, A.K. Singh, R.C. Sharma

Dan Pangburn
October 27, 2009 11:54 am

Svensmark’s findings may well explain the following:
All of the global average temperatures for the entire 20th century and continuing in the 21st century are readily calculated with no consideration whatsoever needed of changes to the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide or any other greenhouse gas. The method is a straight-forward application of the first law of thermodynamics and uses only the time-integral of sunspot count and 32-year long up trends and down trends that have an amplitude of 0.45 C and are probably related to the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. Data sources, a graph that overlays the measured and calculated temperatures from 1880 to 2008 and a detailed description of the method are in a new paper at http://climaterealists.com/index.php?tid=145&linkbox=true . The standard deviation of the difference between concurrent calculated and measured average global temperatures is 0.064 C. There is no Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) (and therefore no human caused climate change) from added atmospheric carbon dioxide.

Freeone
October 30, 2009 7:21 pm

If global warming does not get you the deadly H1N1 flu shot will. Both have a lot in common in that they are based on PHD comic book story lines. The two themes are intertwined to entrap everyone into destruction of the worlds population for the sake of preserving nature and bringing in a new age which is a One World Government run by a very corrupt United Nations.

tall timber
November 3, 2009 6:50 pm

im so tall and my leaves cant breathe coz of al gore. idiot !

1 24 25 26