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.
“Ron de Haan (06:01:30) :
Fortunately most people in the West are fed up with Government Meddling and spending. Even if people lack the knowledge or even the interest for the Climate debate, they don’t want to lose their freedom.”
If that were true why do these “meddling and spending Govn’ts”, it appears, continually get re-elected? UK New Labour, been there 10 years now. I expect that will change simply because Bliar gave up and Brown, unelected, took over. Australian’s voted for KRudd747 because of the involvement in the Irag/Afgahnistan wars, lead by Bush, supported by Howard (and Bliar). Unfortunately, in Australia, too many people “support” AGW. That’s the second biggest reason why KRudd747 won.
Leif,
You write that the solar magnetic field has not doubled in the last 100 years. I found this article from Nature :http://www.ukssdc.rl.ac.uk/wdcc1/papers/nature.html
Acording to this article the solar magnetic field has doubled since 1901
An article by frethack on the Naked Scientists website says that there is a correlation between ITCZ (Inter Tropical Convergence Zone) and solar activity in its effects on the Gulf Stream. It is not work that the IPCC has taken account of. Unfortunately the accompanying figures are not visible on my computer.
dorlomin (01:44:14) :
“You want him to produce a quote of what he just said? ”
Sorry there is not editing function here. I would like him to produce a quote that backs up this statement: “What the Warmists forget (whether intentionally or not) is that this flatline of temperature (or even cooling) was not predicted by models.”
—————
Dorlomin, I don’t think you understand this statement. You should not ignore the subject and verb of the main clause. You are demanding that someone corroborate his statement that “Warmists forget…” . In light of our awareness of what models predict, your quote from Gavin demonstrates that warmists forget.
Robert (04:32:09) :
“I relocated to Nome, and just in time too”
Uhhhh, I hate to tell you this, but…..
Those gold strikes that were found in the hills north of Nome? That’s the old beach line. Placer deposits formed from gold washed out of the hills. When the gold got washed down to the beach line, wave action caused the gold to settle to the bed rock.
So, you may want to move above the locations of those old gold strikes ’cause that’s where global warming will put sea level. As I recall, they were some 200 feet above the present site of Nome.
But then, there are also some ancient beach lines about the same distance UNDER the water there. That’s where global cooling will put the beach line.
You pays your money, you takes your choice.
(I spent a summer anchored off of Nome working for the Marine Minerals Technology Center expedition to find sea floor placer deposits back in ’67.)
Regards,
Steamboat Jack
Thanks for the hat tip Anthony 🙂 My first.
“Svenskerne overraskede Danmark med at gå over isen”
Means
“The Swedes surprised Denmark by walking across the ice”
“Flanagan (00:36:42) :
A very mysterious mechanism indeed. And still not supported by any observation. Moreover, how is it the sun is “fading” since the 90ies and all we got is a warming? Even 20 years later? 2009 is not going to be a cold year, far from that. August and July were globally pretty hot and September seems to be setting a new record
http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/amsutemps.html
check Channel 5″
I look forward to reading Flanagan’s nonsense!
I wish he commented every day; good laugh of the day!
Enough said by me!
FYI: Sunlight recorders
This is a Campbell-Stokes recorder (developed in 1879) http://data.piercecollege.edu/weather/duration_sunlight_recorder.html
A Giles recorder http://www.flickr.com/photos/59874422@N00/2034574063/
@Fred Lightfoot: A great read, Fred. Your oilfield life was more adventurous than my military one. I don’t know if you realize that your account of the various situations you encountered is way too specific with regards to temperatures, wind speeds, wave heights, hail depths and lightning strikes.
You see, Fred, everything in climate research is postulated from proxies for actual events. In this way it is possible to model the temperature of an area with a 1600K radius with a single temperature reading and forecast the temperature 100 years hence to an accuracy of one one-hundredth of a degree C. Your reports of actual events, should the dates become known, would destroy no end of GCMs in which taxpayers are heavily invested.;-)
You’re a breath of fresh air, sir.
Barry Foster (05:59:33) :
Dolormin. Thank you for your reply (and thanks to others who have replied for me), but I don’t think I could put it any better than Philip_B. I have been following climate change in earnest since 2003 – and have read very much on the subject. I have seen many graphs predicting (from a point back) what the coming temperatures would be up to 2000 and beyond. I haven’t seen a single graph (from a model) predicting that we would be at the anomaly right now.
—————————————————–
Graphs?
http://www.eoearth.org/media/draft/f/f5/IPCC_AR4_WG1_ch10_fig10.26.jpg
None of the graphs I have seen have shown what will happen, they have only produced estimates of what might happen within a range of confidence. If and when they break out of the range of variability of the graph, then they will have a problem. Not showing the idiocyncratic movements dont tell us anything.
Models aside, back to basics. The earth is warmer than it should be due to its atmospehre, a phenominem known as the greenhouse effect.
CO2 is a well understood greenhouse gas.
CO2 has been building in the atmosphere as the sinks have been exceeded by the output of human activities.
All things being equal this should be a positive forcing on the temperature.
The range of that forcing is where the debate is. Not over modelers personalities, not over politicians, not over how people are using the science for for….. its the climate sensitivity to CO2.
Real skepticism is being conservative about the climate sensitivity and being conservative about every new proposed forcing.
Skepticism is so easy and natural for a scientist. Jumping on board the Svennsmark train with both feet is not skepticism……
” Not showing the idiocyncratic movements dont tell us anything. ”
should have read “That they are not showing the idiocyncratic movements of the climate does not tell us anything. “
Ron de Haan (06:01:30) :
If this hoax is stopped however, it has to be stopped in the USA
…waiting cavalry…but if it doesn’t appears, then what?
What about Russia and China?, do their scientists/politicians believe in this global warming/climate change creed?
In general we could say that it comes from those who we pay to work for us, so in the whole world it should be forbidden, for any elected official, to change establishment unless specifically authorized by us, their employers.
Because only they, because of not having to struggle for daily living, have the time and leisure enough to concoct petty theories and pretend god’s part playing.
Leif Svalgaard:
“According to calculations by British scientists, the strength of the Sun’s magnetic field has doubled during the Twentieth Century alone.”
Those same scientists now know that the doubling didn’t happen.
Quite right Leif. They now estimate that it was a 79% increase rather than a 100% increase.
Philip 05:04
Be careful about how you represent Lucia’s work. It does not invalidate GCM predictions yet. It will take another 10-15 years of data to do that and the temperatures we are now experiencing could very well be a pause before further increases.
It’s clear that our understanding of all that effects our climate is small and still growing. Don’t be ignorant to the fact that man has changed and continues to change the face of the earth and continues to pump CO2 into the air and pollute the water. You may want to read up at this site: http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/
The net effect of man changing the globe is that we are changing climate directly and by what we pump into the air. The changes may not be the catastrophe’s the IPCC predicts but don’t doubt for a minute that they are ocurring.
Thanks
William
Scott Mandia (03:24:55) :
“Personally, I would love to see Svensmark be correct and that AGW is not a concern because then we can rest knowing that there is, for the most part, nothing we can do about it.”
Scott Mandia,
You are really incredible.
You master the art of writing a ton of crap in a single sentence.
“If AGW is not a concern and we are heading for a new ice age we can rest?”
If Svensmark is correct, we will have a serious problem feeding the world’s population.
Cooling, look at our history, is a much bigger threat to humanity than any warming.
But the biggest threat for all of us right now is the political objective that lies behind
the AGW/Climate Change Doctrine.
So, wake up to the facts and start using your brain.
“tallbloke (07:16:12) :
Leif Svalgaard:
“According to calculations by British scientists, the strength of the Sun’s magnetic field has doubled during the Twentieth Century alone.”
Those same scientists now know that the doubling didn’t happen.
Quite right Leif. They now estimate that it was a 79% increase rather than a 100% increase.”
And that is still an estimate. Estimates are like “golbal average temperatures”, they are meaningless.
It’s easy to see that man better start looking into where we can grow enough food during the future cooling period and not wasting time on the stupid AGW politics.
But than again, I think were on the slope towards change that cannot be changed by any man.
The Good News: Global Warming is over.
The Bad News: Global Warming is over.
And after one of the coldest winters and coolest summers here in Michigan this past year, global warming is bound to be missed.
Leif Svalgaard (05:20:47) :
“Nick Yates (04:45:09) :
If only WUWT could get Henrik Svensmark to discuss this here with Dr Svalgaard. It would be so interesting.”
He won’t, as Al Gore won’t either.”
This very, very close to an ad hom. quite uncharacteristically for Leif.
“Indeed, global warming stopped and a cooling is beginning. No climate model has predicted a cooling of the Earth, on the contrary. This means that projections of future climate is unpredictable, writes Henrik Svensmark.”
So clever. Future climate is unpredictable but Svensmark knows ‘a cooling is beginning’ 🙂
@ur momisugly Robert (04:32:09) :
After Katrina it had become obvious that AGW had caused stronger and more frequent hurricanes, so I moved again, to Maine.
Atlantic hurricane frequency follows a natural 20 to 30 year cycle. The current “active” cycle began in 1995. According to Vechi, et. al. (2008) warmer sea-surface temperatures have likely contributed to more intense hurricanes and will continue to do so into the future. Of less certainty is whether or not the frequency of hurricanes is being influenced by global warming. More research is needed to test this hypothesis. I would read Dr. Gray’s opinions on this as he is quite the authority on hurricanes.
Vecchi, G.A., Swanson, K.L., & Soden, B.J. (2008). Whither hurricane activity?. Science. 322, 687-689.
@ur momisugly Johnny Honda (05:44:28) :
I hope that this discussion doesn’t turn into an ozone hole debate. The link to human activities and ozone loss is very well established. After the Montreal Protocol and subsequent revisions, there are certainly fewer CFCs that end up in the stratosphere to destroy ozone. CFCs take decades to centuries to be removed so it is no surprise that there is still a thin ozone. The latest predictions for a recovery are discussed in the link below:
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2006/ozone_recovery.html
This is also the problem with greenhouse gases, esp. CO2. If you believe greenhouse gases are contributing to the modern day global warming (of course I do and most here do not) then even with mitigation the long-term residence of CO2 will still cause warming long after these remedies are in place.
@ur momisugly Johnny Honda (06:09:32) :
I had assumed that Tamino’s Open Mind bloge was well known here. In my opinion, he has the best blog out there when it comes to actually analyzing data. For example, he smashed the article from McLean, de Freitas and Carter that claimed to show how ENSO might be causing the trend in global warming. See:
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/07/24/old-news/
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/08/04/influence-of-the-southern-oscillation-on-tropospheric-temperature/
After Tamino’s rebuttal of this journal article, many others showed the same problems with the concluding comments about NSO and trends. The bottom line is this is how science works. Papers get published, experts look at the claims and the data, and either accept it or rebut it. Talk is cheap when it is not supported by data nor discussed in the peer-reviewed literature.
I would be very careful if you intend to tap Tamino’s bees nest. You will likely be coming to a gun fight armed with a knife.
The politicians haven’t got the balls for it! The green votes/taxes are too much!
Dell Hunt, Michigan (07:36:10) :
“And after one of the coldest winters and coolest summers here in Michigan this past year, global warming is bound to be missed.”
Michigan warming has held up for half a year, would be the correct assertion.
Michigan, or even the US, is not the globe.
As depicted here, http://data.giss.nasa.gov/work/gistemp/NMAPS/tmp_GHCN_GISS_HR2SST_1200km_Anom0603_2009_2009_1951_1980/GHCN_GISS_HR2SST_1200km_Anom0603_2009_2009_1951_1980.gif , Holland had a warm summer – the 9th in a row – as had most of the Northern Hemisphere (by contrast, most of the Southern Hemisphere had a mild winter). I’m the wittness for Holland.
*sigh*… Flanagan and his thermageddon…
Who cares if 2009 is still hotter than 18xy? Temperatures can still be currently decreasing. Think about it, when you get to the top of the hill and go past the peak (in temp example: 1998), you start going down the hill.
Initially you are STILL near the top, even though you are now cooling (going down); i.e. 2009 is only a mere 11 years down the slope, we are still on top but not going any higher.
It seems as though the experts got it flat wrong with SC 24.
The critical latitude of 22 degrees was reached and we got one spot.
It is absolutely amazing that just 5 years ago sunspot activity was touted as the highest in 1000 years and today it is weak and not a single person knows exactly what’s next.
dorlomin (07:05:19) :
The earth is warmer than it should be due to its atmospehre, a phenominem known as the greenhouse effect.
Yep, atmosphere being the key word.
However, the atmosphere is composed of nitrogen and oxygen mainly, which heat us after being heated by the surface being heated by the sun.
Temperature on other planets depends on received Sun energy and their atmospheric pressure, not depending what the atmosphere is composed of. Earth is in line with other planets.
Heat capacity of the atmosphere is misinterpreted as “greenhouse effect”, that is the root problem of all that climatological computer model alchemy.
Has the water vapor/CO2 itself been responsible for (wrongly calculated) +33K, deserts should be much colder than tropics and Arctic should experience strongest warming as their atmosphere is dry; neither is true.