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.
William: “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.”
Yep, mankind has an impact on his environment! Get over it! The question is whether CO2 emissions represent a crisis that must be dealt with at immense cost (and most likely to little effect!)
It must be annoying for Svensmark if their mechanism – which is almost certainly one of the most important insights of climatology in decades – is being largely ignored because of a paranoid politicized cult that prefers the explanations with a big potential to influence politics over the explanations that are supported by the objective evidence.
Nice article.
“Indeed, [you could say] that the clouds on Earth originated in space.”
Unusual concept to the average mind I think.
Mike McMillan (03:34:03) : The CO2 chart climb is as steady as you get, but the global temperature it’s supposed to be driving seem pretty oblivious to it….About the only things keeping pace with CO2 are the GISS adjustments.
Nice way to put it.
Fred Lightfoot (02:44:03) :
Fred, thanks for your great posting.
I enjoyed the read very much.
Scott A. Mandia (07:39:41) :
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.
I am not so sure.. the AGW come just in time to cover the ozone scientific blamage:
http://www.junkscience.com/sep07/Chemists_poke_holes_in_ozone_theory.htm
http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070924/full/449382a.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.
I see it is a belief. I believe its effect is indistinguishable from natural effects.
Btw, recent study suggested the “long-time residence” of CO2 is close to 10-15 years.
Blimey the mainstream scientists have moved on to consider natural variation as important but their drones are still endlessly repeating the old excuses.
Oh sure, Gavin Schmidt hind-cast aerosol cooling with his model. In fact he had guessed a reason for the cooling because the CO2-causes-everything hypothesis couldn’t explain it, then he manipulated the input parameters on the model until they matched the 20th century. A remarkably easy thing to do is hind-casting when you have so many flexible parameters because you know exactly what to aim for. However a hindcast is not a prediction and never will be. Neither does it show any skill. Anyone who suggests a model hind-cast shows skill should get out of the computer modeling business.
Of course all that was before the discovery of the sea temperature bucket adjustment farce by Jones (some time after McIntyre) which made such a curve-fitting exercise look really silly. And it was also before Swanson explained on realclimate.org that the dip was more than likely from natural variation.
Mind you, it must be difficult to keep up with all these contradictory handwaves that climate scientists just keep pulling out of their rear end but you should try to keep up to date.
Mark Fawcett (04:22:26) : Just recovered from passing out whilst reading the following on the BBC:
But they had to have this hackneyed statement in the article, their rallying call :
The survey, by Cardiff University, shows there is still some way to go before the public’s perception matches that of their elected leaders.
I wonder if even they are tired of it all.
Patrick Davis (06:23:39) :
“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.
Patrick,
I can not speak for the Brits, but the latest EU parliament election has been devastating for the left.
The upcoming elections in the Netherlands will wipe the current ruling parties of the map.
Believe me, people are fed up and the genie is out of the bottle.
Chris Schoneveld (04:24:49) :
It appears the theory is moving on without Lief.
Nogw (07:13:24) :
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?”
In that case I will come to Agentina and we start a smuggling operation importing cheap gasoline from Venezuela.
Anthony, I can translate the piece if you’d like. My address is rikard at the trygghetsvakten dot se domain.
Flanagan (02:43:48) :
– When a forbush decrease takes place, the water content of some clouds changes by 7% corresponding to a 10%-20% decrease of cosmic ray counts
– after a few days, the water content comes back to normal levels
again, there’s no proof that cosmic rays substantially influence the composition of clouds over long periods of times, especially as compared to other parameters like the ocean average temperature. If you prefer, this is weather, not climate.
Svensmark has demonstrated a link, you admit the link, but dismiss it as just weather. Isn’t climate a collection of weather?
Flanagan (05:54:34) :
Well Leif, I made exactly the same comment as you concerning the absence of trend since the 50ies. But only one comment out of two gets published (at least in my case).
I’m given to understand that weather is rather complex and hard to predict. How can ANYONE who purports to be reasonably intelligent assume that any single mechanism discussed must be the primary, sole driver of weather & climate, with all other factors fading to insignificance? That would be absolutely idiotic. Svensmark has discussed GCRs as a climate factor, He has not claimed that it’s an overwhelming driver.
But you know who makes that sort of claim all of the time? The good folks at Real Climate. They attribute everything to CO2, and dismiss any other influence on global climate as minuscule in comparison. Every day of the week and twice on Tuesday. Yet Hansen’s predictions from 30 years ago were way too high, so were the ones from 20 years ago. And the ones 10 years ago? Even worse. Considering the trillions that stopping CO2 production will cost, isn’t it reasonable to ask that some sort of accurate 10-year prediction be demonstrated first? (or whatever time period that would be considered more than “weather”… never can get a definition from an alarmist on that).
Robert (04:32:09) : Well I’m here to tell ya buddy…I’m going with the models, they’ve saved me many times before.
I went with a few models too, as girlfriends. They didn’t save me from anything. They were good to look at though—for a while. But it was like chocolate ; great at first, but you get sick of it after a while and don’t want it anymore. It just goes to show you how reliable models, climate and/or human, are.
I’m looking for low maintenance girls now.
“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″
Indeed, it’s called an El Nino!
http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/people/klaus.wolter/MEI/table.html
http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/people/klaus.wolter/MEI/rank.html
oakgeo (00:24:32) :
“Please get it professionally translated. I think I just had a freshman flashback.”
My guess is that you mean “edited” rather than translated. The text as displayed needs only a few tweaks to make it grammatically correct. So, here’s one possible edited version; others are welcome to try reediting.
———————————–
While the Sun Sleeps
Henrik Svensmark, Professor, DTU, Copenhagen
Global Warming has stopped, and a cooling is beginning. But, no Climate Model has predicted a cooling – quite the contrary. This means that future climate is unpredictable, writes Henrik Svensmark.
Over the last few years, the Star which keeps us alive has had almost no Sunspots, which are the usual signs of the Sun’s magnetic activity.
Last week, the team behind Sohosatellitten (Solar and Heliospheric Observatory) reported that the number of sunspot-free days suggests that solar activity is heading toward its lowest level in about 100 years. Everything indicates that the Sun is moving into a hibernation-like state, and the obvious question is whether it has any significance for us on Earth.
If you ask the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which represents the current consensus on climate change, the answer is a reassuring “nothing.” But, history and recent research suggests that that view probably is completely wrong. Let us take a closer look at why.
Solar activity always has varied. Around the year 1000, we had a period of very high solar activity, which coincided with the Medieval Warm Period. It was a period when frosts in May (in Copenhagen) were an almost unknown phenomenon and of great importance for a good harvest. Vikings settled in Greenland and explored the coast of North America. China’s population doubled over this period. But, after about 1300, the Earth began to get colder, and it was the beginning of the period we now call the Little Ice Age. In this cold period, all the Viking settlements in Greenland disappeared, Sweden were surprised to see Denmark freeze over in ice, and the Thames in London froze repeatedly. More serious were the long periods of crop failure, which resulted in a poorly nourished population. Because of disease and hunger, the population was reduced by about 30% in Europe.
It is important to note that the Little Ice Age was a global event. It ended in the late 19th century as an increase in solar activity began. Over the past 50 years, solar activity has been the highest since the Medieval Warm Period over 1000 years ago. And now, it appears that the Sun is heading once again toward what is called a “Grand Minimum” such as we saw during the Little Ice Age.
Some have tried to explain the correlation between solar activity and climate through the ages as a coincidence, but it turns out that, almost no matter what time period is being studied – not just the last 1000 years – that correlation is there. Solar activity over the past 10,000 years has fluctuated repeatedly between high and low, with the Sun being in “Sleep Mode” approximately 17% of the time, each episode followed by a cooling of the Earth.
One can wonder that the IPCC does not believe that the Sun’s changing activity has no effect on the climate, but the reason is that they only include changes in solar radiation.
Looking at radiation only would be the simplest way by which the Sun could change the climate – a bit like turning up and down the brightness of a light bulb.
Satelite measurements of solar radiation have shown that the variations are too small to cause climate change, but many have closed their eyes to a second, much more powerful way that the Sun is able 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 from exploded stars, the Cosmic Radiation, are helping to form clouds.
When the Sun is active, its magnetic field shields more effectively against the cosmic rays from outer space before they reach our planet. These changes regulate the Earth’s cloud cover, which can turn the Earth’s temperature up or down. High solar activity produces fewer clouds, and the Earth gets warmer. Low solar activity gives Earth inferior shielding against cosmic rays, which results in increased cloud cover and hence a cooling. As the Sun’s magnetism has doubled in strength during the 20th century, this natural mechanism may be responsible for a large part of Global Warming during this period.
This also explains why most climate scientists are trying to ignore this possibility. They in fact favor the idea that the 20th century temperature rise is due mainly to human emissions of CO2. If the Sun has influenced a significant part of warming in the 20th century, it means that CO2’s contribution necessarily must be smaller.
Ever since our theory was put forward in 1996, it has undergone 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 managed to conduct experiments at DTU Space, where we demonstrated the existence of a physical mechanism. Cosmic radiation helps to form aerosols, which are the seeds for cloud formation.
Then came the criticism that the mechanism we found in the laboratory was unable to survive in the real atmosphere, and therefore had no practical significance. But that criticism we have just emphatically rejected. It turns out that the sun itself is doing what we might call natural experiments. Giant solar flares can have the cosmic radiation on Earth dive suddenly over a few days. In the days after the eruption, cloud cover falls by about 4 per cent. And the content of liquid water in clouds (droplets) is reduced by almost 7 per cent. Indeed, you could say that the clouds on Earth originated in space.
Therefore we have looked at the sun’s magnetic activity with increasing concern, since it began to wane in the mid-1990s.
That the sun could fall asleep in a deep minimum was suggested by solar scientists at a meeting in Kiruna in Sweden two years ago. As Nigel Calder and I updated our book “The Chilling Stars” therefore, we wrote a little provocative passage, “we recommend that our friends enjoy Global Warming while it lasts.”
Indeed, Global Warming has stopped, and a cooling is beginning. Last week, it was argued by Mojib Latif from the University of Kiel at the UN World Climate Conference in Geneva that cooling may continue through the next 10 to 20 years.
His explanation was natural changes in North Atlantic circulation and not in solar activity. But no matter how it is interpreted, the natural variations in climate then penetrate more and more.
One consequence may be that the sun itself will show its importance for climate and thus test the theories of Global Warming. No climate model has predicted a cooling of the Earth – quite the contrary.
This means that projections of future climate are unpredictable. A forecast that says it may be either warmer or colder for 50 years, is not very useful, since science is not able to predict solar activity.
So in many ways, we stand at a crossroads. The near future will be extremely interesting and I think it is important to recognize that nature is completely independent of what we humans think about it. Will Greenhouse theory survive a significant cooling of the Earth? Not in its current dominant form. Unfortunately, tomorrow’s climate challenges will be quite different than greenhouse theory’s predictions, and perhaps it agin will become popular to investigate the sun’s impact on 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 “Climate and the Cosmos” (Gads Forlag, DK ISBN 9788712043508)
Patrick Davis (07:33:36) :
“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.
Estimate was a poorly chosen word. The difficult process of gaining useful and valid information from the data is still a worthwhile effort, despite uncertainty.
Unless you are of the opinion that we should throw our hands in the air and sit down in ignorance?
@Scott A. Mandia
thanks for the Link. There it says:
“But the researchers show that the ozone hole has not started to shrink a lot as a result. The scientists predict the ozone hole will not start shrinking a lot until 2018. By that year, the ozone hole’s recovery will make better time.”
So my point is confirmed!
Maybe you should also read in “Nature” Vol. 449 the Article “Chemists poke a hole in ozon theory”
“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”
Oh, I’m so scared, I will have troubles sleeping tonight!
Everything that Tamino in his blog “Narrow Mind” does (but I didn’t read all his stuff), is using Hansen’s corrupted GISS temperature to “proof” that WUWT is wrong.
And the fact that he said once something correct, has no meaning, even a broken clock shows twice a day the correct time.
Robert E. Phelan (05:07:08) :
“I have no way of knowing whether Dr. Svensmark is correct about cosmic rays and clouds but he is definitely not correct about poor harvests causing a 30% decline in Europe’s population during the Little Ice Age. That phenomenon was caused by something called the Black Death”.
Robert, please read the article correctly:
Quote:
“But more serious was the long periods of crop failure, which resulted in a poorly nourished population, because of disease and hunger population was reduced] by about 30 per cent in Europe”.
Because of disease and hunger the article states.
About cosmic rays, look at the graph posted by Harold Ambler:
Harold Ambler (05:22:10) :
http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/webform/query.cgi?startdate=1964/08/11&starttime=00:00&enddate=2009/09/11&endtime=15:35&resolution=Automatic%20choice&picture=on
Fred Lightfoot (02:44:03) :
You really should write a memoir, not to prove that weather is local, just to share your experiences of ~50 years of adventure in the oil biz. Sounds like you have quite an interesting tale to tell to us armchair adventurers and probably many astute observations of how things really work in parts of the world that most of us are so isolated from. Get at it! (please)
@ur momisugly Ron de Haan (07:28:52) :
Next time I will write “sarcasm” in quotes next to a comment so that it is well understood to be just that.
I have certainly not read all of your posts on WUWT, but are you this concerned for the welfare of the world’s population if in fact, as most experts suggest, AGW is occurring? If you are truly the humanist you claim to be then you should be concerned either way.
I know this comment doesn’t really add to the discussion but sometimes a guy just has to defend himself. I think it should be clear by now that the reason I post here (and on many other blogs) is because I am very concerned about our future and am willing to take the potshots in order to reach a few folks who I believe are being misled.
RR Kampen (07:38:28) :
“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’ 🙂
RR Kampen,
I do not understand why you make this rather patronizing remark but
if you make a quote, please quote all the remarks made by Svensmark about the cooling, the climate models and the sun.
Because now you are placing his remarks out of the context.
I would be careful with that, especially because this is not a scientific report but as Anthony stated at the beginning of the article:
“Translation is from Google translation with some post translation cleanup of jumbled words or phrases by myself. In cases were the words were badly jumbled or didn’t quite make sense I inserted [my interpretation in brackets]”.
“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.”
All that Tamino cites as peer-reviewed sources are peer-reviewed by the same old cronies chasing all the political funding they can get.
Ultimately this coming NH winter will end Global Warming once and for all, ask the fjord ponies.
Mark (04:45:49) :
simplified drawing of the theory from your link :
http://www.sciencebits.com/files/pictures/climate/crcFig2.jpg
Something I think some don’t realize is that the cosmic ray level is not a constant. It varies, higher and lower. So just watching the sun to evaluate how much of cosmic rays are getting into the earths atmosphere and seeding clouds isn’t enough. You have to factor in cosmic ray levels.
And good luck trying to get a perfect handle on that!
The fact still remains that cosmic rays form aerosols–“the rest are details”.
Scott A. Mandia (07:39:41) : “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”.
What do you think happens at the ‘Open Mind’ when it suddenly turns out that Tamino is the guy waving a knife against a visitors gun? A fellow blogger, Lucia Liljegren, was recently banned from posting at his blog because she pointed out a problem in one of Taminos analyses…
Tamino: “Lucia appears to have the skill to figure this out. But rather than do the work, she prefers to come here and plant that idiotic “violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics” meme that we’ve all heard a thousand times from more denialist idiots than the planet has room for. She’s a petulant child, one who won’t be commenting here again.]”
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/08/17/not-computer-models/
She did the work at her blog and it of turned out that Lucias questions were more than justified. Tamino obviously sensed his defeat and banned her from posting rather than adress her relevant questions. Go to Lucias blog and search posts tagged ‘Tamino’. The case is an eye opener to an open mind.