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.
All this talk about Tamino, is that a singular named person like Cher or Madonna? Who exactly is he/she as I don’t see any information on the Open Mind site.
fred wisse (10:48:01) :
thank you very much mr fred lightfoot
Your description of reality is really the essence of the climate-discussion ,are we humans capable of changing the world that we are living in ? Are we so powerful that we are able to change the circumstances given by the cosmic order or how else you wish to describe this phenomenon
————————————
The Ozone hole goes a long way to suggest we are.
———————————–
I do believe the agw-crowd has fallen prey to the temptation to be able to control the power of mother nature or any other description of forces that are well beyond our control !
———————————–
Not control, affect. CO2 is uncontroversial in its role as a greenhouse gas. Adding it to the atmosphere will have an effect. The debate is how much and if it is really enough to be concerned about.
And the real debate for humans is whether the effect will have an impact on agriculture, if so then we have a problem if not then the skeptics like Lomborg suggest we have more pressing problems to engage with. Here in lies the debate.
Here is a slightly more tidied up version – Philip Foster
From the http://www.wattsupwiththat.com website
This opinion piece from Professor Henrik Svensmark was published September 9th in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten. 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]. Hat tip to Carsten Arnholm of Norway for bringing this to my attention. – Anthony Watts.
While the sun sleeps
HENRIK SVENSMARK,
Professor, Danish National Space Centre, Copenhagen
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 are unpredictable, writes Henrik Svensmark.
The star which keeps us alive has, over the last few years, had almost no sunspots – which are the usual signs of the sun’s magnetic activity.
Last week, the scientific team behind the Soho satellite (Solar and Heliospheric Observatory) reported that the number of sunspot-free days suggest that solar activity is heading towards 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 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), representing the current consensus on climate change, the answer is a reassuring ‘none’. But history and recent research suggests that the IPCC is probably completely wrong. Let us take a closer look at why.
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 period when frosts in May was an almost unknown phenomenon and of great importance for good harvests. Vikings settled in Greenland and explored the coast of North America. For example, 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. Swedes [were surprised to see Denmark covered in ice], and the Thames in London froze repeatedly. But 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 per cent in Europe.
It is important to note that the Little Ice Age was a global event. It ended in the late 19th century and was followed by an increase in solar activity. Over the past 50 years solar activity has been at its highest since the medieval warm period 1,000 years ago. And now it appears that the sun is heading towards what is called ‘a grand minimum’ such as we saw in the Little Ice Age.
The correlation between solar activity and climate through the ages has tried to be explained away as coincidence. But it turns out that almost no matter what time period is studied, not just the last 1000 years, there is a correlation: Solar activity has repeatedly over the past 10,000 years has fluctuated between high and low. Actually, the sun over the past 10,000 years spent approx. 17 percent of the time in a sleep mode, with a cooling of the Earth following.
One can wonder why the IPCC believes that the changing activity of the sun has no effect on the climate, but the reason is that they only consider changes in solar radiation.
Just radiation 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.
Satellite measurements of solar radiation have shown that the variations are too small to cause climate change, but the IPCC has closed its eyes to a second, much more powerful way, 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 of exploded stars, the cosmic radiation, are helping to form clouds.
When the Sun is active its magnetic field shields the earth better against the cosmic rays from outer space before they reach our planet, and by regulating the Earth’s cloud cover the sun can turn up or down the temperature. High solar activity produce fewer clouds and the earth gets warmer. Low solar activity reduces the shielding against cosmic radiation, and this results in increased cloud cover and hence a cooling. As the sun’s magnetism has doubled its 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 favour the idea that the 20th century temperature rise is mainly due to human emissions of CO2. If the sun has influenced a significant part of warming in the 20 century, it means that CO2’s contribution must necessarily be smaller.
Ever since our theory was put forward in 1996, it has received a very strong 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 the Danish National Space Centre, where we demonstrated the existence of a physical mechanism. The 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 this criticism we have just emphatically refuted. It turns out that the sun itself is doing what we might call ‘natural experiments’. Giant solar flares can cause the cosmic radiation on earth to decrease 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 been looking 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 comment, “we recommend our friends to enjoy global warming while it lasts.”
Indeed, global warming 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 penetrates 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, on the contrary.
This means that projections of future climate are unpredictable. A forecast [that] says it may be warmer or colder for 50 years is not very useful, for 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 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, and perhaps it will again become popular to investigate the sun’s impact on climate.
Professor Henrik Svensmark is director of the Center for Sun-Climate Research at the Danish National Space Centre Space.
His book “The Chilling Stars” has also been published in Danish as “Climate and the Cosmos” (Gads Forlag, DK ISBN 9788712043508)
dorlomin (11:20:02) : Fill one bottle to the top of CO2, close it. Then fill another with water, close it. Then heat them both with a infrared lamp during 30 minutes, then let them cool for five minutes. Check the temperatures. See?
THEY have cheated you, and you will feel it in your wallet very, very soon.
Leif Svalgaard (05:20:47) :
No specific trend has been stated. That was yours to discover.
As for cherry picking, the exploration of possibilities does require a starting point. Else we cease to explore.
Fair treatment assigns probabilites to the rise, continuance or fall of a vector.
Cherry picking is a biased conclusion trap, but so is the avoidance of exploration. In both cases, new learning is stifled.
Michael Hove (10:53:33) :
SOHO-23: Understanding a Peculiar Solar Minimum.
Is anyone that posts to this blog going to this conference? I am very interested in a summary of the presentations.
Yes, I’m giving an invited talk. Go to the link you provided http://www.soho23.org/ and click on ‘Scientific Program’
Scott
“You could certainly accuse ME of doing that but not true for Tamino. Tamino is brilliant at analyzing and interpreting data. As an example, see his analysis of arctic warming that appears to starkly contrast Lucy Skywalker’s assertions about no warming trend.
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/09/11/arctic-analysis/
”
Very pretty work by Tamino using the massaged Giss data. That Tamino’s graphs are so different from Lucy’s which are unadulterated show you just how important it is that the raw data is manipulated by venerable scientists.
“As a Kiwi, this reference may not mean much to you, but I think Jerry Jones has the same problem with Cowboy Stadium.”
Are you referring to their summer training-field “tent” that collapsed?
To Phil’s Dad: You’ve got my vote if you run in Texas (and you can come out of the AGW closet).
rbateman (11:36:55) :
No specific trend has been stated. That was yours to discover.
Then you lost me. I don’t know what you meant. Perhaps I’m too ‘literal’ and don’t follow flowery generalities too good.
dorlomin (11:11:14) :
“Try the lifecycle of stars, they get hotter as they get older.”
So you are implying that the much higher CO₂ levels in the distant past kept the Earth warm enough to support diversifiation and explosion of life & prevented the Earth from perhaps freezing over, which would otherwise have happened due to the cooler sun which could not provide enough energy to prevent snowball Earth from occurring?
Try this; CO₂, unlike the sun, does not radiate energy which can heat the Earth, sorry “mate”.
“Smokey (09:03:01) ” – Respect!
Flanagan (02:43:48) :
“I’m sorry but, 1st, this op-ed does not cite an evidence – it just states them without any reference whatsoever. Moreover, in every study by Svensmark, including the last ones, the author somewhat “forgets to mention” the absence of trend in solar radiation and other indicators between the 50ies and the 90ies – strangely corresponding to a rapid average warming. This is apparent in the link Anthony gave me to the WUWT post:
– 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.”
Now you’re getting it. This is exactly how folks should view anything related to climate. It’s nice to see Flanagan using skepticism. Now, if he was only smart enough to utilize this techinique on AGW.
Chris Schoneveld (04:24:49) :
Unfortunately, there is not even the slightest indication that there is a correlation between cloudiness and global temperatures, as far as I am aware of.
Let me share some graphs from climate4you webpage:
http://www.climate4you.com/images/TotalCloudCoverVersusGlobalSurfaceAirTemperature.gif
http://www.climate4you.com/images/LowCloudCoverVersusGlobalSurfaceAirTemperature.gif
http://www.climate4you.com/images/HadCRUT3%20and%20TropicalCloudCoverISCCP.gif
Even a correlation between global temperatures (let alone cloudiness) and solar activity has always been refuted by Leif.
Even a greenhorn like me knows, that period of regular freezing of northern Adriatic, Thames and even sea between Sweden and Denmark occurred coincidentally with Sun minimum; on the other side, MWP or last 60 years overlays with series of strong sun cycles, like Modern minimum which is ending now.
To refute distant MWP is old trick, but to refute also relatively recent and well recorded LIA is plain laughable.
Stephen Wilde (08:52:08) :
I agree with you about the sun on shorter time scales and only disagree on century or multi century time scales.
My comment was about the solar modulation of cosmic rays, not of climate. Do you disagree with the time scales of cosmic ray modulations, too?
Well… We can wait and see… I see no other course of action at this point in time… While I do not agree that CO2 is the main driver of climate I am not convinced that radiation from space is either. I guess in the end I am a skeptic on both theories at this point in time. I simply do not have enough information… I do agree that CO2 will warm the earth a modest amount, however I am skeptical that it is ‘runaway with feedbacks’. It may well be that cloud formation is a major component of the system as well but we just do not have enough knowledge yet to truly understand our climate system.
I know weather is not climate but still until I see us accurately be able to predict one I don’t know that I am going to believe anything about the other. The main reason is simulations RELY on trends to compute what will happen next with assumptions working on the result. If you write into a computer program that as CO2 increases then temperature increases guess what happens in the simulation as CO2 increases?
hope he is wrong… Winter is a pain, I like my food.
This story of “global warming” and its main characters would make a great fiction book, such as The Da Vinci’s Code, because it involves all needed ingredients: secret societies, a church, fanatic followers….etc,etc…just imagine!
It would make, also, which is surprising, a sensational comic story…just imagine:
Super Al fighting against the deniers or Super Al against the hidden WUWT deniers’ fortress, or “The trains of Jim”, etc,etc.
Phil’s Dad (09:55:41) :
“What some have set out to control just doesn’t want to be controlled.
A different plan for the future is required. (Suggestions on a post card…)”
Not sure if you are soliciting suggestions as to addressing blades of grass metaphor, but here is my view for what it may be worth:
The way to slow or even eventually reverse the exploding world population and it’s severe effects on the natural environment is to provide people with the means to raise themselves from poverty. It is a well know phenomenon that as the standard of living rises, the birth rate goes down. You need look no farther than Japan, an island of extremely limited resources which has provided its population with a standard of living so high that its low birth rate now threatens its ability for the young (too few) to care for the old (too many). Also true of western democracies which largely solve this problem by importing the poor from underdeveloped countries who through their high birth rate and low wages, maintain the standard of living of the citizenry.
OK smartypants, you say, how do we do that? Well, first, it’s not by having the world bank throw money at their corrupt politicians (a redundancy – no offense intended to yourself. Nor is it likely to happen by the well intentioned efforts of NGOs, missionaries, and the Peace Corps although all of those organizations certainly make a positive difference in the lives of individuals.
It is by providing or assisting them in the development of a source or sources of cheap, widely distributed, and dependable electrical power by which they can have the benefits of native industries, clean drinking water, sewage treatment plants, irrigation, and on and on.
But abundant coal reserves are polluting so we should discourage that, you say. So is their oil, and besides WE need their oil, you say. So what to do?
Well, if I had to pick just one, it would be thorium nuclear power – AKKKK!, the N word! (disclosure – I own some thorium related stock and intend to buy more). That’s dangerous to children and other living things, you say, and it will lead to terrorists having nuclear weapons. Luddite-ism, I say, based fears of 1950’s soviet reactor technology, post soviet failure to properly safeguard nuclear weapons, and a minor release of radioactive gas at TMI, also outmoded reactor technology. If you are European, you know that nuclear power is safe, clean, and protectable. No power source is completely safe, completely clean, or without adverse environment impacts, even (especially) the so-called renewables.
Why thorium? Most abundant, most anti-proliferative, high energy density, most amenable to passive safety systems, and eats the nuclear waste and decommissioned weapons grade uranium and thorium for lunch. Plus its waste is orders of magnitude shorter in half-life than Ur and Po. Non-pressueized thorium molten salt reactors, proven in concept at Oak Ridge 30 years ago, but so far undeveloped for commercial use have many potential advantages over present pressurized reactors and operate at a temperature nearly ideal for the production of hydrogen, already touted as the motor fuel of the future. Plus they can potentially be mass produced in small and medium power sizes (physical and wattage) that are ideal for locating close to where the power is needed rather than having to be distributed by long distance power lines through sensitive habitats.
Its the future (IMHO). India is already developing thorium cycle reactors.
dolormin:
“So you think you are not an echo chamber?”
That’s exactly right. WUWT is not an echo chamber, it is more a peer review site than anything. Ideas are argued until the truth is sorted out when possible. Tamino, RC, climateprogress, etc., are echo chambers.
Why? Because they censor skeptical posts, no matter how polite or strictly science related. They only agree with each other, that AGW is gonna getcha. If you disagree, your post will never see the light of day. The exception is if your post is so scientifically invalid that they can have fun deconstructing it. But if you intelligently disagree, like Lucia you will be permanently barred from the site.
That’s an echo chamber. WUWT, on the other hand, allows all points of view — as your own posts prove.
Now you know the definition of an echo chamber.
Next, you say: “And the real debate for humans is whether the effect [of higher CO2] will have an impact on agriculture, if so then we have a problem…”
Entirely wrong. You have it backward. CO2 does have an effect on agriculture. A very beneficial effect. More CO2 is better. Here you go:
click1
click2
click3
tallbloke (07:16:12) :
Quite right Leif. They now estimate that it was a 79% increase rather than a 100% increase.
Why do we need to go through this every time? First they said ‘doubled in the last 100 years’. When we pointed out that it didn’t: http://www.leif.org/research/Reply%20to%20Lockwood%20IDV%20Comment.pdf they changed it to ‘the first 50 years’ [because it has now come back down again]. Then they include data for the year 1901 which they have acknowledged is wrong. Then they cherry pick the lowest point and the highest point and calculate the changes using those, and finally it is quote wrong to use percentages for such a change [e.g. how many percent that the sunspot number changed between solar minimum and maximum?]. The issue was that the HMF now is just was it was 108 years ago and that there have not been any century-long change. Since we have simply plotted their data [green curve] as they generously gave us together with ours [blue curve], it is quite evident that we all agree on this: http://www.leif.org/research/Heliospheric-Magnetic-Field-Since-1900.png, so why do you always squirm over this? ‘The science is settled’ as far as this is concerned 🙂
Phil’s Dad (09:55:41) :
tallbloke:
attempting to ‘control’ their taking breaths or their steppings on blades of grass on the back of a dud theory is asking for an ass kicking”
You make my point for me. What some have set out to control just doesn’t want to be controlled.
A different plan for the future is required. (Suggestions on a post card…)
How about the politicians concerning themselves with minimizing beurocracy and letting the rest of us get on with real life? Payment to politicians will be on the basis of the number of laws they repeal. 😉
Chris Schoneveld (07:36:59) :
He won’t, as Al Gore won’t either.”
This very, very close to an ad hom. quite uncharacteristically for Leif.
I don’t know… Since when is just mentioning someone next to Al Gore an ad hom? 🙂
The point was that if you are at one pole of a very polarized issue, such debates are usually not of much use, as the pole sitter has too much tied up in his viewpoint.
Tom in Texas (11:49:38) “To Phil’s Dad: You’ve got my vote if you run in Texas (and you can come out of the AGW closet).”
Believe me Tom if I were running in Texas I would long since have declared my position on AGW.
(Loved the Rangers against the Indians by the way)
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?
It’s 10 years since the 90’s, 20 years since the 80’s and 30 years since disco. Right?
Phil’s Dad (10:40:48) :
“Stephen Wilde (10:02:13) jumps to a conclusion which I am perhaps guilty of leading him to.
He says “Not content with limiting our CO2 emissions this politician thinks the world is so sensitive to the presence of humanity that we are looking over a precipice to destruction with every breath.”
I do believe that everything we do has consequences but I do not for one minute think that they need to be destructive.
The point I was trying rather cack-handedly to make is that it is unrealistic to think that we can control enough climate forcing parameters to pin-point a desirable world temperature and enforce it.
Just controlling man-kind is impossible over any meaningful timescale – let alone the other factors which may well be more relevant.”
So the modellers imagine they can understand the inscrutable, and the politicians (some) imagine they understand enough to control mankind. About the same level, I suspect. Perhaps we live in chaotic systems, and are chaotic systems, because there is an important function here. What makes you (or some others) imagine (the same word again) that we have the knowledge or the wisdom or the understanding or the judgement to bring about an ideal society by control? Why can’t we settle for just some administration of what is actually here?
As for too many people; can you name for me, one other species on the planet which limits its numbers and impact because of some crazy idea about its power to wreck the place? As Philip Stott said, “the planet is tough as an old boot.” If nature knows best there are exactly the right number of people on the planet doing what needs to be done. And I am fed up with tree huggers claiming an exclusive right to speak for nature because they “feel” (this does not include you, necessarily).
If you could just tell me of a eugenicist who believes themself to be from the inferior part of the race, I would be more willing to listen.
Please excuse any exaggerations; I hope they are not extrapolations.
Tom in Texas: No I was referring to the big screen video displays that keep being hit by punters. I think Jerry had the same (short-sighted) engineers as Mr. Lightfoot’s oil company.
Cheers, Mark in Texas
To David in Davis (12:09:02).
I agree with the spirit of what you say but I am a “p11B” man myself.