It's the Sun, stupid!

An experiment that hints we are wrong on climate change

Nigel Calder, former editor of New Scientist, says the orthodoxy must be challenged


From The Sunday Times
February 11, 2007


When politicians and journalists declare that the science of global warming is settled, they show a regrettable ignorance
about how science works. We were treated to another dose of it recently when the
experts of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued the Summary
for Policymakers that puts the political spin on an unfinished scientific dossier on
climate change due for publication in a few months’ time. They declared that most of the rise in temperatures
since the mid-20th century is very likely due to man-made greenhouse gases.

The small print explains “very likely” as meaning that the experts who made the
judgment felt 90% sure about it. Older readers may recall a press conference at
Harwell in 1958 when Sir John Cockcroft, Britain’s top nuclear physicist, said he was
90% certain that his lads had achieved controlled nuclear fusion. It turned out that
he was wrong. More positively, a 10% uncertainty in any theory is a wide open breach
for any latterday Galileo or Einstein to storm through with a better idea.
That is how science really works.

Twenty years ago, climate research became politicised in favour of one particular hypothesis, which redefined
the subject as the study of the effect of greenhouse gases. As a result, the rebellious spirits essential for
innovative and trustworthy science are greeted with impediments to their research careers. And while the
media usually find mavericks at least entertaining, in this case they often imagine that anyone who
doubts the hypothesis of man-made global warming must be in the pay of the oil
companies. As a result, some key discoveries in climate research go almost unreported.

Enthusiasm for the global-warming scare also ensures that heatwaves make headlines, while contrary symptoms,
such as this winter’s billion-dollar loss of Californian crops to unusual frost, are relegated to the business pages.
The early arrival of migrant birds in spring provides colourful evidence for a recent warming of the northern lands.
But did anyone tell you that in east Antarctica the Adélie penguins and Cape petrels are turning up at their
spring nesting sites around nine days later than they did 50 years ago? While sea-ice has diminished in the Arctic
since 1978, it has grown by 8% in the Southern Ocean.

So one awkward question you can ask, when you’re forking out those extra taxes for climate change, is
“Why is east Antarctica getting colder?” It makes no sense at all if carbon dioxide is driving global warming.
While you’re at it, you might inquire whether Gordon Brown will give you a refund if it’s confirmed that
global warming has stopped. The best measurements of global air temperatures come from American weather satellites,
and they show wobbles but no overall change since 1999.

That levelling off is just what is expected by the chief rival hypothesis, which says that the sun drives climate
changes more emphatically than greenhouse gases do. After becoming much more active during the 20th century,
the sun now stands at a high but roughly level state of activity. Solar physicists warn of possible global cooling,
should the sun revert to the lazier mood it was in during the Little Ice Age 300 years ago.

Climate history and related archeology give solid support to the solar hypothesis. The 20th-century episode,
or Modern Warming, was just the latest in a long string of similar events produced by a hyperactive sun,
of which the last was the Medieval Warming.

The Chinese population doubled then, while in Europe the Vikings and cathedral-builders prospered.
Fascinating relics of earlier episodes come from the Swiss Alps, with the rediscovery in 2003 of a long-forgotten
pass used intermittently whenever the world was warm.

What does the Intergovernmental Panel do with such emphatic evidence for an alternation of warm and cold periods,
linked to solar activity and going on long before human industry was a possible factor? Less than nothing.
The 2007 Summary for Policymakers boasts of cutting in half a very small contribution by the sun to climate change
conceded in a 2001 report.

Disdain for the sun goes with a failure by the self-appointed greenhouse experts to keep up with inconvenient
discoveries about how the solar variations control the climate. The sun’s brightness may change too little
to account for the big swings in the climate. But more than 10 years have passed since Henrik Svensmark
in Copenhagen first pointed out a much more powerful mechanism.

He saw from compilations of weather satellite data that cloudiness varies according to how many atomic particles
are coming in from exploded stars. More cosmic rays, more clouds. The sun’s magnetic field bats away many
of the cosmic rays, and its intensification during the 20th century meant fewer cosmic rays, fewer clouds,
and a warmer world. On the other hand the Little Ice Age was chilly because the lazy sun let in more cosmic rays,
leaving the world cloudier and gloomier.

The only trouble with Svensmark’s idea — apart from its being politically incorrect — was that meteorologists
denied that cosmic rays could be involved in cloud formation. After long delays in scraping together the funds
for an experiment, Svensmark and his small team at the Danish National Space Center hit the jackpot in the
summer of 2005.

In a box of air in the basement, they were able to show that electrons set free by cosmic rays coming through
the ceiling stitched together droplets of sulphuric acid and water. These are the building blocks for cloud condensation.
But journal after journal declined to publish their report; the discovery finally appeared in the Proceedings of the
Royal Society late last year.

Thanks to having written The Manic Sun, a book about Svensmark’s initial discovery published in 1997,
I have been privileged to be on the inside track for reporting his struggles and successes since then. The outcome is a second book,
The Chilling Stars, co-authored by the two of us and published next week by Icon books. We are not exaggerating,
we believe, when we subtitle it “A new theory of climate change”.

Where does all that leave the impact of greenhouse gases? Their effects are likely to be a good deal less than advertised,
but nobody can really say until the implications of the new theory of climate change are more fully worked out.

The reappraisal starts with Antarctica, where those contradictory temperature trends are directly predicted by
Svensmark’s scenario, because the snow there is whiter than the cloud-tops. Meanwhile humility in face of Nature’s
marvels seems more appropriate than arrogant assertions that we can forecast and
even control a climate ruled by the sun and the stars.

The Chilling Stars is published by Icon. It is available for £9.89
including postage from The Sunday Times Books First on 0870 165 8585

..........

Watch these videos to understand Galactic Cosmic Ray influence on Earth's climate on a geological timescale
danskdocumentarfim YouTube

1 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IS3loqhOj4w&feature=related
2 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mpCPDlshZv0&feature=related
3 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cuu-HYcwgiU&feature=related
4 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kCORm67b3QY&feature=related
5 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFUaFj1rHoo&feature=related

Earth changes from snowball conditions to hothouse conditions (a difference of about 5 - 10 degrees C) as our solar system
moves in and out of the spiral arms of the Milky Way Galaxy over a “galactic year” of about 250 million years.

Currently we are in a cool period (the earth has polar and other ice-caps) because our solar system is passing
through a minor spiral arm of the Milky Way.

Coming to more recent small-scale climate change our sun modulates the background galactic cosmic radiation from the Milky Way.
When the sun is “active” the solar wind blows away some of the galactic cosmic radiation and the earth gets warmer.
When the sun is “quiet” more galactic radiation gets through to the earth and creates ions - the tiny specs (aerosols)
which provide the nuclei around which cloud water droplets condense making the skies more cloudy, reflecting sunlight
back into space and therefore making the earth cooler.

The reconstruction of Earth’s cyclical ocean temperatures (over 500 million years) by measuring varying oxygen
isotopes built into scallop fossils (brachyopods) correlates well with the solar/galactic cycles. Together these findings
show that galactic/solar activity dominates how Earth’s temperatures evolve.

The message is that the universe is driving events like climate on earth to an extent not recognised by orthodox IPCC climatology.
The Svensmark/Shaviv hypothesis is supported by both empirical (geological, paleontological) observation and experimental results
(CERN Cloud chamber).

Svensmark, like many others contradicting climate orthodoxy, experienced difficulty and delay in getting his paper published.

.......

Explanation from Chiefio re "spiral arms" of the galaxy here. http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2010/04/27/cosmic-rays-did-it/ ......... http://www.climatechangefraud.com/behind....n-is-one-expert New Global Warming Scandal: 'Consensus' on Sun is One Expert WRITTEN BY JOHN O'SULLIVAN, SUITE 101 | 25 JUNE 2010 New global warming data fraud scandal seems to show a faked 'consensus' of the impact of solar forcing on Earth's climate based on one finding. A staggering new finding seems to mire the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in global warming scandal every bit as devastating as Climategate. The news broke June 24, 2010 on a Czech climate skeptic blog, Klimaskeptik.cz, that calls the latest global warming scandal, "Judithgate.” Roughly translated into English the site reveals that the The IPCC relied on evidence supplied by just only one Solar Physicist, Judith Lean, to create their "consensus that solar influence upon the climate was minimal. Judithgate Scandal Goes Viral The story has going viral on climate skeptic websites and is reported on a leading blog, ‘Climate Realists’ as ,’IPCC "Consensus" on Solar Influence was Only One Solar Physicist who Agreed with Her Own Paper.’ Apparently, objections were raised to the IPCC by the Norwegian Government as early as the draft version in the preliminary phases of the IPCC’s draft of their Fourth Report of 2007, which won the organization the Nobel Peace Prize. A total of six further peer-reviewed papers were dismissed by the IPCC for inclusion. At least one of the papers, by leading solar expert Hans Svensmark totally contradicted the IPCC’s conclusions that the Sun was not a key player in climate change. Norwegian Government Snubbed By ‘Politicized’ IPCC Citing evidence from the IPCC’s Fourth Report (AR4) second draft comments objections to the creation of a faked consensus among scientists was raised by scientitic representatives from the Norwegian Government which spotted the fraud. Their noted objection reads: "I would encourage the IPCC to [re-]consider having only one solar physicist on the lead author team of such an important chapter. In particular since the conclusion of this section about solar forcing hangs on one single paper in which J. Lean is a coauthor. I find that this paper, which certainly can be correct, is given too much weight." The IPCC dismissed the objections of the Norwegian government outright stating that any such changes would be “impractical.” “Scandalous Re-writing” of Climate Data Records The Czech blog outraged at what it sees as apparent cherry-picking to fit a pre-determined political view to blame global warming on man-made emissions of carbon dioxide, fumed, "Judith Lean, along with Claus Frohlich, are responsible for the scandalous rewriting of graphs of solar activity.” Backed up by evidence obtained from the Harvard University Library, it may be proven that satellite measurements between 1986 and 96 do indicate that Judith Lean and Claus Frohlich (authors of the single study noted above) "manipulated" their data. More Woe For Beleagured IPCC Chairman, Pachauri The article asserts that there was also further deliberate intent committed by the IPCC to stifle objections raised by other international climate experts, “People who were in charge of the satellites and created the original graphs (the world's best astrophysics: Doug Hoyt, Richard C. Willson), protested in vain against such manipulation.” The head of the IPCC, Rajendra Pachauri, had already admitted to similar such "errors" in the Glaciergate scandal but has repeatedly refused to resign, as reported in the India Times. The UN has been conducting it's own internal investigations but has not divulged its findings to the public. ....... http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/0....luence-was.html THURSDAY, JUNE 24, 2010 IPCC "Consensus" on Solar Influence was Only One Solar Physicist who Agreed with Her Own Paper Klimaskeptik.cz, a Czech climate skeptic blog, has posted today an interesting article "Judithgate: The IPCC was only one Solar Physicist" (google rough translation). Her name is Judith Lean. On the basis of this "consensus of one" solar physicist, the IPCC proclaimed solar influences upon the climate to be minimal. Objection to this was raised by the Norwegian government in the AR4 second draft comments and essentially dismissed by the IPCC: "I would encourage the IPCC to [re-]consider having only one solar physicist on the lead author team of such an important chapter. In particular since the conclusion of this section about solar forcing hangs on one single paper in which J. Lean is a coauthor. I find that this paper, which certainly can be correct, is given too much weight"...: Klimaskeptic.cz continues [google translation + editing]: "As I wrote elsewhere (article on pmode ACRIM), Judith Lean, along with Claus Frohlich, are responsible for the scandalous rewriting of graphs of solar activity. Satellites showed that the TSI (measured in watts) between 1986 and 96 increased by about one third. Judith Lean and Claus Frohlich (authors of the single study noted above) "manipulated" the data. People who were in charge of the satellites and created the original graphs (the world's best astrophysicists: Doug Hoyt, Richard C. Willson), protested in vain against such manipulation. Willson: "Fröhlich has made changes that are wrong ... He did not have sufficient knowledge of (satellite) Nimbus7 ... pmode composites are useful for those who argue that global warming may be primarily due to anthropogenic causes." [cautionary note English->Czech->English translation of Willson] Since the appropriate questions were not asked, the IPCC knows little about the sun. While the rest of the IPCC AR4 is rich in graphics, there is not a single graph of cosmic radiation, solar cycle lengths, or geomagnetism - which is very strange because they are important indicators of solar activity. The IPCC reports should be a comprehensive, complete summary of current scientific knowledge. It's due to the fact that these indicators say what alarmists don't want to hear. These indicators of rising solar activity 1970-1990s show global warming (in whole or in substantial part) can be explained naturally and is not the fault of humans. The IPCC deliberately hid these graphs from readers under the principle of hide the decline." The graphs the IPCC didn't want you to see: Solar Geomagnetic Activity shows increase starting in 1970's The length of the sunspot cycle - the shorter the cycle, the greater the solar activity. compare with the graph above. The evolution of ground temperatures from Phil Jones (CRU) in 1986. Retrieved from famous Christensen study 1991. See here and here. The rewriting of the history of 20th century temperatures, see article here. Red is the original graph of satellite measurements of solar constant TSI (composite ACRIM). ACRIM measurements show that in 1996, the sun was more active than ten years before, in contrast to the "manipulated" estimates of the sole IPCC solar physicist Judith Lean (2004) (blue). Cosmic ray counts (decreases when solar activity increases. The solar wind protects the Earth against space radiation, which in turn may increase cloud formation -see Cosmoclimatology) Earth temperature correlated to solar activity. The blue line is a reconstruction of solar activity. (Jones 1993). Black is the Northern hemisphere temperature (Jones 1993). Graph from IPCC AR4 showing global temperatures in black and modeled temperatures in blue assuming no anthropogenic forcing. The graph allegedly proves that anthropogenic greenhouse emissions must be the cause of global warming, but since the increase in solar activity 1970-1990 seen in the first graph above is not taken into account, the blue model is inadequate and proves nothing. (added: The models also fail to account for the huge influences of ocean oscillations.) Conclusion: The IPCC conclusion about human influence on climate - and plans for reworking the entire energy economy on the basis of the carbon footprint - stands and falls with the question of how significant is the influence of solar activity. Yet the IPCC devoted only a few paragraphs to this essential topic, and based the "consensus" on a single astronomer, who agreed with herself. « Last Edit: Jun 26, 2010, 9:34am by marchesarosa »