Advice Goddess Blog
« Previous | Home | Next »

Global Warming Caused By Star Exhaust, Not Car Exhaust?
The Times/UK has a very interesting article by Nigel Calder, former editor of New Scientist, about an experiment by Henrik Svensmark in Copenhagen that hints we are wrong about climate change:

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.

But, could it be something else?

...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.

Posted by aalkon at February 13, 2007 1:47 PM

Comments

Blasphemy!

We LOVE that!

Amy's conversion to the Dark Side of the Force is nearly complete.

Posted by: Crid at February 13, 2007 5:46 AM

I'm all about blasphemy.

What amazes me is the ordinary people who pretend to understand climatology, which is an exceptionally complicated science. There's a girl in my French class who insists she knows what caused global warming and what should be done about it -- in between talking astrology.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at February 13, 2007 6:16 AM

There's nothing human kind can't do if it sets it's mind to it! We can control the WEATHER! It's a policy problem, like phone solicitation!

Posted by: Crid at February 13, 2007 6:34 AM

I initially misread this bit...

"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...."

..as Amy's own words.

For two seconds, I was thinking - with commendable cheer - "crumbs, Amy is modest - just slipping that in!"

Posted by: Jody Tresidder at February 13, 2007 7:33 AM

The best argument against human caused warming is the certainty of the eco-nuts.

The best way to deal with global warming is to handle the effects, since either way the causes are probably impossible to change at this point. And it's beneficial to decrease pollution in any case.

Posted by: Todd Fletcher at February 13, 2007 7:42 AM

Global warming or not, I see can't imagine a reason to not try to reduce pollution. God forbid we keep someone from developing asthsma.

Posted by: meshaliu at February 13, 2007 7:58 AM

I have been pretty skeptical aout global warming for a while. As I mentioned here a while back, when you drive to one of the largest glacier fields in Alaska, there are signs that show where the glacier was at say, the signing of the Declaration of Independence, Lincoln's assassination, etc. The glaciers have receded by many many miles, long before industrialization began.

Thanks for posting another (dark) side Amy.

(PS - Tillerson of Exxon today stated there are 4 trillion known barrels of oil in world reserves. So much for peak oil theory as well.)

Posted by: eric at February 13, 2007 8:05 AM

I totally agree with you about pollution reduction, and I'm also for making an effort not to waste resources.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at February 13, 2007 8:08 AM

Todd! Yes! Exactly-zack-zack-zoodle.

For some reason, people suddenly think the economy will be useless against this this problem... But money is all about resilience. It's all about dealing with an uncaring world.

Posted by: Crid at February 13, 2007 8:10 AM

Todd, what effects need handling?

Posted by: Jon at February 13, 2007 8:25 AM

Though it's good to be well-rounded and informed, I prefer to leave actual science to the scientists. I believe almost all them, barring those employed by Exxon-Mobil think-tanks, believe global warking is real. A majority at this time do believe global warming is caused by human activity, though there may be other factors. I really can't think of any reason to actively disagree with them, unless you have either conducted your own independent study, or you have political motives that are coloring your interpretation. You can have an opinion on the best flavor ice cream or the worst-dressed celebrity. Non-scientists don't get an opinion on global warming, any more than they get an opinion on evolution, or an opinion on the shape of the earth.

Posted by: beansworth at February 13, 2007 10:48 AM

Non-scientists don't get an opinion on global warming, any more than they get an opinion on evolution, or an opinion on the shape of the earth.

What a pile of crap. This is certainly the dumbest statement I've read today. It's even in the running for the dumbest statement I've read in 2007.

In what world do you live where people don't get to have opinions just because they aren't board-certified experts?

It's OK, though. I have a Ph.D. in a scientific discipline, so from now on I shall be the one to tell everyone what is correct about sciencey matters, regardless of my field of expertise. Any non-scientists here, your opinions on the above matters, as well as the following: when does life begin, what should we do with embryos, when their loved ones should be kept on or removed from life support, and which is the correct toilet paper to use are henceforth declared invalid.

All hail the reign of scientists!

Posted by: justin case at February 13, 2007 11:05 AM

"Todd, what effects need handling?"

How should I know? Rising sea levels, or, something...isn't it? If I was informed, do you think I'd be posting comments on blogs?

Posted by: Todd Fletcher at February 13, 2007 11:51 AM

> I prefer to leave actual science
> to the scientists.

If this were a strictly scientific question, your contentment with ignorance might have some charm, but this is a matter involving economics, politics, religion and decency. You get a piece of the issue whether you deserve to or not.

> A majority at this time do believe
> global warming

Consensus is not evidence. (However, on one level, Tressider is likely to be upset with me for pointing this out.)

> I shall be the one to tell everyone
> what is correct about sciencey matters

Justin comes through like a brother! Thanks, Buddy! Some of were never that good with the booklearnin', and we need to be shown the way to a more compassionate, sustainable tomorrow for our fellow man and all our carbon cousins! Good to have you in the Big Chair!

Super.

Posted by: Crid at February 13, 2007 11:52 AM

fair enough - I guess that is why beansworth is here. militantly un-informed and proud of it.

The only good reasearch dollar is a tax funded research dollar. Or maybe a Soros dollar.

So no, Justin, unless you work for the gub'ment, you can't be our scientist-in-chief.

Posted by: Jon at February 13, 2007 12:36 PM

You know, Amy, for a self-titled rationalist, you post a lot of junk science. Climate change isn't really in doubt, but the only articles I see on your blog are those that push the old "it's uncertain, unproven, etc..." line.

Posted by: Andrew at February 13, 2007 1:40 PM

"...militantly un-informed and proud of it."

That's a good line.

"Climate change isn't really in doubt"

Yes, Andrew, the climate is changing. The question is: what is causing this change? Some are suspicious of the *man-made cause* school of thought: it lines up a little too nicely with the politics of those who wish to remake society in the mold of Cuba.

Posted by: doombuggy at February 13, 2007 2:20 PM

Thanks, doom...exactly right. I don't dispute climate change -- but I know I don't know enough about climatology to know what's causing it. I'm amazed at the people who insist they know -- especially if they aren't Ph.D.'s at Cal Tech.

What's wrong or horrible about airing this view?Where's the bad science? Where's the irrationality in the guy's work?

Posted by: Amy Alkon at February 13, 2007 3:39 PM

The single strongest argument against antrhopogenic global warming is the response demanded by the most fervent followers of the Greenhouse theory.

The answer, they tell us, is to eliminate the industrial society. Which will have as a net effect the destruction of a fairly large portion of humanity (mostly the brown ones, though). And when they propose solutions that are little more than failed Soviet dogma that will enrich them at the expense of everyone else, well, that kinda puts the lie to their 'caring more than thou' posture.

If the answer is socialism, then the question was wrong.

Posted by: brian at February 13, 2007 4:56 PM

Dude, I'm going to steal that line.

Posted by: Crid at February 13, 2007 6:20 PM

The single strongest argument against antrhopogenic global warming is the response demanded by the most fervent followers of the Greenhouse theory.

No. Morons who overreact to a theory are not an argument against that theory. Theories are tools for thinking about the world and developing testable ideas. They stand independently of their proponents. Morons are just tools.

Posted by: justin case at February 13, 2007 6:39 PM

Tools... Tools in the hand of the MAN!!!!

> They stand independently
> of their proponents.

They do until we're asked to "leave it to actual scientists."

Posted by: Crid at February 13, 2007 6:49 PM

that reminds me of the saying:

Americans are anti-intellectual, because intellectuals are anti-American

Posted by: Jon at February 13, 2007 7:17 PM

You know we didn't start getting hurricanes till there was a weather channel. I'm residing in southeast NC so I see a lot of em.

Posted by: Chicknlady at February 14, 2007 1:18 AM

It reminds me of the Penn and Teller stunt on their show on how misinformed environmentalists are when a vast majority of them signed a petition on banning dihydrogen monoxide. Enjoy the morons/tools.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yi3erdgVVTw

Posted by: Joe at February 14, 2007 5:17 AM

That video above was a good one!
Much talk, but how many look at the actual data. Here's a site for that www.global-warming-and-the-climate.com

Posted by: Per at March 2, 2007 8:33 AM

Leave a comment