Wrong on Climate Change?

(Here is a compelling article published in the Times Online, that challenges, conventional wisdom on the issue. WC)

February 11, 2007

An experiment that hints we are wrong on climate change

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

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.

7 thoughts on “Wrong on Climate Change?

  1. How very very interesting! I love seeing the small voice being heard!


    Actually Jennifer, the ‘small’ voice is growing. There are many renowned scientists who do not subscribe to the p.c. version of global warming. Many people like to forward the idea that all the research is in and it’s all settled but that is far from the truth. Even if you just look at it logically that couldn’t possibly be true. If all the research were done and all the answers were known then we’d have the solution or know what we needed to do to solve it, wouldn’t we? Unless, of course, it isn’t man-made and it occurs naturally in nature regardless of what man does or doesn’t do – well then that would be a different story, eh?


  2. Intriguing. I guess if he’s right we can all have a good laugh at people who thought that greenhouse gases were the sole problem.

    Well I don’t want to be mean and laugh at people but what many don’t realize is that there are more greenhouse gases generated by the oceans than there are by cars or machines. And most of the ‘studies’ that prove that global warming is man-made don’t use all the data in their studies. They only use data from the last hundred years (or less). Since global warming has been going on with the planet since it’s existence wouldn’t it make sense to use all the known data in the history of the planet to make the equations? I do. Of course then, it would be hard to ‘prove’ that man caused it. So they cherry pick the data and make people feel bad for driving cars and using gas. As long as this remains a political issue it will never be solved.


  3. I’ve heard about this stuff before. I seem to remember watching a documentary on how the whole ozone layer and apparent global warming thing was actually a part of the earths natural cycles and they believe it has happened in the past, both the warming & the cooling – WAY in the past, long before man came along which means whilst we may contribute in a TINY way, we are by no means the catalyst.
    Can’t remember which station it was on though, if I figure it out I’ll see if I can find it.

    Right…exactly the point of this article I think. You see, if you used all of the data on climate change for the history of the planet it would likely show that man had little to no effect on weather conditions. Which is not to say we should trash the planet but it also says that really, thus far, we haven’t. Also, I’m sure I recently somewhere that the ‘tear’ in the ozone layer is actually almost completely gone. So isn’t that a hooray for us? Doesn’t that mean that we are somehow making positive changes and at least trying to be the champions of a clean planet?

    If anyone is really interested they should go to James Hudnall’s blog – there is always constant discussion and articles about global warming/climate change – and these guys are so much smarter than I about it. Fascinating topic really.


  4. Excellent piece WC! I read this while it is 27 degrees in Houston, an all time historic low for February.

    Global warming is a Democrat/Socialist tax scheme to pay politicians “hush” money and keep lazy, over-educated government wonks on the payroll.

    Thanks Mick. I’ve heard the ‘green’ movement has its roots in socialism, etc – but not the global warming thing. Although, it’s not much of a stretch. Personally I think it’s a scare tactic used to control the masses. Climate change is normal on this planet – sure we may have an ice age, or a tropical age or get hit by a meteor – but it’s not going to change if we stop driving SUV’s and it won’t be brought on because of that either. LOL – it’s the utter manic hysteria on the issue that drives me up a wall. They’ve been preaching this crap for 30 years and none of the prophecies have come to pass – I have to wonder why no one seems to notice this.


  5. Well, I agree and disagree here. There is certainly a lot of evidence to support the global warming theory. Even the Bush administration has acknowledged this. The problem warrants a lot more study.

    But I agree with you that this has become the new binkie for the looney left. Remember all those people who used to have “No Nukes” bumper stickers on their cars? Well, they’re baaaackk!!


    The sad thing is Smith is that they never left. EEOOOOWWWW! Them people scare the begeebers outta me.

    Just to clarify – I don’t dispute that there is global warming and/or global cooling – my contention is that it is a natural weather phenom on this planet and man neither caused it, nor, at this stage can he stop it. Ever hear the phrase, ‘it’s not nice to fool with mother nature’? I wonder if that doesn’t apply here. I mean, isn’t it awfully arrogant of us to believe that our sorry and small contribution to a planet that has been around for millions of years can really change its natural course?


  6. Just think about the ice ages and the fact that they find mastodon bones 20 miles offshore from Boston. There is global warming and cooling. But no evidence of man-made global warming. It is a scare tactic that the Green party donated to the Democrats. It’s neo-Stalinisim.

    I agree – I really do. The thing too that bothers me is that those who are always screaming so much about being able to hear the dissenting voice has no tolerance when the dissention is on their issue.


Comments are closed.