Kiss Global Warming Goodbye, Say Hello To Global Cooling

Source : http://wattsupwiththat.com

While the UN, the ICCP and the WWF are calling world leaders to make all the necessary efforts to reach an agreement on greenhouse gases reduction at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change which will be held in Copenhagen in December (read Global Warming In The Arctic Above All Predictions), some scientists still dare to express opinions that conflict with the prevailing scientific opinion.

Last week, Henrik Svensmark published in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten an article titled "Mens Solen sover" (in English : "While the Sun Sleeps") in which he writes:

"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"

You can read the full article translated in English on Watts Up With That? website.

Not a new comer into the global warming controversy, Henrik Svensmark is a physicist at the Danish National Space Center who think that solar activity is the main contributor to climate change and that the greenhouse gases emissions only account for a small part.

His theory establishes a link between solar magnetic field, cosmic rays and clouds formation, clouds having a strong influences on how the Earth heats and cools.

"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 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."

Want more information on Cosmic rays and cloud formation? CLOUD is an experiment that uses a cloud chamber to study the possible link between galactic cosmic rays and cloud formation. Based at the Proton Synchrotron at CERN, this is the first time a high-energy physics accelerator has been used to study atmospheric and climate science; the results could greatly modify our understanding of clouds and climate.

Read full article »
Created by admin 1 year 6 weeks ago – Made popular 1 year 6 weeks ago
Category: Science & Nature   Tags:

More on the phytoplankton / CO2 / clouds cycles

Keiros 1 year 6 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago

I remember the discussion we had on coccolithophores and how these tiny algae were involved in the carbon cycle as well as in clouds formation.

I wonder if Henrik Svensmark has integrated their role in his theory. I know that he mentions "aerosols" in the process of clouds formation, but did not see specific mention to dimethyl sulphide (DMS) as a cloud condensation promoter.

The general consensus emphasize the role of CO2, while Svensmark affirms that the cosmic rays/solar activity/clouds cycle has more impact than CO2 on the global energy balance.

The phytoplankton (and more specifically the coccolithophores) is exactly at the interface of both cycles, as its life cycle both impacts and is impacted by carbon dioxide and clouds density and there are several positive and negative feedbacks at work in the whole process which make it quite impossible to integrate in any predictive model.

So, how accurate can be predictions based on models that occult such a big part of the parameters?

And eventually, Global Warming or Global Cooling?

Asia 1 year 6 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago

You're saying that predictions are not accurate because the models do not include all the parameters in their simulations. But isn't it true for all climate models, whether they predict global warming or global cooling?

Hi Asia, you're right,

Keiros 1 year 6 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago

Hi Asia,

you're right, people often forget that models are just models and that in many cases, they only reflect their author's assumptions.

That's what is happening with Global Warming: models are based on a correlation between global surface temperatures increase and CO2 increase. That could well be (or not?) a "cum hoc ergo propter hoc" logical fallacie (correlation does not imply causation).

Climate is changing, I have no doubt about that, but I really wonder to which extend it is caused by human activities or by natural causes (or a mix of human and natural causes but in which proportions?).

And I seriously doubt of the reliability of the models used to "prove" the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) for several reasons: the reliability of the data and the quality of the coding.

Read GIStemp invnt.f A Sympathy Plea by E.M. Smith to get an idea of what "poor coding" means.

World leaders and policy makers will meet in Copenhagen to take decisions about our future based on poorly coded models and biaised data!

I'm not a denier: I agree that climate is changing, I even agree that a part of this change might be caused by human activities. But I don't agree at all on the theory that claim that CO2 is the main perpetrator, or on models that predict what the climate will be in 100 years. None of these models includes solar activity, or the role of clouds in global temperatures.

Spending billions just to drastically reduce CO2 emissions is wasting money that could be better employed to solve greater problems: AIDS, malaria, cancers, hunger, clean water, oceans protection, these are just some examples on a very long list.