How the Global warming theory got started.
- Thread starter Walter
- Start date
This supports Walter's standard spiel that global warming is some kind of myth. It somehow escapes these people that we are annually losing cubic miles of ice from the poles and from Greenland and we've seen a steady rise in global mean temperatures since the industrial revolution. In that time we've dumped at least 7 trillion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. A group of climatologists have told us that there is a connection between the CO2 and the temperature rise. Since there has been no evidence that the sun is warming up, that connection seems reasonable.
Another group of climatologists have told us that there is NOT a connection between the CO2 and the temperature rise.
See, I just don't really care if it is or isn't a true issue.
If it IS real, then I'm doing what I can, turning to more efficient windows, vehicles which burn less fuel, and trying to support companies which strive for efficiency, where and when I can.
If it's NOT real, well, it still doesn't make much sense to carry on using up resources at the rate we are anyway, so I'd STILL carry on with what I'm doing.
It seems like a moot point to me.
If it IS real, then I'm doing what I can, turning to more efficient windows, vehicles which burn less fuel, and trying to support companies which strive for efficiency, where and when I can.
If it's NOT real, well, it still doesn't make much sense to carry on using up resources at the rate we are anyway, so I'd STILL carry on with what I'm doing.
It seems like a moot point to me.
It is just a theory. I think the Earth is warming up. But it has warmed up and cooled down over the eons and this may be one of those cycles.
However, Even if its wrong, it seems reasonable to assume that at some point down the line all the crap we dump into our environment is going to come back and haunt us. The Earth is of finite size and will only take so much.
However, Even if its wrong, it seems reasonable to assume that at some point down the line all the crap we dump into our environment is going to come back and haunt us. The Earth is of finite size and will only take so much.
I'm just an engineer and not a climatologist but I do know that we've pumped between seven and eight trillion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere in a relatively short time. It is fallacy to think it has no effect. Something is causing the temperature to rise. Since the sun has not warmed up, the CO2 is the obvious culprit.
Obvious to you but not everybody.
Cosmoclimatology: A New Perspective on Global Warming
Volume 10, Number 8: 21 February 2007
Volume 10, Number 8: 21 February 2007
Has recent global warming primarily been caused by increases in the air's CO2 content? Or has it been caused by reductions in low-level cloudiness that have caused less solar radiation to be reflected back to space, thereby permitting more solar energy to warm the earth? Henrik Svensmark, Director of the Center for Sun-Climate Research of the Danish National Space Center in Copenhagen, thinks the latter; and in an enlightening article published in the February issue of Astronomy & Geophysics (Svensmark, 2007) he tells us why.
Svensmark begins by describing how he and his colleagues experimentally determined that electrons released in the air by galactic cosmic rays act as catalysts that significantly accelerate the formation of ultra-small clusters of sulphuric acid and water molecules that are the building blocks of cloud condensation nuclei. He then discusses how the flux of cosmic rays through the atmosphere is affected by variations in solar magnetic activity. During periods of greater activity, greater shielding of the earth occurs, less cosmic rays penetrate to the lower atmosphere, less cloud condensation nuclei are produced, fewer and less reflective low-level clouds occur, and more solar radiation is absorbed by the surface of the earth, increasing near-surface air temperatures.
Support for key elements of this scenario is provided by graphs illustrating the close correspondence between global low-cloud amount and cosmic-ray counts over the period 1984-2004, as well as by the history of changes in the flux of galactic cosmic rays since 1700, which correlates well with earth's temperature history over the same time period, starting from the latter portion of the Maunder Minimum (1645-1715), when Svensmark says "sunspots were extremely scarce and the solar magnetic field was exceptionally weak," and continuing on through the 20th century, over which last hundred-year interval, as noted by Svensmark, "the sun's coronal magnetic field doubled in strength."
Continuing to expand the timescale of interest, Svensmark next cites the superlative work of Bond et al. (2001), who in studying ice-rafted debris in the North Atlantic Ocean determined, in the words of Svensmark, that "over the past 12,000 years, there were many icy intervals like the Little Ice Age" that "alternated with warm phases, of which the most recent were the Medieval Warm Period (roughly AD 900-1300) and the Modern Warm Period (since 1900)." And as we note in our review of Bond et al.'s work, the ten-member team clearly states that "over the last 12,000 years virtually every [our italics] centennial time-scale increase in drift ice documented in our North Atlantic records was tied to a solar minimum."
In another expansion of timescale - this one highlighting the work of Shaviv (2002, 2003) and Shaviv and Veizer (2003) - Svensmark presents plots of reconstructed sea surface temperature anomalies and relative cosmic ray flux over the last 550 million years, during which time the solar system experienced four passages through the spiral arms of the Milky Way galaxy, with the climatic data showing "rhythmic cooling of the earth whenever the sun crossed the galactic midplane, where cosmic rays are locally most intense." In addition, he notes that the "Snowball Earth" period of some 2.3 billion years ago "coincided with the highest star-formation rate in the Milky Way since the earth was formed, in a mini-starburst 2400-2000 million years ago," when, of course, the cosmic ray flux would have been especially intense.
In light of these many diverse observations, Svensmark concludes "it now seems clear that stellar winds and magnetism are crucial factors in the origin and viability of life on wet earth-like planets," as are "ever-changing galactic environments and star-formation rates." And within this expansive context of both space and time, humanity's emissions of CO2 literally fade away into climatic insignificance.
Sherwood, Keith and Craig Idso
References
Bond, G., Kromer, B., Beer, J., Muscheler, R., Evans, M.N., Showers, W., Hoffmann, S., Lotti-Bond, R., Hajdas, I. and Bonani, G. 2001. Persistent solar influence on North Atlantic climate during the Holocene. Science 294: 2130-2136. Shaviv, N. 2002. Cosmic ray diffusion from the galactic spiral arms, iron meteorites, and a possible climatic connection. Physics Review Letters 89: 051102.
Shaviv, N. 2003. The spiral structure of the Milky Way, cosmic rays, and ice age epochs on Earth. New Astronomy 8: 39-77.
Shaviv, N. and Veizer, J. 2003. Celestial driver of Phanerozoic climate? GSA Today 13 (7): 4-10.
Svensmark, H. 2007. Cosmoclimatology: a new theory emerges. Astronomy & Geophysics 48: 1.18-1.24.
No connection between rise in greenhouse gases and temperature rise? Care to explain why the planet isn't a mean of -14 degrees Celcius? Perhaps this group of scientists as your comical strip suggests is being driven by funding and not sound investigation?
People derided the continental drift theory when it was first formulated. They cut funding to BJ Marshall when he postulated that most ulcers were caused by a bacterium, he has since won the Nobel Prize for medicine(2005). Science is full of examples where most people think something is 'settled' only to find out later it isn't. No one knows for sure or can prove that CO2, a necessity of life, is causing the world to warm up.
Last edited:
I'm not disagreeing with you on the amount of CO2. But why must the sun warm up or cool down to have an effect on our planet? When we had our ice ages, did the sun cool down?
There are many theories I have heard over time (before this one) which suggested explainations to the natural cycles of climate on earth. For example, if the solar system moved through an area of the galaxy with a higher than normal concentration of space dust the dust would reduce the temps on earth. Conversly a region with less space dust would increase temps.
Another theory I've heard is about volcanic activity. Increased volcanic activity would decrease the temp. Perhaps we are now entering a period of decreased activity.
The earth also seems to go through natural climate cycles. Back in the 13th century the average temp on the earth dropped significantly to levels which have been relativily constant to the present. It caused several probems in Europe because the growing season was not long or warm enough to grow what they were growing. There has been no explaination for this drop. If a drop can happen, we can assume an increase could also happen.
Like I said before, I think we need to watch what we dump in our air, water, and land. Sooner or later that will come back to haunt us (it already has in some cases). But I am not sold on the CO2 theory being the only answer to the earths climate change. What we know about the Earth and our atmosphere and climate is that we still have a lot we don't know and need to learn.
There are natural cycles which have caused the changes in the past, Milankovich cycles. Specifically they are the wobble in Earth's axis, the eccentricity of our orbit and the tilt of our axis. These cycles are very long, thousands of years. 22,000 for the wobble, 42,000 for the tilt and about 100,000 for the eccentric orbit.
The greenhouse gases are not the only drivers of course, but there is no doubt about the heat trapping effects.
There are differences between solar radiation and greenhouse gas concentrations. Solar radiation heats the stratosphere where the ozone is found, while greenhouse gases warm the troposphere, and mostly at the bottom where we are and the concentration is highest.
The greenhouse gases are not the only drivers of course, but there is no doubt about the heat trapping effects.
There are differences between solar radiation and greenhouse gas concentrations. Solar radiation heats the stratosphere where the ozone is found, while greenhouse gases warm the troposphere, and mostly at the bottom where we are and the concentration is highest.
I only know one thing: Earth is getting warmer than it suppose to be and that is caused by excess _______ and lack of _______ fill in the blanks.
I sometimes wonder, all these scientists claiming global warming is the problem for everything, remember it was many of the same scientists that warned of an impending ice age prior to about 1973, they were talking ice age while the glaciers were melting, so they just shuffled the cards.
What really ticks me though, is the same companies that engaged in the wasteful production of useless products, while damaging the environment, are going to get many of the contracts to make things right. And environmentally friendly products they are now making will of course cost a lot more money.
If they were really going to set things right they would pay for the damage, instead we will pay
What really ticks me though, is the same companies that engaged in the wasteful production of useless products, while damaging the environment, are going to get many of the contracts to make things right. And environmentally friendly products they are now making will of course cost a lot more money.
If they were really going to set things right they would pay for the damage, instead we will pay
Reply to Walter's Article.
The article says that a lot about the sun responsible for the cause of earth warming.
Note the below copied texts:
Or has it been caused by reductions in low-level cloudiness that have caused less solar radiation to be reflected back to space, thereby permitting more solar energy to warm the earth?
Low level cloudiness is caused by the atmosphere destruction. As, if water is not kept in earth and is turned into clouds, it will go into space. See the water cycle in many encyclopedias.
During periods of greater activity, greater shielding of the earth occurs, less cosmic rays penetrate to the lower atmosphere, less cloud condensation nuclei are produced, fewer and less reflective low-level clouds occur, and more solar radiation is absorbed by the surface of the earth, increasing near-surface air temperatures.
Earth protects itself from the cosmic rays and only take the sun's rays that it need for an ecosystem. That is something that anyone would have thought for earth to become alive and biodiverse! God! How can you use that as an evidence for global warming?!
I get the part that sometimes stars growth emit cosmic rays that let people to suddenly get warm and cold (the end of the article says birth of stars' cosmic rays get the earth to be cold.) We do not know much about the cosmic rays and this is one of those confusing articles that get people more confused.
That way you can get away with it? Carbon dioxide or not, it seems rather odd how cloud can thin and the cosmic rays of harmful parts still have no effect on our systems or our SPFs or our health professionals.
If it was so true, I do not think we need a weather channel to predict the weather, but just cosmic and only cosmic. In the summer, just wear a winter coat and be laughed at by the other people. That way, we would live in a place of space without anything to eat or to do.
Do you think it would benefit in economy? If people do not use the excess products to turn into something useful, they have more money to earn. Comparing the companies who sells sulfuric acid and those who do not, I think the company who sells sulfuric acid, an excess is going to be slight richer. Also, if you use one time supplies like coal, natural gas, or any other, you would have to use money for refine, for mining, for finding it. After it is used, you have to use the money again for refine, for mining and for finding it. For wind, you only have to buy, install, and wait for all the free energy. You only have to do one trip and fix a little bit.
That, plus the coal give a lot of guilt to too much Carbon dioxide will cause health hazards. Have you heard of the geyser accident of excess carbon dioxide that killed a lot of people and animals? It kills if it isn't a global warming contributor. Any excess of something is always a bad thing or a thing you want to avoid. It's like drinking too much water that make people drown and too less water to make deadly droughts.
Read the article carefully and contact your coal/oil/other resource supplier about the economy and health part. They will at least understand the economy and money part.
The article says that a lot about the sun responsible for the cause of earth warming.
Note the below copied texts:
Or has it been caused by reductions in low-level cloudiness that have caused less solar radiation to be reflected back to space, thereby permitting more solar energy to warm the earth?
Low level cloudiness is caused by the atmosphere destruction. As, if water is not kept in earth and is turned into clouds, it will go into space. See the water cycle in many encyclopedias.
During periods of greater activity, greater shielding of the earth occurs, less cosmic rays penetrate to the lower atmosphere, less cloud condensation nuclei are produced, fewer and less reflective low-level clouds occur, and more solar radiation is absorbed by the surface of the earth, increasing near-surface air temperatures.
Earth protects itself from the cosmic rays and only take the sun's rays that it need for an ecosystem. That is something that anyone would have thought for earth to become alive and biodiverse! God! How can you use that as an evidence for global warming?!
I get the part that sometimes stars growth emit cosmic rays that let people to suddenly get warm and cold (the end of the article says birth of stars' cosmic rays get the earth to be cold.) We do not know much about the cosmic rays and this is one of those confusing articles that get people more confused.
That way you can get away with it? Carbon dioxide or not, it seems rather odd how cloud can thin and the cosmic rays of harmful parts still have no effect on our systems or our SPFs or our health professionals.
If it was so true, I do not think we need a weather channel to predict the weather, but just cosmic and only cosmic. In the summer, just wear a winter coat and be laughed at by the other people. That way, we would live in a place of space without anything to eat or to do.
Do you think it would benefit in economy? If people do not use the excess products to turn into something useful, they have more money to earn. Comparing the companies who sells sulfuric acid and those who do not, I think the company who sells sulfuric acid, an excess is going to be slight richer. Also, if you use one time supplies like coal, natural gas, or any other, you would have to use money for refine, for mining, for finding it. After it is used, you have to use the money again for refine, for mining and for finding it. For wind, you only have to buy, install, and wait for all the free energy. You only have to do one trip and fix a little bit.
That, plus the coal give a lot of guilt to too much Carbon dioxide will cause health hazards. Have you heard of the geyser accident of excess carbon dioxide that killed a lot of people and animals? It kills if it isn't a global warming contributor. Any excess of something is always a bad thing or a thing you want to avoid. It's like drinking too much water that make people drown and too less water to make deadly droughts.
Read the article carefully and contact your coal/oil/other resource supplier about the economy and health part. They will at least understand the economy and money part.
I only know one thing: Earth is getting warmer than it suppose to be and that is caused by excess _______ and lack of _______ . Fill in the blanks.
More fun reading.
From The Sunday Times
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.
function pictureGalleryPopup(pubUrl,articleId) {var newWin = window.open(pubUrl+'template/2.0-0/element/pictureGalleryPopup.jsp?id='+articleId+'&&offset=0&§ionName=UK','mywindow','menubar=0,resizable=0,width=615,height=655');}Background
Related Internet Links
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
From The Sunday Times
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.
function pictureGalleryPopup(pubUrl,articleId) {var newWin = window.open(pubUrl+'template/2.0-0/element/pictureGalleryPopup.jsp?id='+articleId+'&&offset=0&§ionName=UK','mywindow','menubar=0,resizable=0,width=615,height=655');}Background
Related Internet Links
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