I am eternally amused that even when the evidence suggests that a crucial aspect of the AGW theory is contradicted by the empirical evidence that they find a reason to say “No but ,Yeah But” in the classic Vicky Pollard style But i will give the author SIMON GROSE credit for defending the empirical evidence and the possibility that the sun is a more significant driver of our climate than the level of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere.
27/08/2008 9:39:00 AMClimate change has been the most important and complex issue on my plate in 15 years as a science and technology correspondent for The Canberra Times. So an appropriate topic for a farewell commentary for this newspaper is an emerging scientific debate with the potential to complicate the already difficult relationship between scientists and politicians on this issue.The effect of the sun’s activity on global temperatures has loomed large in arguments from climate change sceptics over the years. Several Russian scientists have argued that the current period of global warming is entirely due to a cycle of increased solar activity.NSW Treasurer Michael Costa is understood to be among a small group of Australian politicians and other opinion-shapers to embrace this notion.
It is wise to be sceptical of many Russian scientists and all politicians, so I have given this ‘’solar forcing” explanation of global warming little credence until I attended a forum at the Academy of Science earlier this year and heard it from a scientist of undoubted integrity and expertise in this area. A former head of CSIRO’s division of space science, Dr Ken McCracken was awarded the Australia Prize the precursor of the Prime Minister’s Science Prize in 1995. Now in his 80s, officially retired and raising cattle in the ACT hinterland, he is still very active in his research field of solar physics.
McCracken is adamantly not a climate change sceptic, agreeing that rising fossil-fuel emissions will be a long-term cause of rising global temperatures.
But his analysis of the sun’s cyclical activity and global climate records has led him to the view that we are entering a period of up to two decades in which reduced solar activity may either flatten the upward trend of global temperatures or even cause a slight and temporary cooling. In a paper given in 2005 to a ‘’soiree” hosted by then president of the Academy of Science, Professor Jim Peacock, McCracken said the sun was the most active it had been over 1000 years of scientific observation. This made it inevitable that its activity would decrease over the next two decades in line with historically observed solar cycles.
”The reduced ‘forcing’ might compensate, or over-compensate, for the effects of the increasing concentration of greenhouse gases,” he said. ”It is likely that there will be a cessation of around 20 years in the increase in world temperature, or possibly a decrease by 0.1 [degrees] or more.”
I put this to Dr David Jones, head of climate analysis for the Bureau of Meteorology’s National Climate Centre, whose overarching judgment is that the warming effect of fossil fuel emissions is an increasingly dominant factor on global temperature to the extent that it will not be slowed by lower solar activity.
After an email conversation, Jones said he and McCracken are in general agreement but differ on emphasis and one key judgment. ”Natural solar variability is potentially important, but the climate history and physics tell us that the probability of this factor sufficiently cooling the planet to offset the enhanced greenhouse effect is distinctly remote,” Jones wrote.
The main point of disagreement was McCracken’s view that the rate of global warming could be eased or reduced by a fall in solar activity. ”I have never seen a credible paper published using a climate model that shows this,” Jones wrote.
He points to recent data which indicates that global temperatures are probably rising faster than previously thought, raising the urgency of calls from climate scientists for political action to reduce emissions. Yet any uncertainty over the sun’s influence creates a lever that climate sceptics and developing nations will seize upon to stall such action.
If McCracken is wrong and temperatures continue to climb during a decade or two of low solar activity, the need for emissions reductions will be dramatically reinforced.
However, if temperatures do not rise over this period, steeling the political will for such action by all nations will be much more difficult.
The dilemma for the science sector is a classic: how to communicate uncertainty.
As McCracken rightly observed in 2005, a lull in temperature rises would provide a wonderful opportunity for political and technological effort to gain the initiative in the fight against climate change by turning global emissions around and thus hopefully avoid worst-case warming scenarios when the sun’s fires stoke up again mid-century.
But he also noted the risk that mainstream climate science, led by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, would be seen by its critics and others to have been ill-informed at best or misleading at worst, diminishing its credibility and eroding political commitment to emission reductions.
McCracken believes science should be upfront. ”I believe that we must state firmly that a cooling is possible in the near future, but that the warming would then resume 10-20 years hence,” he said via email. ”It will be very hard to argue for public trust if we say nothing about the possibility, and then try to argue our way out after it happens. Using an Aussie rules analogy, that would be like giving the climate sceptics a free kick 10m in front of goal.”
Australia is definitely entering a footy finals period, and the Earth may be entering a period where human-induced global warming slows temporarily. Many scientists will not be comfortable to consider this possibility, and even less comfortable that journalists canvas it, because in good faith they want nothing to deflect efforts to combat global warming.
However, I have always aimed to tell readers what they deserve to know, not what they may want to hear or what governments, scientists or interest groups would prefer they were told. This has earned me brickbats and bouquets over the years, as it should do, and as I expect it will on this occasion.
SIMON GROSE is Canberra correspondent for Science Media.
Cheers Comrades
Filed under: AGW, Green issues, the Warminist Faith | Tagged: Dr Ken McCracken, SIMON GROSE
What recent data shows that temperatures are increasing? Most data sets are showing that there’s been no temperature increase in the past 10 years, and this year so far is another cold one (eg hadcrut, Aus bureau of meteorology). So what’s this mysterious statement based on? Also, to date, I’ve seen no evidence that suggests warming from CO2 increase is anything more than an unsubstantiated hypothesis.
I agree with what you say here R James I posted this because i found it interesting not because i endorse the author 100%
Cheers and welcome to CCA
Hi again Iain,
Didn’t know you had this one as well ?
“Several Russian scientists have argued that the current period of global warming is entirely due to a cycle of increased solar activity”
This statement is concerning.
I am a ham radio operator, been a trained communications “expert” in the RAAF, that specialised in long distance, multi hop signal generation, and communication, from one side of this planet to the other.
I have studied the solar index, (solar activity, sunspot numbers, solar terrestrial indices), since first gaining that licence in 1988.
We are currently at the LULL of the sunspot cycle, and have been for some two or more years. Looking at the date of your quote, it would appear, on the surface anyway, that the Russians know very little about the actual timing, and workings of the said cycle.
The Solar Cycle, is not fixed. It does vary in size, from anything from 8 years, up to 14 or so years. The last solar peak, was in 2001 or so, with a maximum index of over 200+ sunspot numbers being counted. In times of heightened sunspot activity, the layers of the earth’s atmosphere, i.e. the D E & F layers, some 50 and up to 200 miles up and beyond, are the ones affected by the increase in solar radiation, from that heightened solar activity. They ionise, and cause a reflective barrier, that reflects radio signals back to Earth, that would normally continue for a short journey out to space. They are unseen, and rarely affect weather.
The Earth’s weather patterns are well below this, and my experience over those years, is that weather is totally independent of the sunspot count.
Currently, we are at the very bottom of the cycle, but they think, from the observatories in Pikaha Hawaii, and also the one in Colorado, that the first spot for the new cycle, has just been seen.
I can send you in excel, detailed observation of these numbers, and their effects on radio signals, but no where over this period, do I think, that it has affected the weather in any way. BUT, I am no expert, in that possible correlation ? We have all heard arguments about el nino, and so on, that maybe is a true cause of the pattern we are experiencing.
My theory, for what it’s worth, about global warming, is that it is occurring, but this should not be an alarmist’s wake up call to impending doom to the planet ? We all know the pollution shoved in to the atmosphere, especially from places like Russia and more recently China, with no visible controls, can’t be doing the planet any good ? Shoving that much crap into the atmosphere, acts like a massive blanket. This has the tendency of keeping the warmth in, especially during summers, and keeping the warmth out, in times of winter ?
I would rather believe Mc Craken’s view on global warming, rather than a politician ? Let’s face it, they always look for the easy way out. Something other than their own failures to bring in serious pollution controls years ago ? Something that is totally beyond their control or influence ?
We all know that since the inception of the “Industrialisation”, pollution has been the resultant price we all have had to pay. It is cumulative, and you don’t have to be Einstein to figure out that, sooner or later, shoving all that crap into the atmosphere for 300 or so years, is going to come back and bite us in the butt sooner or later ?????
My two cents worth ?
David
PS
By the way, daily Solar Indices, or reports, are available at :
http://dx.qsl.net/propagation/
Today’s count ? 66.
Yes David this is another of my blogs I create / write them for my own pleasure / amusement and to debate the issues that interest me.
as you will have gathered i am a sceptic about AGW and while I agree that pollution is something that we should seek to minimise the apocalyptic ranting of the warminists just seem so unscientific , so based on what ifs, maybes and sketchy data that being sceptical about their claims is the only sensible response.
Oh and if you are interested in cars check out my Iain’s seven Blog
No wonder you said you find it difficult to find time to answer emails ?
Having a look at the other one
“The main point of disagreement was McCracken’s view that the rate of global warming could be eased or reduced by a fall in solar activity. ”I have never seen a credible paper published using a climate model that shows this,” Jones wrote.”
That is the quote that says it all. I have yet to see a climate model that is in any way proves anything at all. None of the so-called climate models have forcast the last 8 years accurately and they do not factor in solar variability at all. It is considered negligible – soon to be proved wrong.
That’s their point, and escape clause Bushy. They claim that due to global warming being only a recent issue, there is nothing in the past, that can be used, to assist in devising a model ?
Gives their alarmist views, even more self-credence ?
David
Well this solar cycle is being watched with more interest by the scientific community than any other before because it is special in our modern era. It is the first minimum that will establish whether the sun is indeed the main driver of our climate or not.
At present the TSI and solar flux are at all-time lows and the longer this remains so the more response in temperature we can expect, if the theory is correct. There would be a lag period obviously as the oceans cool but the response should be there even if the next cycle ramps up in the next 6 months as predicted (revised yet again.)
Now I am not one of those that hope for a cold period just to prove the alarmists wrong – not that we would be able to do anything about it, but if it does happen the AGW theory is debunked.
“Oh but warming will resume again afterwards” is not a get-out clause because CO2 will then be shown not to be the main ( if at all) driver of global temperature.
Whichever way it goes the case will be proven either way in the next few years because the cooling phase would be far more rapid than the warming phase.
Nuff rambling.
I just thought of something else to add to this debate guys and gals ?
All these ’supposed genius’ PhD researchers, both here in Oz and overseas, are all competing for limited research grants or “dollars” ?
Isn’t it strange, as the world shifts it’s focus, towards these debates, of course the result is, more research money, is being thrown at the problem, to try and ascertain a cause, and possible cure ? More importantly to get the attention of the pollies, and bean counters, who hold the research purse strings ? We all know, that the only time a pollie ever does anything, is when it can progress their own profile, or directly affects their job security ? So, to appease the masses, or panicked, miraculously, money is found to throw at the problem ? Remember the old expression ?
“The squeakiest wheel gets the most grease ?”
This is where a lot of the problem lies. A lot of these, so – called “experts”, live on the fringe of science, and lack the money to do the real science involved, to attempt first to diagnose the problem, and then develop the cure ? So, if they get people panicked enough, they jump the queue, to access to those massive dollars, that are now being pumped in to the science behind AGW.
As Iain sort of said, (if I read between the lines correctly Iain ?
), the whole debate, is to get the average Joe, interested enough in the debate, to start stirring their governments, to try and discover the solution. That takes money, from government budgets, earmarked for perhaps other more important things, to be siphoned off, to fund these research projects, These researchers aren’t stupid (well totally anyway), they know massive amounts of money and other resources, are going to be put into the problem, so the more prominent they can get their profiles shoved into the government’s faces, the more chances they have of getting their cushy grants ??????
David
That’s a worry ?
David
what you have enunciated here David is the counter argument to the whole “big oil runs the sceptics” shtick that we hear so often from the most ardent Warministas . they hate it because if you add up all of the research dollars extracted from governments and business to address this “problem” and compare it to the amounts of money that have been spent by oil companies to sponsor “think tanks” you will see that the former exceeds the later by many orders of magnitude.
Again, touche !