Sustainability is one of the most critical topics in the global printing industry these years. Global warming is a severe challenge to everybody, and while companies, individuals, and governments work on solutions to reduce the CO2 in the atmosphere, more things influence global temperatures. Henrik Svensmark is an Astro Physicist at DTU Space and has for years researched how solar flares influence cloud formation, which also has a huge impact on global warming. In this unusual presentation (for being in the graphic arts industry), Henrik Svensmark guides our audience through the research and the ideas they are pursuing. Great presentation and the INKISH team is happy that we can bring this interesting research to our audience. Thank you Henrik Svensmark.
Global Warming & Solar Flares · Henrik Svensmark · Astro Physicist · DTU Space · NON-EVENT '22
Svensmark’s theory is interesting and plausible. Unfortunately, it’s wrong. And I do mean unfortunately. I would like nothing more than to learn that CO2 is not a problem and we can go back to burning fossil fuels to our heart’s content. But that seems not to be the case.
Svensmark was taken seriously. His theories were analyzed and extended. A lot of money was spent testing Svensmark’s theory at CERN, the billion dollar European particle accelerator. To say this research couldn’t get funded is nonsense. Here is a recent paper on the CERN experiment, which cites Svensmark as motivating the research.
The Cosmics Leaving OUtdoor Droplets (CLOUD) experiment was created to systematically test the link between galactic cosmic rays (GCR) and climate
they show that CCN (cloud condensation nuclei) respond too weakly to changes in GCR to yield a significant influence on clouds and climate.
A good scientist accepts the data and moves on. Some are unable to.
The Captain asks
Q. If clouds lower the Earth’s temperature, why not seed the atmosphere with “cloud condensation nuclei?”
Despite the conspiracy theory guys, whenever a scientist proposes a serious theory challenging mainstream climate science, large scientific programs have been funded to check it out. Richard Lindzen of MIT had a plausible negative feedback hypothesis. Experiments were done and it turned out to be wrong. Lindzen never accepted it. Richard Muller of Berkeley thought the way temperatures where analyzed was crap. He built the Berkeley Earth project, invented some improved statistics, and found the same answer as before. He accepted the result and deniers dropped him like a hot potato.
Science and nature change all the time. For example, some climate scientists in the 70’s expected an ice age, but now with more research and data, they expect continued warming for quite a while. Another example, a volcano erupted a few decades ago and spewed ash across half the globe and the shading of the sun from that ash resulted in lower temperatures for a few years thereafter.
The only scenario I can envision where global warming wipes out all of humanity is if changing climate leads to severe economic disruption and human migration, resulting in global thermonuclear war. And even then, I suspect some of us will survive among the cockroaches.
We’re pretty resilient and, as a species, can survive a lot of very unpleasant stuff. But that’s no reason to volunteer for it.
I listened to an interesting podcast yesterday on claims that existing scientific theories are wrong. It was focused on claims that the Theory of Relativity is wrong, but the general idea is probably applicable in other areas.
Possible, of course. But unlikely. A properly functioning GPS system requires knowing about Relativity. The amount of evidence supporting Relativity is second only to that supporting Quantum Mechanics.
I should have said that the podcast was on pseudoscientific claims that the Theory of Relativity is wrong. I think the only thing Einstein’s theories have had problems with is their incompatibility with quantum theory. Solve that puzzle and win the prize.
That was very clear from the podcast itself. The fact is that every few years scientists review their beliefs as new facts emerge. That’s science! The one thing science is not is ‘set in stone.’
My problem is with the ‘Settled Science Religion,’ it’s a total contradiction in terms. The objective of science is to find out more. The objective of religion is to make one believe something someone made up.
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
BTW, the GPS satellites’ clocks do need an adjustment as predicted by the theory of relativity because of their significant velocity and location.
To achieve this level of precision, the clock ticks from the GPS satellites must be known to an accuracy of 20-30 nanoseconds. However, because the satellites are constantly moving relative to observers on the Earth, effects predicted by the Special and General theories of Relativity must be taken into account to achieve the desired 20-30 nanosecond accuracy.
Because an observer on the ground sees the satellites in motion relative to them, Special Relativity predicts that we should see their clocks ticking more slowly (see the Special Relativity lecture). Special Relativity predicts that the on-board atomic clocks on the satellites should fall behind clocks on the ground by about 7 microseconds per day because of the slower ticking rate due to the time dilation effect of their relative motion .
Further, the satellites are in orbits high above the Earth, where the curvature of spacetime due to the Earth’s mass is less than it is at the Earth’s surface. A prediction of General Relativity is that clocks closer to a massive object will seem to tick more slowly than those located further away (see the Black Holes lecture). As such, when viewed from the surface of the Earth, the clocks on the satellites appear to be ticking faster than identical clocks on the ground. A calculation using General Relativity predicts that the clocks in each GPS satellite should get ahead of ground-based clocks by 45 microseconds per day.
This is true for science itself. Decision making is different. We often need to decide something now and we can’t wait for science to advance. Health care is the example we all face. Health science changes and there are many different opinions. But if you have cancer, you must make a choice, what do you do today?
There are degrees of settled science. Gravity on human scales is pretty settled. CO2 absorbing infrared is pretty settled. Infrared radiation warms the Earth is pretty settled. Humans emitting CO2 is pretty settled. The uncertainty is in the feedbacks. Water vapor is a positive feed back is pretty settled. Despite 50 years of concerted research, no one has yet found a negative feedback that would significantly reduce the CO2 caused warming. Maybe there’s a paper in press as I write this showing just that.
That burning fossil fuels is a serious risk is pretty settled. Saying a risk is settled may sound like an oxymoron but Las Vegas casinos make their fortune by playing and adjusting the odds, ie the risks. Damaging and expensive climate change may not happen but the odds are against us. Do you feel lucky?
Have you heard the expression, “Putting the thumb on the scale?” When it comes to politics there is a lot of that. When global warming becomes a key political issue it’s a good idea to watch out for thumbs.
As for burning fossil fuels, one can make an argument against by citing pollution and ignoring global warming. At the same time, hydrocarbons, a.k.a. fossil fuels, happen to be the raw material of a large number of industrial products so it does not make sense kill oil production in the name of global warming.
It would be disingenuous to disregard the oil thumb but who finances the 97% of these scientists? They are funded almost excessively by grants. So follow the money. Uncle Sam has a pretty good sized thumb and green is the in political mantra. There are even political parties with green in their name.
If you shut down oil extraction you affect not only fuels but also hydrocarbon raw materials. There must be some middle of the road solution. EVs are a good start, not by killing oil but by reducing demand for oil.
It is true that the majority of scientists are government funded. But the oil industry has a large and very talented research footprint and their scientists get the same results. There are other examples of this such as Richard Muller’s work I mentioned above. There’s also the reality of the scientific method, you get fame and fortune for proving other people are wrong. Every young scientists is strongly motivated to find errors in the work of their elders.
The fact that the Earth has been warming in line with predictions from decades ago (not perfectly but not terrible) is important evidence. If it’s not CO2, then you have two mysteries to solve: 1) why isn’t the CO2 warming the Earth as all mainstream science predicts? and 2) what is the other mysterious cause of the warming? Occam’s razor says one well established theory wins over two unknown theories.
At the end of the day, if mainstream climate science is seriously in error, it is a subtle issue and not a simple easily discovered thumb on the scale.