Usted no se lo cree

Ver: Perfil de los negacionistas climáticos: 3. Henrik Svensmark, el cósmico

Nacionalidad:

Dinamarca

Fecha de nacimiento:

1958

Formación:

Doctor en física de la atmósfera

Atribución del calentamiento global:

Rayos cósmicos, viento solar

Otras negaciones:

No se conocen

Posición, Departamento, Universidad:

Director del Center for Sun-Climate Research del Danish Space Research Institute (DSRI)

Think Tanks:

CEPOS (Copenhague) – Fue dirigido por Bjorn Lomborg

Área principal de conocimiento:

Física de la atmósfera

Observaciones:

Entradas relacionadas:

Perfil de los negacionistas climáticos: 3. Henrik Svensmark, el cósmico
Un negacionista sufre un ataque cardíaco en directo en un debate de la TV danesa

Referencias:

1. Henrik Svensmark (1998) – Influence of Cosmic Rays on Earth’s Climate – Physical Review Letters 81:5027–5030 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.81.5027 – 30/11/1998 – Solar-Terristrial Physics Division, Danish Metorological Institute
   «During the last solar cycle Earth’s cloud cover underwent a modulation more closely in phase with the galactic cosmic ray flux than with other solar activity parameters. Further it is found that Earth’s temperature follows more closely decade variations in galactic cosmic ray flux and solar cycle length, than other solar activity parameters. The main conclusion is that the average state of the heliosphere affects Earth’s climate.»
2. Nigel D. Marsh and Henrik Svensmark (2000) – Low Cloud Properties Influenced by Cosmic Rays – Physical Review Letters 85 5004-5007 – 04/12/2000 – Danish Space Research Institute, Copenhagen – http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v85/i23/p5004_1 –
   “Surprisingly the influence of solar variability is strongest in low clouds ≤ 3 km, which points to a microphysical mechanism involving aerosol formation that is enhanced by ionization due to cosmic rays. If confirmed it suggests that the average state of the heliosphere is important for climate on Earth.”
3. Stephen Schneider (2002) – Global Warming: Neglecting the Complexities – Scientific American – 37257 – Department of biological sciences and senior fellow at the Institute for International Studies at Stanford University + editor of Climatic Change and the Encyclopedia of Climate and Weather – http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=misleading-math-about-the
   «As a final example, he quotes a controversial hypothesis from Danish cloud physicists that solar magnetic events modulate cosmic rays and produce «a clear connection between global low-level cloud cover and incoming cosmic radiation.» The Danish researchers use this hypothesis to support an alternative to carbon dioxide for explaining recent climate change. Lomborg fails to discuss–and I haven’t seen it treated by the authors of that speculative theory either–what such purported changes to this cloud cover have done to the radiative balance of the earth. Increasing clouds, it has been well known since papers by Syukuro Manabe and Richard T. Wetherald in 1967 and myself in 1972, can warm or cool the atmosphere depending on the height of the cloud tops, the reflectivity of the underlying surface, the season and the latitude. The reason the IPCC discounts this theory is that its advocates have not demonstrated any radiative forcing sufficient to match that of much more parsimonious theories, such as anthropogenic forcing.»
4. Stefan Rahmstorf et al (2004) – Cosmic Rays, Carbon Dioxide and Climate – Eos Transactions of the American Geophysical Union – 27/01/2004 – http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publications/Journals/rahmstorf_etal_eos_2004.html
   “Shaviv and Veizer’s paper was accompanied by a press release titled “Global warming not a man-made phenomenon”, in which Shaviv is quoted stating: “The operative significance of our research is that a significant reduction of the release of greenhouse gases will not significantly lower the global temperature, since only about a third of the warming over the past century should be attributed to man”. We here present a critical appraisal of the methods and conclusions of [Shaviv and Veizer, 2003].”
5. Paul E.Damon and Peter Laut (2004) – Pattern of Strange Errors Plagues Solar Activity and Terrestrial Climate Data – EOS 85:370-374 – 28/09/2004 – University of Arizona,Tucson; Technical University of Denmark, Lyngby
   «Several of the figures discussed here have attracted worldwide attention. One example of the exploitation of the graphs in the public debate is a 2001 TV documentary, “The Climate Conflict,” produced for Danish state television by Lars Mortensen.It featured Henrik Svensmark and Eigil Friis-Christensen as the ingenious mavericks of today’s climatology,who discovered the dominant influence of solar activity upon our climate and now fight a stubborn scientific establishment—represented by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—and the ruthless proponents of the “so-called greenhouse theory.” The film has made a tremendous impact upon public opinion in Denmark and several other countries and is now part of the curriculum in many Danish high schools.It won an impressive series of international awards: Special Prize of H.M.The Prince Rainier III in 2001 at the 41e Festival de Télévision de Monte-Carlo;Best Environmental Film at Téléscience in Montreal 2001; Best Science Film at Telecencia,Portugal; and the Silverserpent at Filmobidos 2001 in Obidos,Portugal.The suggestive basis for the solar claims—as presented personally by Svensmark and Friis-Christensen on the screen— are the misleading graphs from the above mentioned 1991 and 1998 articles.»
6. Jeff Kanipe (2006) – A Cosmic Connection – Nature 443:141-143 – 04/09/2006
   “The experiment, called CLOUD (for Cosmics Leaving Outdoor Droplets), is designed to shed light on a sometimes acrimonious debate between a small number of physicists and astronomers, who believe that cosmic rays have a substantial influence on Earth’s climate.”
7. Henrik Svensmark and Nigel Calder (2007) – The Chilling Stars: A New Theory of Climate Change – Totem Books – Solar-Terristrial Physics Division, Danish Metorological Institute
8. Henrik Svensmark (2007) – Cosmoclimatology: a new theory emerges – News and Reviews in Astronomy and Geophysics 48:18-24 – 25/01/2007
   “Variations in the cosmic-ray influx due to solar magnetic activity account well for climatic fluctuations on decadal, centennial and millennial timescales. Over longer intervals, the changing galactic environment of the solar system has had dramatic consequences, including Snowball Earth episodes. A new contribution to the faint young Sun paradox is also on offer.”
9. T. Sloan and A.W. Wolfendale (2008) – Testing the proposed causal link between cosmic rays and cloud cover – Environmental Research Letters 3 024001 doi:10.1088/1748-9326/3/2/024001 – 03/04/2008 – Physics Department, University of Lancaster; Physics Department, Durham University – http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/3/2/024001/?ejredirect=.iopscience
   “A decrease in the globally averaged low level cloud cover, deduced from the ISCCP infrared data, as the cosmic ray intensity decreased during the solar cycle 22 was observed by two groups … We have examined this hypothesis to look for evidence to corroborate it. None has been found and so our conclusions are to doubt it.”
10. J.E. Kristjánsson et al (2008) – Cosmic rays, cloud condensation nuclei and clouds – A reassessment using MODIS data – Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics Discussions 8:13265-13299 – 11/12/2008 – Department of Geosciences, University of Oslo – 6 authors
    «The response of clouds to sudden decreases in the flux of galactic cosmic rays (GCR) – Forbush decrease events – has been investigated using cloud products from the space-borne MODIS instrument, which has been in operation since 2000 … For cloud cover and liquid water path, the correlations with GCR are weaker, with large variations between the different domains. When only the six Forbush decrease events with the largest amplitude (more than 10% decrease) were studied, the correlations fit the hypothesis slightly better, with 16 out of 24 correlations having the expected sign, although many of the correlations are quite weak. Introducing a time lag of a few days for clouds to respond to the cosmic ray signal the correlations tend to become weaker and even to change sign.»
11. Joseph Romm – Diagnosing a victim of anti-science syndrome (ASS) – Climate Progress – 05/01/2009 – http://climateprogress.org/2009/01/05/anthony-watts-up-with-that-anti-science-denier-website-weblog-awards/
    “If you suspect someone of ASS, look for the repeated use of the following phrases: Medieval Warm Period, Hockey Stick, Michael Mann, The climate is always changing, Alarmist, Hoax, Temperature rises precede rises in carbon dioxide, Pacific Decadal Oscillation, Water vapor, Sunspots, Cosmic rays, Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark, Ice Age was predicted in the 1970s, Global cooling”
12. Richard A. Kerr (2009) – Study Challenges Cosmic Ray – Climate Link – Science 324:576-577 doi:10.1126/science.324_576b – 01/05 – 01/05/2009
    “The more cosmic rays, the more cloud cover screened out the warming rays of the sun and counteracted greenhouse warming. Such correlation does not prove causation, everyone agreed. Some experts disputed the existence of a correlation in the first place, and the consensus reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change saw no substantial role for the sun in 20th century climate change. But debate rolled on, in part because researchers had been discussing a plausible physical mechanism since the 1950s. The sun’s magnetic field fends off cosmic rays, they noted; lowered solar activity weakens that shield, increasing the flux of cosmic rays streaking into Earth’s atmosphere. The cosmic rays ionize more gas molecules, which go on to form 1-nanometer-diameter particles that then grow to become the starter particles for cloud droplets, socalled cloud condensation nuclei (CCN). And the more cloud droplets, the denser and more pervasive the sun-shielding clouds. Although this chain of causation no doubt exists, no one could say whether it is strong enough to make any difference in global climate … As Pierce and Adams report in a paper in press in Geophysical Research Letters, their model showed that changes in cosmic rays are two orders of magnitude too feeble to cause the changes in clouds … But Fangqun Yu of the University at Albany in New York says he disagrees with the Carnegie Mellon researchers «because of problems in their simulations.» Among other problems, Yu suspects that in simulating only two rates of new particle formation via ionization— very high and much lower—Pierce and Adams may have missed a «sweet spot» production rate in between, at which just enough but not too many particles are produced. Testing the Goldilocks hypothesis will take more modeling and observations.”
13. Jeffrey Pierce and Peter Adams (2009) – Can cosmic rays affect cloud condensation nuclei by altering new particle formation rates? – Geophysical Research Letters 36 L09820 doi:10.1029/2009GL037946 – 39946 – Carnegie Mellon University
    “Although controversial, many observations have suggested that low-level cloud cover correlates with the cosmic ray flux … In our simulations, changes in CCN from changes in cosmic rays during a solar cycle are two orders of magnitude too small to account for the observed changes in cloud properties; consequently, we conclude that the hypothesized effect is too small to play a significant role in current climate change.”
14. Ken Carslaw (2009) – Cosmic rays, clouds and climate – Nature 460:332-333 – 13/05/2009 – School of Earth and Environment, University of Leeds
    “Galactic cosmic rays could influence Earth’s cloudiness by creating aerosol particles that prompt cloud formation. That possible effect looks to be smaller than thought, but the story won’t end there.”
15. Doug L. Hoffman – Attempt To Discredit Cosmic Ray-Climate Link Using Computer Model – The Resilient Earth 05/10/2009 – http://www.theresilientearth.com/?q=content/attempt-discredit-cosmic-ray-climate-link-using-computer-model
    “Two computer modelers from CMU have written a program to simulate the interaction of cosmic rays with Earth’s atmosphere. Because the model failed to predict significant increases in cloud cover, global warming activists are claiming the theory linking cosmic rays to climate change has been discredited.”
16. ScienceDaily – Cosmic Ray Decreases Affect Atmospheric Aerosols And Clouds – ScienceDaily – 16/07/2009 – http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090801095810.htm
    “Billions of tonnes of water droplets vanish from the atmosphere in events that reveal in detail how the Sun and the stars control our everyday clouds. Researchers of the National Space Institute in the Technical University of Denmark (DTU) have traced the consequences of eruptions on the Sun that screen the Earth from some of the cosmic rays — the energetic particles raining down on our planet from exploded stars … «The effect of the solar explosions on the Earth’s cloudiness is huge,» Henrik Svensmark comments. «A loss of clouds of 4 or 5 per cent may not sound very much, but it briefly increases the sunlight reaching the oceans by about 2 watt per square metre, and that’s equivalent to all the global warming during the 20th Century.»”
17. Rasmus Benestad – Why the continued interest? – Real Climate – 09/10/2009
    – http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/10/why-the-continued-interest/
    “So what makes the GCR-hypothesis so convincing that warrants a solicited talk at the EMS annual meeting and an invited presentation at the NASL? Is the support based on the attention in media, or does it have a scientific basis?”
18. Peter Laut (2009) – Climate Change: The Role of Flawed Science – Countercurrents – 01/11/2009
    – Professor (emeritus) of Physics at The Technical University of Denmark + Former scientific advisor on climate change for The Danish Energy Agency – http://www.countercurrents.org/laut.pdf
    «Who is to blame for the development of this irrational cult of a postulated solar influence upon the Earth’s climate? The IPCC is not without responsibility for providing the free ride for solar crusaders. Because the IPCC has never made it clear, that the problem with the widely circulated, infamous figures of 1991 and 1998 – which probably have been the most important persuaders – is not a question of scientific uncertainty and differing opinion, but a case of manipulated data that have nothing to do with reality. Instead of merely describing Svensmark’s contributions as ‘controversial’, some stronger words from the IPCC would have been appropriate. In a language that could be understood by ordinary citizens.”
19. Mike Lockwood (2010) – Solar change and climate: an update in the light of the current exceptional solar minimum – Proceedings of the Royal Society A 466:303-329 doi:10.1098/rspa.2009.0519 – 02/12/2009  – Department of Meteorology, University of Reading; Space Science and Technology Department, Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Chilton, Didcot, Oxfordshire
    «Correlation coefficients were improved when only the six largest events were included, with 16 of the set of 24 correlations (four for each geographical region) but unlike the Svensmark et al. (2009) survey, correlations were not improved by introducing a lag. Sloan & Wolfendale (2008) also found that the correlations had no statistical significance, and Erlykin et al. (2009b) divided clouds into two major types and still found that the data gave no support to the contention that there is a large-scale causative cosmic ray cloud correlation, even for the parts of the world where correlations have previously been reported.»
20. J. Calogovic et al (2010) – Sudden Cosmic Ray Decreases: No Change of Global Cloud Cover – Geophysical Research Letters 37 L03802 doi:10.1029/2009GL041327 – 03/02/2010 – Hvar Observatory, Faculty of Geodesy, Zagreb – 6 authors
    “We report on an alternative and stringent test of the CRC-hypothesis by searching for a possible influence of sudden GCR decreases (so-called Forbush decreases) on clouds. We find no response of global cloud cover to Forbush decreases at any altitude and latitude … A closer inspection of Svensmark’s list of used Fd events revealed 5 Fd events which did not fulfill our selection criteria…  Without further discussion we would like to state that a study as the one by Svensmark et al. [2009] including Fd events which are associated with the solar proton events leads easily to questionable or even contradictory results (see also [Laken et al., 2009]).”
21. John Cook – Could cosmic rays be causing global warming? – Skeptical Science – 23/05/2011 – http://www.skepticalscience.com/cosmic-rays-and-global-warming-advanced.htm
    «In summary, studies have shown that GCRs exert a minor influence over low-level cloud cover, solar magnetic field has not increased in recent decades, nor has GCR flux on Earth decreased.  In fact, if GCRs did have a significant impact on global temperatures, they would have had a cooling effect over the past 20 years.»