Access
This article is part of Nature's premium content.
Published online 14 May 2008 | Nature | doi:10.1038/453268a
They say they want a revolution
Climate scientists call for major new modelling facility.
To read this story in full you will need to login or make a payment (see right).
Comments
Reader comments are usually moderated after posting. If you find something offensive or inappropriate, you can speed this process by clicking 'Report this comment' (or, if that doesn't work for you, email webadmin@nature.com). For more controversial topics, we reserve the right to moderate before comments are published.
Climatologists cannot be taken seriously if they continue using pseudo-scientific scare tactics about CO2 induced global warming. Realistic climate models must consider the cycles of sunspot activity that arise from deep-seated magnetic fields. Cycles of solar activity occur because planets jerk the Sun about the center of mass of the solar system [1-5], like a yo-yo on a string, and shift the depth of its dense, energetic neutron core. REFERENCES: [1] P. D. Jose: 1965, "Sun's motion and sunspots", Astronomy Journal 70, 193-200; [2] R. W. Fairbridge and J. H. Shirley: 1987, "Prolonged minima and the 179 year cycle of the solar inertial motion," Solar Physics 110 191-220; [3] O. K. Manuel, B. W. Ninham and S. E. Friberg: 2003, "Super-fluidity in the solar interior: Implications for solar eruptions and climate," J. Fusion Energy 21, 193-198; [4] J. Shirley: 2006, "Axial rotation, orbital revolution, and solar spin-orbit coupling," Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 368, 280-282; [5] O. Manuel and H. Ratcliffe: 2008, "Fingerprints of a local supernova," in Supernova Research [Nova Science Publishers, Inc., Hauppauge, NY, USA] in press. http://www.omatumr.com/abstracts2007/20071202_Manuel_and_Ratcliffe.pdf
Oliver, your theories are intriguing to say the least, and I'd be willing to give them credence, though assuredly more research needs to be done. However, to claim that CO2 models of climate change are pseudo-scientific, or scare tactics, is a bit extreme. In light of the skepticism which your work is often received with, I would have thought you'd be better than making such claims. If sunspot activity is indeed a factor of climate change, then i would encourage climatologists to factor this in to their models. However, the trends displayed by climatologists on climate change suggest that Carbon emissions are a decisive factor in the current phase of climate change we are experiencing, and I'd be hesitant to discount that.
One may only agree with Dr. Navarra that "we are facing a darwinian change in the way we are working", but it is questionable that "we shouldn't be afraid of that". There is nothing wrong in employing the method of "natural selection", with except to the risk of coming to an evolutionary deadlock. This risk can be significantly reduced through retrospection of modelling efforts, setting explicit criteria for distinguishing between normative and alternative models, and detecting paradigm shifts in timely fashion. (See also materials of the session S12 at http://www.iemss.org/iemss2008/)
Perhaps I was too harsh, Nick. Earth's climate changed in the past, before the current "Carbon emissions." The five studies cited above and three others referenced below [6-8] have shown beyond any reasonable beyond doubt that "sunspot activity is indeed a factor of climate change." Why ignore experimental evidence that Earth's ever-changing climate depends on the Sun -- the variable star that heats planet Earth? REFERENCES: [6] Theodor Landscheidt, "Extrema in sunspot cycle linked to Sun's motion, "Solar Physics 189, 413-424 (1999). http://bourabai.narod.ru/landscheidt/extrema.htm Other papers by Theodor Landscheidt over the past quarter century on solar-induced climate changes are here: http://bourabai.narod.ru/landscheidt/publications.htm [7] W. J. R. Alexander, F. Bailey, D. B. Bredenkamp, A. vander Merwe and N. Willemse, "Linkages between solar activity, climate predictability and water resource development," J. South African Institut. Civil Eng. 49, 32-44 (2007). http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/Conf2007/Alexander-etal-2007.pdf [8] Richard Mackey, "Rhodes Fairbridge and the idea that the solar system regulates the Earth's climate," J. Coastal Research SI 50 (Proceedings of the 9th International Coastal Symposium, Gold Coast, Australia, 2007) pp. 955-968. http://www.griffith.edu.au/conference/ics2007/pdf/ICS176.pdf
Von Neumann stated once that weather prediction is an initial value problem, climate prediction is a boundary condition problem. A recent publication showed that the boundary conditions for the atmospheric radiation transfer equations were set incorrectly in the classical solution, and this hidden flaw remained unrealized. As a consequence, an absolutely fundamental boundary condition, the sensitivity of the greenhouse effect to greenhouse gas concentration perturbations is overestimated in the present climate models. The same traditional error led to another inconsistency: the recent global mean energy budget estimates (see e.g. IPCC 2007 AR4 WG1 Fig.1. of FAQ 1.1) miss a necessary energy balance condition for the atmospheric radiation problem, and hence these models predict so high global mean surface temperature rise for doubling CO2 what is physically unrealistic. I think the undebatable importance of this issue needs the most careful analysis of the question, regardless to any preconception or out-of-science interest. http://met.hu/idojaras/IDOJARAS_vol111_No1_01.pdf http://hps.elte.hu/zagoni/Proofs_of_the_Miskolczi_theory.htm
I for one applaud this effort to create a global climate science center which would be globally funded and which hopefully can be at the cutting edge in climate research. Whether or not the Sun is a driver in the current warming (and I would be surprised if it is not), we are still putting a lot of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Given that it is probable that rising CO2 levels are a factor in the current climate change (if not the dominant one), it behooves us to study the effects of greenhouse gas emissions and how to control them very seriously. -- We have a lot of work to do in the realm of understanding the global climate, including gaining a good understanding of our impact on it and how to mitigate that impact and/or its conseqences. I for one hope that the political games that will inevitably be played with this proposed global climate institute will not derail it.
I completely agree, Oliver. Further to Edward Schaefer's comment, I hope that those with the knowledge to add to climate change models based on solar activity such as yourself will be able to take part in such an enterprise. Large computational science projects like this will be invaluable in the attempt to solve large predicitive calculations like future climate change models which will affect not only scientific practice, but policy as well. That said, I also hope that less scrupulous policy makers do not attempt to use your solar activity models as a red herring to justify environmentally damaging policy.
There is a big difference between predicting climate and analyzing the genome; that is, there are random, or at least very poorly predictable, influences in climate. Among these are volcanic action, planned or unplanned human efforts in one direction or another, changes in solar activity as it affects climate, and quite a few other such activities. These introduce prediction uncertainties which no amount of computer power can resolve. In the case of the genome, the original decoding was not that of a single person, and as many samples as were needed were available. Computer power was not the problem, and the error problem was small.