Sunday, December 13, 2009

Henrik Svensmark Has Heart Attack During Climate Change Debate?

So says this report from Copenhagen. Mr. Svensmark was engaged in a live debate when he collapsed on stage. Presumably, he was pushing the solar/global warming connection, of which he is the main proponent. Not too many people buy his theories re. climate change and the sun, but they apparently have inspired in some interesting discoveries re cosmic rays and atmospheric chemistry. Here are a couple of earlier posts I've written on the man.

8 comments:

John Mashey said...

A minor nit on terminology:

In science-speak:
a) there are lots of ideas, many of which neer even make it to:

b) Hypotheses, with at least some data and explanation to back them,
and if there is wide enough acceptance, that survives longer-term scrutiney, and thne

c) Theories, which are generally well-accepted. Those with simple mathematical formulations, which if untrue (at the level of approximation they cover), would cause an entire scientific edifices to crash, get called Laws. I.e., Newton's Laws of Motion, which work quite well at non-relativistic speeds.

Svensmark has ideas, which might even be called hypotheses, but any time someone looks at them seriously, the data pushes back.

At some point, sticking with an idea in the face of continual countervailing evidence gets called pseudoscience. Understanding potential cosmic ray influences is perfectly OK, insisting on bigger effects in the face of evidence otherwise is marginal pseudoscience,
and insisting that the greenhouse effect doesn't work is anti-science.

As far as I can tell, the only reason Svensmark's ideas are talked about much is that climate anti-science folks sometimes every bit of pseudoscience they can find and give it a platform.

Of couree, in common parlance, "theory" covers everything :-)

sdfj said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
blue.tiger7 said...

By all accounts the overwhelming amounts of data on man made global warming push back on the validity of the theory. Compound that with Climategate and you have the truth. Futhermore, if you accept the theory that the earth has existed for roughly 6 Billion years along with it's chaotically complex weather system and man has been Scientifically recording the weather for oh, lets be very liberal here and say 6,000 years (some would argue only around 600 years), we have not had enough time to truly and thorougly understand weather. We can't even predict what weather is going to occur at any given location over a weeks period let alone the preposterous notion of even a decade, or more. If we acted on all Hypotheses, AND theories, there would not be much advancement of knowledge with money and politics to block the way.

John Mashey said...

Blue.Tiger:
First conider learning the baret minimum of science, by reading a general book like David Archer' "The Long Thaw".

I offer 9-month prediction (a climate prediction you claim cannot be done): the average temperature in July in Toronto will be warmer than the average temperature of this December.

blue.tiger7 said...

It amazes me that the big yellow orb in the sky and the galactic path our solar system travels are no match for the audacity of all powerful human interposition, or I should say the notion by some of such. Short of nuclear detonations on a global scale, there is no pending human climate catastrophe.

The interaction of cosmic rays and atmospheric chemistry when reproducibly demonstrated in scientifically controlled laboratory conditions with statistical analyses to verify p values are no longer in the theoretical range, they are observances of natural occurances (aka physical laws).

This is science-speak, as you call it, from a person who knows science and is surrounded by those who conduct it. You may delete this, deny this, debate this if you will, but to not learn it yourself first is to make science into a cult of belief rather than fact. Those not in the cult will be persecuted even though the "heretics" bear the truth.

blue.tiger7 said...

Ah yes, do forgive me John, for I didn't address your climate prediction! Very good sir, you are most likely correct in predicting that July in Toronto will be warmer than December! Bravo! Now then, tell me about these pesky trends, exactly how much warmer in degrees Farenheit or Celcius will next July 1-14 be than July of 2011? We know why next July will be most likely warmer than this December in Toronto, because the Northern Hemisphere is tilted on it's axis closer to the sun during July. Funny that, perhaps the sun has something to do with it all, but that's the most basic of climate predictions isn't it? What about the pesky trends? I do believe we have proven that in our earth's history there have been countless numbers of significant climate swings both warm and cold and almost all of which came before the industrial revolution. Personally, I enjoy four distinct seasons, but I don't believe I have any control over whether I get them where I live or not.

Steve said...

I don't know whether there is a TRUTH to Climate Change. There are just as many scientists who agree with human-based CO2 emissions as those who don't. I have read the articles by Svensmark and even though some people don't agree with him, I have to say that his report at least confirms why the global temperatures have been dropping since 2006 and the IPCC has not been able to explain it.

It is time for a full balanced scientific assessment of AGW by all the experts in the area (not the IPCC). And if they can't come to an agreement, then the topic should not be taking any more time from the politicians who have big local issues to contend with.

Maria said...

Try to have debate about climate change with Al gore,as far as you can see he is always wear Tuxedo