Friday
May202011
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Roy Spencer on Svensmark
May 20, 2011 
Roy Spencer blogs about Svensmark's cosmic ray theory of climate change:
While I have been skeptical of Svensmark’s cosmic ray theory up until now, it looks like the evidence is becoming too strong for me to ignore. The following results will surely be controversial, and the reader should remember that what follows is not peer reviewed, and is only a preliminary estimate.
(H/T Chris, by email)
Update on May 20, 2011 by
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill
The Institute of Physics looks at Svensmark's work here.
Reader Comments (10)
Paradigm Shift- All is not rotten in the State of Denmark.
It is CO2 and only CO2 <smack> Repeat after me.....It is CO2 and only CO2 <smack>It is CO2 and only CO2 <smack>... good boy have a choccie...
I always wondered why Spencer was sceptical of the Svensmark hypothesis until I realised that he had his own ideas about what caused changes in low ocean cloud cover.
It's good to see the persuasive force of recent findings edging even a sceptic like Spencer towards taking Svensmark seriously.
"While I have been skeptical of Svensmark’s cosmic ray theory"
that's cause you are a chemist and didn't do a real science like Physics (wink)
"Paradigm Shift"
Indeed. Although some for some of us Svensmark's thesis always seemed to be intuitively right. I knew he was on to something when I saw the reaction he got from some of the attendees at a presentation he gave (3:42 onwards). A fascinating example of the closed-mindedness of academia and why they say that science progresses one funeral at a time.
Scottish Sceptic
I think Spencer is a meteorologist by training. So you are still right ;-)
One of the pleasant observations to made about Spencer's work is that he demonstrates that quality of letting the experiment do the persuading, which Francis Bacon first advocated over 400 years ago. A scientist thinking scientifically, astonishing.
Welcome to the really Dark Side Dr. Spencer!
"It is the only kind of solar forcing the IPCC (apparently) believes exists, and it is quite weak"
Love the "apparently" part, it always raises my eyebrows.
Welcome aboard Dr Spencer.You, Dr. Lindzen, Dr.Shaviv and Svensmark have all remarked about difficulty getting your (skeptic) papers published. This one is on Svensmark. When he and and his boss, Friis-Christensen, submitted their history making paper to Science magazine, they were told to clarify a certain portion; which they did.Upon resubmitting thier told to clarify another section; which they also did. Upon submitting their revised paper for the third time they were told it was too lenghty for Science magazine and take their paper elsewhere. When i learned of this I just happened to checking the bio on a well known AGW scientist. It seems that he was a Science reviewing editor on climate studies at the same date when Svensmark's paper was submitted. His name; Michael 'hockey stick' Mann.