Monthly Planet December 2003 Q & A with Willie Soon: A Leading Physicist on What His Research Tells Us About Long-Term Climate Change, and the Environmental Establishment’s Reaction to His Findings r. Willie Soon, a physicist at representing reality. So there is indeed Dthe Solar and Stellar Physics a danger in rushing to discredit certain Division of the Harvard-Smithsonian climatic factors while most rejections, Center for Astrophysics in Cambridge, especially of the sun’s radiant energy, Massachusetts, and an astronomer are simply not warranted yet. at the Mount Wilson Observatory in California’s San Gabriel Mountains, CEI: Were you surprised at the reception recently discussed with CEI his that your report, “Reconstructing research on climate change and Climatic and Environmental Changes the environmental establishment’s of the Past 1000 Years: A Reappraisal,” reaction to his article, “Reconstructing (published in the journal Energy & Climatic and Environmental Changes Environment) has received in the press of the Past 1000 Years: A Reappraisal,” and in some scientifi c journals? (co-authored with Sallie Baliunas) which shows that the 20th Century was Soon: Since the appearance of the not the warmest of the last 1000 years. paper, I have been writing many letters Dr. Soon writes and lectures frequently worrying about public perceptions, and to newspapers and magazines to better on important issues related to the sun, conduct the hard scientifi c research that educate reporters and writers. I am other stars, and the Earth, as well as is ahead of us. indeed surprised at the very negative general science topics in astronomy reactions from a group of scientists who and physics. CEI: Prior to 1950, there were various appeared to think that my paper was an theories for the cause of climate attack on their work. This perception “Every way of seeing is a way of not change—e.g. changes in elements of is unfounded. My paper simply adds seeing” ― Kenneth Burke, American the Earth’s orbit, lunar-solar tidal more cautions, novel viewpoints and rhetorician infl uences, sunspots. How many of approaches, and a broader range of these ideas have been discredited? evidence for climate variability and CEI: What fi rst got you interested in Which, in your estimation, merit further non-variability to the developing researching the impact of anthropogenic research? scientifi c literature. All my efforts have changes on the Earth’s climate? What, if centered on testing whether various any, impact has mankind had on the Soon: There are a number of proposed hypotheses should be accepted or Earth’s environment? factors for causal climate change. The rejected. In a letter to the Chronicle hardest aspect of scientifi c research is of Higher Education, my Harvard- Soon: I started seriously researching indeed to rule out—or discredit—any Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics of those possibilities. To date, we colleague and co-author Sallie Baliunas the possibility of carbon dioxide (CO2) warming of the globe when I was know that changes in the Earth’s solar and I point out that, “[W]hen Earth’s trying to learn how the sun’s variable orbit occurring over tens of thousand climate is perturbed by some forces, light and charged-particle outputs of years account for the huge swings more than just temperature changes.” can impact Earth’s climate on both in the Earth’s past climatic condition, Therefore, “to understand the climate year-to-year and century-to-century from fully glaciated states to the very change phenomena, it is prudent to timescales. That was about one sunspot warm epochs in which there is hardly inclusively examine the broader scope cycle, or 11 years, ago. We have plenty any ice around the continents. It is still of changes from a more comprehensive of direct evidence for man changing extremely diffi cult to quantitatively perspective than that of temperature.” the Earth’s environment on local and defi ne the role of climate factors like We also note: “Ultimately, willingness regional scales, but what is often not volcanic eruptions, the sun’s variable and carefully attending to examine all appreciated is that not all man-made outputs, atmospheric gases like water possibilities about the nature of climate modifi cations and infl uences are so vapor, carbon dioxide, or methane on variability will reveal more about what horribly destructive. The evidence climactic changes, especially those is going on than what we now know. Of occurring within the past 100 years that we have no doubt.” (This and other about man-made CO2 causing global warming is nowhere close to that neat, or so. All these factors need to be letters can be found on my web page: but incorrect, conceptual picture of quantitatively compared in a realistic http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/~wsoon/ warming as in a greenhouse. If we are fashion. Many attempts based on ChronicleHigherEducation03-d). serious about knowing the answers, we computer climate models are inadequate need to avoid simplistic analogies, stop because climate models are still far from CEI: A 2001 National Science 6 www.cei.org Monthly Planet December 2003 Foundation survey of 1,500 people especially those convened by the World scale temperatures. This holds especially found that 77 percent believed that, Meteorological Organization—were true when dealing with climate history “increased carbon dioxide and other leading to a consensus that greenhouse of the last 1000 years or so, where gases released into the atmosphere will, gases may cause catastrophic cooling, one can hardly have enough local and if unchecked, lead to global warming.” ending with a new Ice Age for the Earth. regional information to construct People of all education levels seem Since the 1990s, we’ve been told that any global temperature confi dently. to buy this notion. Is there a way to greenhouse gases are causing global (Ross McKitrick is interviewed in the counter climate alarmism among the warming. It would be best left to the November issue of Monthly Planet.) public? social scientists to tackle the question about the dramatic switch in popular CEI: What are the Dalton Minimum and Soon: In my opinion, the only way to views—endorsed by certain scientists the Maunder Minimum and how could reduce alarmism is to yield to facts and and experts, though not all—since their study help us better understand evidence that may belie any extreme there are no real advances in scientifi c the Earth’s long-term climate? assertions. On the topic of carbon dioxide and global warming, there have been too many opinions but little We may be dangerously moving away from internally consistent facts. For example, science-by-evidence to science-by-public appeals; the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Third and that is bad not only for science, Assessment Report, which is hailed but also for the public, who will be as the most authoritative source on left swimming in a pool of ignorance. climate change, is really a political document promoting a particular brand of belief: that the climatic impact of man-made greenhouse gases will be knowledge between the 70s and 90s Soon: The Dalton Minimum and the profoundly negative and that remedial that would explain those contrasting Maunder Minimum are two specifi c action is urgent. The science itself extremes in conviction. intervals, around 1795-1820 and 1645- is secondary. As one of the report’s 1715, respectively, in the sunspot record own co-authors, MIT meteorologist CEI: At a July 29 Senate Environment that points to signs of a less active sun, Richard Lindzen, points out, IPCC and Public Works Committee hearing, which in turn can plausibly be linked to a presented the report as representing you testifi ed that local and regional dimmer sun, at least in some wavelength a scientifi c consensus, even though temperature changes are more regions. A sun with less radiant energy is individual authors were not consulted important than global changes. What certainly a good possible explanation for on whether they agreed with parts of is the reason for this and why is this some of the cooler episodes in climate the report beyond those they worked proposition controversial? history. But I think the most important on. Further, IPCC used the “Summary reason to research these solar activity for Policymakers” to misrepresent what Soon: Yes, I emphasized that the minima is to provide a better contrasting is in the actual report. And the report’s reality of climate change is local and benchmark on what will happen when peer-review process was pointless, since regional in scope. I do think that this is the sun’s activity is stronger and forces authors did not respond to reviewers’ universally agreed since there is really more radiant energy onto the Earth’s comments—including Lindzen’s. We not much on which to argue against climate system. Coincidentally, a new may be dangerously moving away that. Neither we nor the environment scientifi c paper (“A Millennium Scale from science-by-evidence to science- function under any actual constraints Sunspot Number Reconstruction: by-public appeals; and that is bad not of a “global” temperature. The fact is Evidence for an Unusually Active Sun only for science, but also for the public, that “global” temperature is a quantity since the 1940s,” to appear in Physical who will be left swimming in a pool of that looks good on paper but is quite Review Letters) authored by a team led ignorance. diffi cult to measure confi dently. Going by solar physicist Ilya Usoskin, of the a step further, my friends Chris Essex University of Oulu in Finland, suggests CEI: In the 1970s, there was (University of Western Ontario) and that the sun’s magnetic activity has been considerable hysteria about global Ross McKitrick (University of Guelph, unusually active in the 20th Century cooling very similar to today’s hysteria Ontario), in their book Taken by Storm, compared to its activity record of the about global warming.