http://jhubert.livejournal.com/181274.html

Therefore, I wouldn’t take anything he says too seriously.

As you said, the truth still matters.

I have been reading all available information, and talking to people, to try to work out in my own mind where the truth lies.

I come into contact with a number of scientists, and I find it very striking that every single one of them believes that Al Gore and the IPCC have got it wrong. The most common opinion is that global warming is part of a natural cycle, and even though CO2 levels may have an impact, they are not the main driver. The implication is that we would be better advised to work how best to deal with climate change, than to waste vast resources addressing an unimportant part of the problem. [I use "climate change" deliberately, instead of "Global Warming", as another implication is that we can't be sure the temperature will continue to increase.]

Al Gore’s film was clearly a piece of scaremongering, as the “35 Inconvenient Truths” has highlighted.

But if the truth is that global warming is simply part of a natural cycle, and if CO2 levels are not the most important factor, then there must be a fundamental error in the IPCC report. Not a little error, like a hockey-stick graph being wrong, but something really fundamental.

And there is one. The IPCC itself identifies it in the latest report (AR4). The last subsection of the Technical Summary says, in full:

“Key Uncertainties:

Large uncertainties remain about how clouds might respond to global climate change. {8.6}”

The IPCC couldn’t model how clouds respond to climate change, because they don’t. The truth is that climate changes in response to clouds. The IPCC had it the wrong way round.

The IPCC study is basically a modelling exercise. There is a lot of genuine research reported - no argument with that - but the main thrust of the study was to come up with a computer model of the climate that could be used for making predictions. They cover most things with a degree of confidence, but after all these years they still can’t work out how clouds work. It’s the one remaining major uncertainty. The uncertainty from clouds pervades the whole document. To give you an idea of just how important this is, and how it affects nearly everything in the IPCC report, here’s what they say in Chapter 1 Historical Overview of Climate Change paragraph 1.5.2:

“At the time of the TAR [the previous report] clouds remained a major source of uncertainty in the simulation of climate changes (as they still are at present: e.g., Sections 2.4, 2.6, 3.4.3, 7.5, 8.2, 8.4.11, 8.6.2.2, 8.6.3.2, 9.2.1.2, 9.4.1.8, 10.2.1.2, 10.3.2.2, 10.5.4.3, 11.8.1.3, 11.8.2.2).”

I said “The truth is that climate changes in response to clouds”, but it is as yet only a theory. The theory is all laid out in Henrik Svensmark’s book The Chilling Stars. Henrik Svensmark is director of the Centre for Sun-Climate Research, at the Danish Space Research Institute (DSRI), a part of the Danish National Space Centre. Part of the theory is:-

High levels of certain kinds of cosmic rays cause clouds to form.

Clouds reflect sunlight, hence cool the planet (they have a warming effect at night, but the cooling effect by day is greater). High solar activity has the effect of shielding the Earth from those cosmic rays.

Hence high solar activity = less cosmic rays = less cloud = higher temperatures, and low solar activity = more cosmic rays = more cloud = lower temperatures (there are other factors).

Svensmark’s got a lot of supporting evidence, and the correlation between climate and cosmic rays over time has been quite remarkable. Far more convincing than the IPCC’s efforts to map climate to CO2 levels. But, because we are talking proper science here, the scientists are looking for proof beyond just a nice correlation. An experiment is being conducted at the CERN (European Organisation for Nuclear Research) particle accelerator under the French-Swiss border, which will test the hypothesis that cosmic rays cause the formation of clouds. Unfortunately there won’t be results for a couple of years. Svensmark has already run a successful laboratory test, but the CERN test is a much more thorough one.

If Henrik Svensmark is correct, and I believe that the weight of evidence already indicates that he is, then that will largely demolish the IPCC findings and ‘Summary for Policymakers’. Instead of putting massive resources into reducing emissions of CO2, the world will need to concentrate on being able to deal with whatever climate change the natural forces deliver to us.

On that basis, I would strongly recommend anyone to read the book “Cool It” by Bjorn Lomborg.

I wish your organisation well. A lot of what you are doing is well worth doing in its own right, regardless of the drivers of climate change.

Yours,

MJ

[I am a retired computer analyst/programmer, and have no axe to grind, other than wanting the science to be properly aired.]