As a follow up to Mr. Little’s letter concerning uncertainty in global warming. Professor Svensmark’s work in Cosmic Ray Theory only concerns the causes of the formation of clouds, not on global warming. The fact that alarmists must leap to exclude new human knowledge in defense of climate orthodoxy is telling.
Clouds are the singular most difficult and misunderstood of all parameters in climate change prediction models. Scientists can neither qualify nor quantify their input into the climate system. Clouds cool on an otherwise hot day, yet they warm the surroundings at night. Who hasn’t seen a cloud form and expand, seemingly from no where, in a clear sky? Yet in computer climate models this infinite variation is reduced to a singular number pointing in a singular poitive feedback direction. Depending on altitude and timing, clouds either add to or subtract from Earth’s energy budget. To pretend that this basically unquantifiable parameter is of no significance to uncertainty is disingenuous.
As for uncertainty in predictive catastrophe, the Himalayan glaciers won’t be gone by 2035, there weren’t 50 million climate refugees by 2010 and the number of polar bears are continuously increasing. Add to this, no computer model has shown the possibility of a 16 year pause in global average temperature rise, which is now the reality, should make one question their predictive ability.