There are reasons the conference got up and yelled at him.
http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/Laut2003a.pdfSome quotes:
"Henrik Svensmark’s comments demonstrate that he simply misunderstands the definition of a
physical parameter (i.e. the DSMP dataset,see Ad page 3, paragraph 6, below), that plays a decisive
role in creating the misleading message in his world-famous figure from his 1998 article in Physical
Review Letters, namely, the incorrect claim, that there should be a strong agreement between the
variation of ‘total global cloud cover’ and ‘galactic cosmic ray intensity’. This misunderstanding is,
of course, a strange and troubling fact, which is quite extraordinary in the context of serious scientific
work."
"Here HS tries to explain why his ‘mixed’ curves look like they do, and he tries to argue that the
variation of what he called ‘total cloud cover’ in 1998 actually - in some way- reflects ‘low cloud
cover’. He apparently assumes that this interpretation- by some strange reason- is valid both for
the Nimbus 7 and for the ISCCP datasets.
That may be true and may not be true. To me it is- for the time being and until some solid scientific
evidence emerges - a pure personal guess by HS. And there are many climatological arguments
that go against this guess (I do not find that this is the place to discuss these in detail). Therefore,
HS should tell the Public, that he now has changed his mind, and that he now believes that ‘low
cloud cover’ and not ‘total cloud cover’ is the essential physical parameter.
And he should tell the Public that his old 1998-figure is not supported by scientific
evidence - and has never been."
Show Posts
