If this paper gets accepted, can we say GCR is a dead explanation for the recent warming?

Question

http://www.cosis.net/members/journals/df/article.php?paper=acpd-8-13265

Science marches on, theories should be discarded when they are shown not to match empirical observations. Will any of you skeptics accept these results if they are shown to be correct?

Answer 1

We can say it already.  This is just the latest in a series of studies debunking this concept.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/arc...

EDIT - Note that realclimate references to the original scientific studies.

Answer 2

There is no evidence that supports the GCR theory for the warming that occured over the last thirty years.

:o

Answer 3

I will accept it after these guys get a chance to argue against it: http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pa...

To decide a question, I must hear BOTH sides, not just yours.

Answer 4

I would say not.  We still need more evidence.  Clearly it is poorly understood and I personally wasn't convinced by the study.

Answer 5

I think others ahead of me have said all I would but I just had to respond to some of our smarter sketpic friends out there...

davem with his well-reasoned, logical response demonstrates why the US is the biggest contributor per capita to GW and why, as T Boone Pickens himself has said, "We're paying $700bn a year for foreign oil; it's breaking us as a nation."

Odd that Europe who are "over their heads" are doing so well:

1) Europe experienced a 308% increase in oil prices in the past 5 years [1] whereas the US experienced a 435% increase in the same period. The difference being that the € has vastly outperformed the $ partly because of less exposure / reliance on oil

2) That even before the rise in oil prices and collapse of the dollar, all European countries generated more money from each MW of energy they use than the US does [2]; that is - inefficiencies in  US production causes them to burn (throw away) more oil for the same result. Most consume 1/2 to 2/3 as much energy per $ made than the USA

3) Europe is less dependent upon oil than the US - this makes it more secure, more flexible and able to absorb higher oil prices with less economic damage.

All of this is partly due to their concern about GW - nevermind saving the planet, davem, how about saving your wallet, your jobs, your security?

As for your statement that "China is to date sixty billion dollars richer" from EU carbon credits, do you have a source? - all I could find [3] was much less than that (10-15%) and of that money, China had to spend most of it on things they wouldn't otherwise have done (e.g. cleaning up their factories, planting trees) so they aren't "richer" in the sense of saving.

Answer 6

Considering all the fundamental flaws in the theory and the several other studies undermining its validity (summarized in the link below) , I think it would be fair to call this study the final nail in the GCR coffin.

I mean, the theory is that an increasing solar magnetic field will cause decreasing GCR flux, which will seed fewer clouds and thus cause global warming.  But there's been no long-term trend in solar magnetic field or GCR flux, and there's no evidence that GCRs successfully seed clouds (and now two studies showing little correlation between the two).  Essentially every part of the theory has been disproven with regards to the recent warming!

Really when you compare the GCR and AGW theories, it's no contest.  I can't believe that anyone who doubts AGW would not outright reject GCR, considering the scientific evidence for both.  Of course, that does require considering the scientific evidence.

Bottom line is that people like jim z reject AGW and "aren't convinced" that GCR is wrong because they *want* or *need* AGW to be wrong.  Anyone evaluating the science from an objective and truly skeptical perspective should realize that AGW is on solid scientific footing, and GCR is completely usupported.

Interesting how few 'skeptics' have answered this question, by the way.

davem - um, the theory was first proposed by Henrik Svensmark.  In case you couldn't tell, that's a Danish name.  And in case you didn't know, Denmark is in Europe.

Answer 7

Based on a mere eight years of observation??  Not hardly.  The Earth hasn't even been warming during the time in question!

Edit:  Well, for starters, half of their measurements occur during the winter months....in the Southern Hemisphere....seems these authors don't fully understand what they're setting out to disprove.  Secondly, any theories or ideas on the effects a major CME has on cloud formation?  I'd hardly call this a controlled experiment...

Disclosure:  I'm not a big fan of the comic ray theory, myself.

Answer 8

It will never be agreed too by the doubters.  They consistently cling to old discarded theories as long as it gives them a glimmer of hope that they could be right.  And if they can find a scientist, any scientist (or journalist, or blogger, or economist) no matter what field they're from, that still believes in it, that's enough to convince them humans aren't responsible.

Thanks for linking to the paper though.

Answer 9

Not at all.  The fact it's European scares me.  They're already into the global warming thing over their heads...China is to date sixty billion dollars richer because of the EU and their carbon tax scams.  I wouldn't accept as fact anything said by the people who put the EU in this position.

Answer 10

Sure...but aren't clouds considered an exothermic process?

Doesn't that energy come from some where... Namely the the sun. Kinetics is not my expertise, but I think the same energy that creates also destroys. Water being an amphoteric element, is by itself a mystery. Between you and me I've never heard of a discarded theory. If it's any consolation KSU did a similar study that tried to tie in marine and continental cloud coverage for the western US. Your link is current, mines not but I'll give it regardless.

ed:Just balance the equation