What do you make of the new Terry Sloan study which undermines Svensmark's galactic cosmic ray theory?

Question

"The idea is that variations in solar activity affect cosmic ray intensity.

But Lancaster University scientists found there has been no significant link between them in the last 20 years...the UK team explain that they used three different ways to search for a correlation, and found virtually none.

{...}

Over the course of one of the Sun's natural 11-year cycles, there was a weak correlation between cosmic ray intensity and cloud cover - but cosmic ray variability could at the very most explain only a quarter of the changes in cloudiness.

{...}

Dr Harrison's...research, looking at the UK only, has also suggested that cosmic rays make only a very weak contribution to cloud formation."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7327393.stm

Paper available here:

http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/-search=50604177.1/1748-9326/3/2/024001/erl8_2_024001.pdf?request-id=cdadc8e8-a183-492a-ba64-421c329f1c24

What do you make of this study?

Answer 1

I can't believe you've run out of original questions to ask!  My answer to this question the LAST time was:

"It will only lessen the "cosmic ray" theorists...there are other explanations much more plausible than CO2. For all we know, man COULD be responsible...but it could be in the form of microwave pollution. Temperature rise correlates nicely with the increase of microwave use as a communications medium...and water vapor is a much better greenhouse gas than CO2.

Until man better understands this complex system, I will continue to believe the Sun warms the Earth."

Answer 2

The mathematical modeling of cloud cover and particularly relevant to the article, of cloud formation, is still being debated.

5 to 1, you'll gear up on this. No, I do not need more information. My previous intersection with you guys loaded me with enough links about AGW, to last a lifetime.

But keep posting this stuff. We can always learn something more.

Answer 3

Guess that also blows away that spectral (Ghost) CO2 light global warming thing too.

Answer 4

2 points thanks.

I agree with evans.

Answer 5

oh thanks dana i was feeling lazy, you found the source paper for me lol!

i'm a bit disappointed, i did think there might be something in the cosmic ray thing. and it would have meant things were maybe not as dire as we think. but they are.

i was a bit worried about the summer heat in 2012/13 if it was true, cos sod's law it would be el nino again by then as well, and the combination would have been a bit much for my garden and my aged mama.

Answer 6

I'll wait for Svensmark's response and criticism of their study. He and other scientists have been studying the concept for quite a while.There have been many studies that show very good correlation over thousands of years.

I noticed that they were looking at daily sunspot numbers instead of solar cycle length. That could be a problem.

Answer 7

Evans is right.  About the only thing it proves is how little we understand the system.  Even if it accounts for 25 per cent of cloud variability, are you certain that that isn't plenty to account for all temperature variability, minus unknown factors, and natural variations (also largely uknown).

Answer 8

This is about as thin as it gets.  I do agree with this "since temperatures began rising rapidly in the 1970s, the contribution of humankind's greenhouse gas emissions has outweighed that of solar variability by a factor of about 13 to one.".

Answer 9

It proves that scientist don't agree which we already knew. The article was interesting but no conclusive.  I have to agree with Evan on this one.