Why can't a skeptic explain why Svensmark's cosmic ray theory for cloud formation is not invalidated by

Question

quenching by pollutants? Specifically, any ions produced by cosmic rays are neutralized more rapidly in a polluted atmosphere and thus cannot contribute to droplet nucleation and growth. The only response to the original question is denial of the data.

http://ca.answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AlPeOzo3jxx66C9gLoCDaFDAFQx.;_ylv=3?qid=20080420182006AAd75PE

The quenching effect that I cite is known to nuclear physicists. The science is well established because this is related to the production of hydrogen which is an important problem in the design of nuclear reactors.

Answer 1

Blah, blah blah, blah blah...

Why don't you spend less time in here, and work on a viable nuclear fusion source

Spend less time worrying about us destroying the planet, and more time saving man...  Specifically from the terrorist oil producing nations

Nuclear is the way to go

use it for energy.... and to blow up the middle east.... and there leader, Al Gore...

Answer 2

There are so many flaws to Svensmark's cosmic ray theory, I devoted a whole section to it in my global warming causes wiki article linked below. The data just does not support the theory, and it's entirely possible that air pollution is another reason (besides the ones listed in the link below).

Answer 3

Here are a list of paper that are in favor of the CRF-climate/cloud formation in both modern short timescales and long term:

These two came out this year:

http://aps.arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/08...

http://aps.arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/08...

http://solar.njit.edu/preprints/palle126...

http://www.utdallas.edu/physics/pdf/tin_...

http://www.gsajournals.org/archive/1052-...

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2002/20...

http://www.atmos-chem-phys.org/4/2273/20...

https://utd.edu/nsm/physics/pdf/Atmos_06...

Svensmark's work:

http://www.dsri.dk/~hsv/prlresup2.pdf

http://journals.royalsociety.org/content...

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs...

http://www.springerlink.com/content/q0x7...

Svensmark's reply to Lockwood and Frohlich:

http://www.spacecenter.dk/publications/s...

http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0409123

Shaviv's reply to Royer:

http://www.gsajournals.org/pdf/online_fo...

There are a few more I have missed.

Edit:

Wait, you said Svensmark's theory is *not* invalidated. So you agree with Svensmark?

I really just read your question and I don't think that it is at odds with the theory of GCRs influence on climate. More clouds=higher albedo=cooler temperatures . The theory is that with the higher solar activity, less GCRs reach Earth, meaning fewer clouds and more warming (this is simplistic, but I have provided several links for more info). Quenching also means fewer clouds....