It looks like Professor Svensmark has sounded the death knell for AGW.

[Jack Hays]

[h=2]Svensmark’s cosmic ray theory of clouds and global warming looks to be confirmed[/h] Posted on September 4, 2013 by Anthony Watts
Note: Between flaccid climate sensitivity, ENSO driving “the pause”, and now this, it looks like the upcoming IPCC AR5 report will be obsolete the day it is released.
From a Technical University of Denmark press release comes what looks to be a significant confirmation of Svensmark’s theory of temperature modulation on Earth by cosmic ray interactions. The process is that when there are more cosmic rays, they help create more microscopic cloud nuclei, which in turn form more clouds, which reflect more solar radiation back into space, making Earth cooler than what it normally might be. Conversely, less cosmic rays mean less cloud cover and a warmer planet as indicated here. The sun’s magnetic field is said to deflect cosmic rays when its solar magnetic dynamo is more active, and right around the last solar max, we were at an 8000 year high, suggesting more deflected cosmic rays, and warmer temperatures. Now the sun has gone into a record slump, and there are predictions of cooler temperatures ahead This new and important paper is published in Physics Letters A. – Anthony
Danish experiment suggests unexpected magic by cosmic rays in cloud formation
Researchers in the Technical University of Denmark (DTU) are hard on the trail of a previously unknown molecular process that helps commonplace clouds to form. Tests in a large and highly instrumented reaction chamber in Lyngby, called SKY2, demonstrate that an existing chemical theory is misleading.
Back in 1996 Danish physicists suggested that cosmic rays, energetic particles from space, are important in the formation of clouds. Since then, experiments in Copenhagen and elsewhere have demonstrated that cosmic rays actually help small clusters of molecules to form. But the cosmic-ray/cloud hypothesis seemed to run into a problem when numerical simulations of the prevailing chemical theory pointed to a failure of growth.
Continue reading →

 

[sawyerloggingon]

HMMMM, it seems the climate is just a bit more complex than X amount of C02 = X amount of warming, who'd of thunk?:lol:

 

[Deuce]

HMMMM, it seems the climate is just a bit more complex than X amount of C02 = X amount of warming, who'd of thunk?:lol:

Says the guy who thinks it's "X cosmic rays = Y warming"

 

[Deuce]

How come when I post one paper supporting AGW, it's not a death knell for the skeptics?

And how many thread titles in this subforum make such a claim? This is it, we swear! This disproves decades of research all in one go! Unless you read the original source which turns out to be grossly misrepresented by the denial industry yet again, and the so-called "skeptics" accept it without question. (say, isn't that the opposite of what "skeptic" means?)

 

[Jack Hays]

How come when I post one paper supporting AGW, it's not a death knell for the skeptics?

And how many thread titles in this subforum make such a claim? This is it, we swear! This disproves decades of research all in one go! Unless you read the original source which turns out to be grossly misrepresented by the denial industry yet again, and the so-called "skeptics" accept it without question. (say, isn't that the opposite of what "skeptic" means?)

Svensmark is to AGW as Copernicus was to the Ptolemaic planetary system. Simpler, more elegant, more consistent with observed phenomena. Scientific revolutions never originate in the mainstream.eace

 

[jmotivator]

How come when I post one paper supporting AGW, it's not a death knell for the skeptics?

Because the Skeptics are arguing that the system is too complex to know with any certainty while the AGW side is claiming actionable certainty.

In other words you are betting on CO2 while Skeptics are betting on the field.

 

[Deuce]

Svensmark is to AGW as Copernicus was to the Ptolemaic planetary system. Simpler, more elegant, more consistent with observed phenomena. Scientific revolutions never originate in the mainstream.eace

Yes, you've regurgitated this line before, thanks.

 

[Deuce]

Because the Skeptics are arguing that the system is too complex to know with any certainty while the AGW side is claiming actionable certainty.

In other words you are betting on CO2 while Skeptics are betting on the field.

It's too complex to know with any certainty BUT HERE'S THE ONE BIT OF RESEARCH THAT DISPROVES IT ALL!! One paper noting an unexpected reaction but making no effort to quantify it yet. (because Svensmark is a good scientist and realizes that the impact of this requires further research)

:lamo

 

[jmotivator]

It's too complex to know with any certainty BUT HERE'S THE ONE BIT OF RESEARCH THAT DISPROVES IT ALL!! One paper noting an unexpected reaction but making no effort to quantify it yet. (because Svensmark is a good scientist and realizes that the impact of this requires further research)

:lamo

Yes, Deuce. Let's see if you can follow this: The AGW reports attempt to describe the climate trends of the next 100 years.... the skeptic reports try to describe one aspect of a very complex system and don't try to predict the future.

Is it too much to hope that you can see the difference?

 

[Jack Hays]

Yes, you've regurgitated this line before, thanks.

Truth is eternal.