An Xmas present to sceptics: Svensmark, Cosmic rays & Clouds

For nearly 20 years the idiots pushing the politicised climate scam have asserted that “the science is settled” and denied any other possible cause to climate change other than CO2.
That only works as a propaganda tool if there isn’t another climate driver. Today I read that Svensmark has finally got his proof of a link between cloud formation and cosmic rays published.

“Scientists at the Technical University of Denmark have discovered what they call a game changing result in understanding how cosmic rays from supernovae – exploding stars – can influence Earth’s cloud cover and thereby climate by being mediated by the Sun. The new findings are published in the journal Nature Communications.

The principle is that cosmic rays – high-energy particles that traverse the galaxy from supernovae – knock electrons out of air molecules. This produces ions – electrically positive and negative molecules in the atmosphere. The ions help aerosols – clusters of mainly sulphuric acid and water molecules – to form and become stable against evaporation – a process is called nucleation.”

It is now undeniable that cosmic rays are partly responsible for climate change.
That in turn means it is even more likely the 1970-2000 warming was caused by a similar change in condensation nuclear from air born pollution – which like cosmic ray clouds, act to depress the temperature. But this time the main change that we noticed was the rapid removal of cooling-causing pollution when the clean air acts came in in the 1970s with the associated REGIONAL change in temperature a few days upwind of areas of economic activity like the US and Europe.
Now, it might be reasonable to ask why I’m not trying to publish this finding. The reason is that I’ve seen how many years upon years upon years it has taken for those like Svensmark to get what is in reality a fairly simple and pretty obvious link, past the climate stazi. So you will understand I have far better things to do with my life than spend the next decade trying to publish a paper just to show the totally obvious link between 1970-2000 reduction in pollution and the 1970-2000 rise in global temperature.
Happy Xmas

This entry was posted in Climate. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to An Xmas present to sceptics: Svensmark, Cosmic rays & Clouds

  1. oldbrew says:

    ‘It is now undeniable that cosmic rays are partly responsible for climate change.’
    Well…not quite – Anthony Watts writes:
    I asked prominent solar physicist Dr. Leif Svalgaard his opinion on the paper (and sent him the advance full copy). He had this to say:
    Think about this:
    TSI over a solar cycle causes a variation of 0.05-0.10 degrees C. If GCRs as per Svensmark has 5-7 times the effect of TSI, that would translate to a temperature variation of 0.35-0.50 C over a cycle, which is simply not observed, hence the paper can be dismissed out of hand.
    Predictable response.

    • Scottish-Sceptic says:

      you’re crediting the alarmists with far too much intelligence and ability to think. Yes, to rational people your argument is valid, but rational people wouldn’t use the argument “unless you can prove it was something else it must be CO2 … therefore we must destroy the western economy on the precautionary principle”.
      The size of the admission is almost insignificant … because most of them have no real idea the scale of warming anyway. What is important is the argument: “there is no other possible explanation”. Add a bit of additional complexity by showing that solar activity was partly to blame and most of the alarmists will be lost … because it’s no longer a simple slogan campaign – it becomes a question of assessing the various contributions.
      And just as it’s possible to dream up enormous multipliers for CO2 — it is now possible to suggest enormous multipliers for solar.
      The certainty has gone, their ability to say “no one seriously suggests anything else so it must be CO2” has gone, the science is clearly not settled, the debate stops being a bunch of eco-nutters throwing insults and starts being a scientific debate … at which point the clueless eco-nutters become totally pathetic bystanders incapable of joining in the fray and they will quickly lose all willingness to participate.

Comments are closed.