The importance of cosmic rays in climate science?

I wonder if Svensmark has considered the following;

1. Cosmic rays are not the only way to seed clouds.

2. If the initial effect of fewer cosmic rays is fewer cloud, there will also be less rain.

3. Less rain means more dust.

4. More dust means clouds are seeded.

5. What I have described is a negative feedback mechanism to cosmic ray forcing.

That does not mean that cosmic rays do not have a strong effect on temperature and precipitation. Negative feedbacks often have long lag times, resulting in cyclical behavior.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_windup

However, over the last 30 years, cosmic rays have been trending in the wrong direction to be responsible for recent warming.

"While the link between cosmic rays and cloud cover is yet to be confirmed, more importantly, there has been no correlation between cosmic rays and global temperatures over the last 30 years of global warming. In fact, in recent years when cosmic rays should have been having their largest cooling effect on record, temperatures have been at their highest on record."

http://www.skepticalscience.com/cosmic-rays-and-gl...

http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/1_GCRsvsTemps...

If you really want to understand his theories, you should read his book, The Chilling Stars. Get the revised edition it answers the critics response to his theories 2008 I believe. Its very interesting and informative. Try youtubeing his documentary, the cloud mystery. Not as informative but good. I think you are just interested in criticizing him, is that true? Never mind with the book save some money no one has succesfully done so in a published paper.

You see, you are just like the deniers you denigrate so much. A scientist says something and you turn all sceptical!

More seriously, Svensmark is trying hard and should be allowed to continue his research but I have to say, the jury is still out on his conclusions. He may discover something else interesting along the way.

He still needs an as yet undiscovered chemical feedback effect, though.

Hi Jeff I've tried to point you in the right direction many times If you want to move forward in your research you need to read the links provided http://www-spof.gsfc.nasa.gov/Education/Ielect.htm... and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurora_(astronomy) and http://www.chelationtherapyonline.com/technical/p1... these processes are the reason why these work http://www.australianrain.com.au/technology/howitw... and http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/31/64/49/P... These are NOT theories they are being carried out right now to help adjust the electric potential of the atmosphere We pump tera watts of man made electrical energy into the atmosphere every second of the day and night 24/7 through our wireless com's and remote sensing With all the man made antennas placed at altitude don't you see were altering the natural point charges http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electri...

The fact that we still don't have a clear picture of their impact immediately implies that impact is relatively minor compared to other factors.

In any case the rays are 'galactic cosmic rays'. These have nothing to do with our sun.

Although cosmic rays do cause nucleation in a bubble chamber, there are two fundamental problems with the cosmic ray hypothesis. First, the effect depends on the relative humidity and the concentration of dust particles. Dust damps out any cosmic ray effect. Human activity has changed the concentration and composition of dust in the atmosphere, so that a small pre-industrial effect would be much smaller after industrialization. Secondly, the total amount of energy carried by cosmic rays is miniscule. A physical mechanism with a very large amplification is needed to cause a measurable effect. A physical mechanism for amplification has not been demonstrated in the lab or shown to exist in nature. I would look for long-period biological processes such as grasshopper swarms in North Africa as a source of a periodic atmospheric perturbation instead. Correlation alone does not mean there is a causal link. The correlation between cloud cover and Nigerian princes offering a reward for lost treasures could be just as good as the correlation between cloud cover and cosmic rays.

Svensmark previously has had to retract his claims about solar activity driving global warming. The link you give does not say he is claiming now that gamma rays from other stars are causing HALF of global warming, but we should be wary of his exaggerated claims. Previously it was that solar activity is causing all of global warming until he was busted by Mike Lockwood and other solar scientists, and Svensmark then admitted that the effects of solar activities were a very small, marginal component in climate change. Now he is claiming it is gamma rays from outside the solar system. The guy is clearly on the cutting edge of new theories of astronomical causes of weather and climate, but he exaggerates the importance of his findings in his quest for fame.

Hey Jeff are you saying it is the sun

Just look at this graph and you can see how solar ap index matches to our rise in earths temperature.

http://www.ips.gov.au/Images/Educational/Magnetic%...

It's likely a small effect and if it is detectable under optimal conditions, global climate has been so perturbed by the increase in forcing from anthropogenic CO2 trying to see that correlation now is like trying to detect air motions due to termite farts in the middle of a hurricane.

look at everything except the obvious: Greenhouse gases. Maybe it's aliens, insects, god.