Galactic Cosmic Ray Theory Problems?

Question

There appear to be a number of problems with the Svensmark & Friis-Christensen GCR global warming theory. A new and good discussion here:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/10/cosmic-rays-don%e2%80%99t-die-so-easily/

The biggest one being that there has been no long-term trend in GCR flux

http://www.realclimate.org/images/TheChillingStars.jpg

"In addition, there is no evidence of any long-term trend in the low cloud cover, and the GCR-hypothesis has a problem with explaining the trend in the diurnal cycle, enhanced warming in the Arctic and a cooling in the stratosphere."

On top of that, "the physical link between any ultra-small particles and much larger the cloud condensation nuclei is still lacking, even after the experiment performed in Copenhagen. Thus, the hypothesis is still speculative."

This theory seems to be fraught with problems, especially in comparison to the AGW theory. So why do people find it a more convincing explanation?

jim m - geothermal contributions to the Earth's temperature are negligible. If you want anyone to take this argument seriously, try finding scientific evidence which proves otherwise. You won't be able to.

Larry - where do you think they get the numbers that are plugged into computer models? Neverneverland?

By the way, your first 2 links don't even talk about GCR.

Answer 1

I'm pleased it got proper funding for research, the less doubt about the veracity of AGW, the more reason people have to get on with doing something about it.

People find it convincing because it means they don't have to do anything, and these past few years they were justified in thier high carbon lifestyles, despite all the evidence for AGW.

It doesn't take a degree in phycology to figure out the sceptic stance.

Answer 2

There are any form of organic activities that could impression the factors, what deniers the two overlook of do in simple terms no longer understand is that lots of the comparable scientists who stumbled on or more advantageous a lot of our information on those are the comparable scientists who additionally labored out many of the GW theory. all of us understand with a extreme point of precision the Suns interest (case in point) for the final 35 years, it is how all of us understand that photograph voltaic interest has unquestionably had little result on the warming seen over that era. Over a lot longer sessions 10s of tens of millions of years continental flow performs a trouble-free area in long term climate substitute with much better landmasses or no landmasses over Antarctica or the Arctic meaning much better glaciers or in basic terms sea ice, having a marked result on worldwide climate. some deniers attempt to chat approximately billions of years in the past it is genuinely beside the point given various diverse significant variables being completely diverse like photograph voltaic output, atmospheric content fabric and Biomass.

Answer 3

Now look at real world evidence that supports the GCR cloud modulation theory instead of numbers plugged into a computer model.

http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2007/10/17/earths-albedo-tells-a-interesting-story/

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/comment/story.html?id=597d0677-2a05-47b4-b34f-b84068db11f4&p=4

The correlation is pretty outstanding.

http://www.spacecenter.dk/research/sun-climate/cosmoclimatology/a-brief-summary-on-cosmoclimatology

Answer 4

I don't know about the source - there do seem to be a lot of Gamma bursts these days. However, check out the polar caps on Mars - they are melting too! This warming is not limited to Earth.

Answer 5

Ah yes, a one-dimensional model trying to explain a multi-dimensional problem.

Computer models don't work very well without rigid parameters.

Answer 6

None of the models have the effect of geothermal energy factored into them so none of the models are giving info of any value.