Is Cosmic Ray Influence on Cloud Cover and Climate Overlooked?

[Blargus]

Henrik Svensmark and Nigel Calder's Book The Chilling Stars mentions Svensmark's paper and experiments that apparently show that global cloud cover is regulated by cosmic rays which is regulated by the sun or solar and geo- magnetic fields.

This fits with remarks by MIT Climatology Professor Emeritus Richard Lindzen that the main greenhouse gases are water vapor and clouds with CO2 being minor:

"That said, the main greenhouse substances in the earth’s atmosphere are water vapor and high clouds. Let’s refer to these as major greenhouse substances to distinguish them from the anthropogenic minor substances. Even a doubling of CO2 would only upset the original balance between incoming and outgoing radiation by about 2%. This is essentially what is called “climate forcing.”"
https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748703939404574567423917025400

So this is science that I venture to say doesn't seem to get discussed because of the politicization of climate science if anyone's interested.

Summary of Svensmark's work and documentary on him from Science journalist coauthor Nigel Calder:
‘Our clouds take their orders from the stars,’
https://calderup.wordpress.com/category/3-climate-change/3e-the-cloud-mystery/

Svensmark's paper in the Proceedings for the Royal Society

https://www.researchgate.net/profil...e-nucleation-under-atmospheric-conditions.pdf

 

[Rive]

So this is science that I venture to say doesn't seem to get discussed because of the politicization of climate science

After an admittedly 'fast and dirty' skimming over the related publications and aftermath, instead a 'silenced' one it looks rather like an already discussed and largely discarded pet theory which just couldn't make the impact but kept on table anyway.

Ps.: Good that there are alternative and scientific attempts, but given that the directions for proving it were already marked almost a decade ago but not much results arriving afterwards, I would say it's safe to stick to the mainstream. Especially since I don't think the forum would be (or: should be) participate in the debate itself.

 

[DrClaude]

Thread closed for moderation.

 

[berkeman]

After an admittedly 'fast and dirty' skimming over the related publications and aftermath, instead a 'silenced' one it looks rather like an already discussed and largely discarded pet theory which just couldn't make the impact but kept on table anyway.

Ps.: Good that there are alternative and scientific attempts, but given that the directions for proving it were already marked almost a decade ago but not much results arriving afterwards, I would say it's safe to stick to the mainstream. Especially since I don't think the forum would be (or: should be) participate in the debate itself.

Good summary. After a Mentor discussion, this thread will remain closed.