Something to be thankful for! At last: Cosmic rays linked to rapid mid-latitude cloud changes

Something to be thankful for! At last: Cosmic rays linked to rapid mid-latitude cloud changes“. Anthony Watts has once again found a natural cause for Global Warming (which isn’t happening). Now it’s cosmic rays! Anthony finds the Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics paper Cosmic rays linked to rapid mid-latitude cloud changes “compelling”, especially when combined with denialist Jo Nova’s amateur illustrations (apparently the solar magnetic field absorbs cosmic rays).

The theory, which Henrik Svensmark has been relentlessly but unsuccessfully promoting for years, is that the sun’s magnetic field deflects Galactic Cosmic Rays, which seed cloud formation as they pass through the atmosphere. Hence a weaker solar magnetic field will trigger cooling by increased Earth’s albedo.

Do you think Anthony realized that the effects observed in the paper are only on the order of several days in duration? Naw. Or that Anthony noticed the authors’ admission that this effect is swamped by the anthropogenic impact? Naw.

Anthony’s quote-mining is always fun to watch. He highlights this sentence in the paper’s abstract: “These results provide perhaps the most compelling evidence presented thus far of a GCR-climate relationship.” but conveniently ignores the one immediately in front of it: “However, the results of the GCM experiment are found to be somewhat limited by the ability of the model to successfully reproduce observed cloud cover.”

Update: Here’s Jo Nova’s entertaining cosmological depict of the theory (purple annotation mine):

Jo Nova's concept of Cosmic Rays being eaten by... space dragons?

5 thoughts on “Something to be thankful for! At last: Cosmic rays linked to rapid mid-latitude cloud changes

  1. This drives me crazy. The other day WUWT posts a press release about a paper on clouds. The paper concludes that *if* it is right than climate sensitivity is higher than current estimates. Bad news, right? However, Anthony seems to think all this does is disprove that models work in the first place. Yet this study, which uses GCMs, is apparently robust and compelling.

    Which is it? Can you use GCMs and get a valid result or not? You can’t just scoff at ones that don’t say what you want. Make up your freaking mind!

  2. Pingback: The Climate Change Debate Thread - Page 328

  3. The author responds to the WUWT post and says in the comments:

    “… this work does not comment on global warming and it should not be interpreted to cast doubt on recent anthropogenic warming”

    [Funny how Anthony didn’t notice that… – Ben]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s