Keep in mind that in the early 1970s, journalists were worried about the possibility of Global Cooling, because the weather had been so abnormally cold. Over the course of the next thirty six years (three eleven year or 1 1/2 twenty two year solar cycles) we’ve also had two volcanoes erupt (St. Helens in 1980, Pinatubo in 1991), potentially increasing the amount of pollutants by a significant amount beyond those produced by human intervention - and while it may be the carbon in those pollutants that are the problem, it may also be that glaciation thinning at the edges is due to higher levels of pollutants in the ice acting as heat providers.

This is only a hypothesis (and likely wrong), but I bring it up in order to point out that we may be discounting viable alternatives because they are becoming politically untenable. I’m a fairly progressive Democrat, have a Bachelor’s Degree in Astronomy, and have followed climate change issues for several years now. I’m pretty much in agreement with J. Clarkson, above, in saying that Svensmark’s arguments are persuasive, though I’m not sure that I completely think that the cosmic rays by themselves are in fact the nub of the matter.

Cosmic rays are important not only for their energy, but because such particles are protons. They carry an electric charge, and mediate a magnetic field. The Sun’s twenty three year cycle is almost certainly set by Jupiter’s 11.8 terran years solar year, with additional perturbations induced by Earth’s much weaker field (making it a three body problem, albeit on that at first approximation is two body). All three bodies are spinning, which means that they are all three creating lines of magnetic flux that can be erratic, especially when applied to masses of ionized air that are themselves spinning due to coriolis forces, add in a locally perpendicular galactic gravitational flux (that is not necessarily uniform) and its perhaps not all that surprising that we have quasi-periodic cycles that can extend for years or decades.

The only problem with this kind of hypothesis is that it is hard to get accurate data given the comparatively small window of time that we’ve had for measurements. It’s difficult to measure magnetic flux on scales smaller than centuries. It should be possible to correlate sunspot cycle with the Jovian orbit to see if there is in fact sufficient evidence to suggest a connection.

There are any number of perfectly good reasons to reduce out carbon footprint, which is why I believe that even if the above theory is a contributing factor ignoring either at the expense of the other is dangerous.

“We have never said that there is no connection between cosmic rays and cloud formation. Some part of cloud formation could come from cosmic rays but it not the whole story according to our work.”

How can an idiot say solar activity has no bearing?

Stupid is as stupid does.

As far as I can see this theory alone is good enough to explain the heating and cooling phases of the atmosphere. The rest is so small as to be only contributory. And CO2 gets locked up in colder climates so then has a part to play in the story. In warmer times it similarly gets released. But human CO2 is so small compared with natural CO2 and the large affects of clouds, as to be immaterial to the show.

As for the so called ’swindle’ case that is not true. Every scientist who cares about our planet is concerned about human emissions because they damage our ecosystem: and if it turns out that they might stand a chance of causing major global warming then we need to act on a precautionary principle. The fact that Svensmark has found out that this might not be the case is good news for all of humanity. Let’s face it, if the sun can shield the earth from causing ice ages, then that’s a great thing to find out! As for warming, we then need to make sure we don’t exacerbatet the problem during those times - when cosmic rays are failing to make it into our atmosphere.

Svensmark’s results though IS NO EXCUSE to pollute this planet. We should still continue cutting pollution as this is good for human health, plant and soils and of course the ecosystems health in general. We should consider how to adapt to both kinds of climate change, and look for means to defend our planet from asteroids, and learn to travel in space to try to go to new worlds. (The latter though may turn out to be so expensive, and so demanding on resources that it might not be possible without some kind of population control.)

In the longest term we will probably be eliminated as a species by a gamma ray burst, or just plain human greed and stupidity. Either way, we need to build intelligent machines that can carry on our work into space. These robots may one day learn to save the universe. The robots we make should be small, light and portable, so as able to travel vast distances quickly, using new and exotic ways to travel into deep space.

It may however be impossible to make an intelligent robot - something that has self-awareness like us - and a desire to survive come what may because of that self-knowledge. They may just turn out to be machines that look, sound, and smell of intelligence, but are really just highly developed algorithms.

This then brings me on to my next idea: our lives were created out of the purposelessness of space and time, and we shall each go back to that chaos - unless you believe that our minds somehow escape into spacetime and survive in a higher dimension, a by-product of our special universe? (Who knows?) Perhaps these thoughts alone should remind us all that we have only two things to do in this life: help one another and fight against inhumanity, injustice and unnecessary greediness. These are our only real legacies.

This is a real nice article on the topic.

Our atmosphere is a big gaseous soup. Every ingredient, be it cow farts, cars, solar rads, cosmic rays and rads, etc. adds to the flavor of the soup and changes the flavor of the soup. What matters is the intensity of those contributions.

Yes, cosmic rays effect global climate change. Anyone who denies this denies basic chemicistry, physics, and climateology. The question is to what degree as compared to other factors do cosmic rays effect climate changes.

The biggest problem facing climateology is that most of the science on the subject relies on correlational data collection, rather than controlled causation data collection. There is no reasonable way, at our limited means of measure, to adjust for all variables as regards climate science. Instead, we rely on scientists to observe data, rather than engage in controlled tests.

What passes for climateology (for the majority, not always) is correlational data and not causation. It is as *true* and valid as any pseudo social science experiment.

If you think your country or even your town is the center of the world, your wrong, if you think your mind is the only truth you re more wrong, and if you think that what we are doing will make this planet better your sick.

Put a balloon around your head and start smoking and you will feel the difference, take a walk in Mexico City or move to New Orleans if you can´t find a balloon.

If the Poles are melting don´t worry, you will always have new weapons to stop refugees.

WE are the only animal that falls twice with the same stone