1. 

Let's see what an unbiased source says.

"But cosmic rays and solar irradiance have been essentially stable over the last 35 years, while the world has been steadily warming (and, yes, it's still been warming since 1998: 2001-2010 was the hottest decade on record). This study suggests that the Sun cannot acount for more than 14 per cent of global warming since 1956, and that will be due to direct solar activity, not cosmic rays."

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tomchi...

It looks like the claim from your link that CERN research on cosmic rays being suppressed is a lie.



Implied straw man argument. No one says that carbon dioxide is the sole cause of climate change.

MIke



Denialists don't want TSI to be the answer to pre-industrial climate change, because it requires the same feedbacks as carbon dioxide to explain such climate change.



Someone who says, "Nothing is proven," until something actually is proven, is called a skeptic.

The Trilobytes had inhabited all the coastal regions of the world yet they went extinct while deep sea creatures were largely unaffected during the Ordovician extinction. This gives credence to the gamma ray hypothesis but of course, gamma rays of that intensity could not have been from our Sun, it would've had to be from a very improbable gamma ray burst. Climate change would also be an impact from a GRB so it's unclear as to whether it was a consequence or a co-conspirator in the extinction.

The Ordovician extinction is not the one typically cited for a climate change extinction, the Permian extinction is the one referenced as a possible result of global warming. Why you would twist it to the Ordovician extinction only shows how desperately you are trying to pervert theories to your liking.

Basic "Straw Man" argument. Assume something like elevated temps (which have NOT been demonstrated), then speculate on the cause.

You know, if my grandmother had murdered my uncle, my sister absolutely was in a conspiracy with him, the rat!!! How can we handle the dirty dealings of Sis?

If it is cosmic rays then days would be warming more than nights. If it is the greenhouse effect then nights would be warming more than days.

If is is cosmic rays then the stratosphere would not be affected because cosmic rays affect temperatures via cloud coverage. If it is the greenhouse effect then the stratosphere would be cooling as the troposphere and oceans warm.

These hypotheses are testable. And they have been tested.

Nights are warming more than days. The stratosphere is cooling as the troposphere and the oceans warm. The warming is caused by an enhanced greenhouse effect.

Your link, as usual, distorts the facts.

First off, it suggest that a recent paper demonstrates "that CO2 is not the "control knob" of climate. "

It does no such thing. That is personal opinion of the writer of the blog post, not a conclusion by the authors of the paper.

Secondly, the first graph which your link displays is not from the paper but comes from the amateur and 'well-known' geocraft.com run by a mining safety employee. The fact that the 'good folks' over at the Hockeyschtick have removed any references to that original source is telling.

Thirdly, the other "paper showing the disconnect between calculated temperature due to changes in cosmic rays and CO2" of which your link talks (and of which a graph is included) is not a paper at all but a blog post by an unknown author at a website whose domain WHOIS info is protected.

Weird that your skepticism did not pick up either of those 3 major flaws.

Edit Kano:

<< Gringo. did you read your link it says quote >>

Did you bother to read my answer above at all or did you just jump straight to the links? That is not MY link; it is a link given in your Hockeyschtick article to a blogpost (wrongly described as "another paper") written by an unknown author on a site with its WHOIS details shielded.

<< Mike. CERN did investigate but had to back off quick. >>

No it didn't. I researched your link a bit and it turns out it is very, very loosely based on an interview which CERN director Heuer gave to German newspaper Die Welt in 2011. All Heuer said regarding the then upcoming CLOUD experiment data was that he told his researchers to just release the data but not to interpret them.

But as is usual in denierland, cherry-picked quotes quickly get taken out of context and completely distorted. Heuer's "just release the data" becomes "told to back off" in the same way as Torcello's "organised campaign funding misinformation ought to be considered criminally negligent" becomes "arrest all AGW skeptics".

You seem to have gone with the usual denier trash from hockeyschtick, but what is it you have posted a short abstract from a much longer paper and one that makes no mention of cosmic rays at all.

(you did read it, didn't you)

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/art...

No of course you didn't, the abstract is not that long but if you had bothered to read it, as well as no mention of cosmic rays, you may have noticed this in the first three lines "requires a dramatic cooling from the ‘greenhouse’ conditions that prevailed for most of the Ordovician" it is talking about greenhouse gases.

Much of the Ordovician was very warm and current evidence is that this was because of high volcanic activity, but the level plateaued due to weathering also absorbing CO2 at (as you say) 4600, although 4600 is actually the mean it was as high as 5600, the ice age towards the end of the Ordovician is thought to have happened because of a drop in volcanic activity, but weathering didn't stop, this caused a drop in CO2 levels, it was (by geologic scales) a short lived glaciation because as the ice sheets grew they covered the silicate's that caused the weathering and CO2 levels rose again and the ice melted.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/art...

this paper dates back to the 90's the theory has since been built on by further study, of which the paper you post (but seem to have not bothered to read) is a continuation.

whoops (yet again)

edit to james

"Notice how AGW cultists dispute sources of information rather than the information itself."

same goes for you please point out to me where I am disputing the source, I have posted the original source paper of the Hokeysmuck story and it says nothing about cosmic rays, so I am not disputing the source, I have proved the source didn't say what Hokeysmuck claimed it said. but please point out any reference to cosmic rays in that abstract you claim are being "disputed" I'm not sure how I can dispute something that is simply not there.

As I said the abstract mentions greenhouse it makes no mention of cosmic rays.

Come on james drop the empty rhetoric and at least try and answer this point.

It is nothing new that Deniers have never grasped the effect of plate tectonics on climate; but, why is it that you have no interest in the fact that solar luminosity during the Ordovician was 4-5% lower than today - meaning that atmospheric CO2 had to be greater than 3,000 ppm to prevent glaciation?

http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Pub...

http://www.whoi.edu/science/MCG/people/p...

Cosmic rays are given short shrift. The climate apparatus doesn't want cosmic rays to be the answer, so instead of investigating, they say nothing is proven, therefore CO2 is the answer. You would think they would actually try and do some research to see if it's the case.

It's the sun that causes climate change. Notice how AGW cultists dispute sources of information rather than the information itself. That alone proves how vapid their argument is.

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/04/new-paper-studies-ordovician-ice-age.html

CO2.