A recent post on Realclimate claims to refute the recent CERN findings and Svensmark theory of cosmoclimatology, stating,

“Of course, to show that cosmic rays were actually responsible for some part of the recent warming, you would need to show that there was actually a decreasing trend in cosmic rays over recent decades – which is tricky, because there hasn’t been (see the figure).”

The “real climate scientists” at RealClimate, however, fail to plot a trend line to back up their claim. Plotting a polynomial fit to the same Oulu Neutron Monitor monthly data shows that cosmic ray counts did in fact show a long term declining trend from 1964 to 1997/1998, and a rising trend since, in accordance with the trend in global temperatures which rose to a peak in 1998 and have declined since.

[See plot]

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2011/09/realclimate-fail-cosmic-ray-counts.html

“polynomial” doesn’t seem to occur in the warmist lexicon – every trend is linear and long-term according to them.

Dr Roy Spencer

“While I have been skeptical of Svensmark’s cosmic ray theory up until now, it looks like the evidence is becoming too strong for me to ignore. The following results will surely be controversial, and the reader should remember that what follows is not peer reviewed, and is only a preliminary estimate

[....]

Finally, I fitted the trend lines to get an estimate of the relative magnitudes of these two sources of forcing: the cosmic ray (indirect) forcing is about 2.8 times that of the solar irradiance (direct) forcing. This means the total (direct + indirect) solar forcing on climate associated with the solar cycle could be 3.8 times that most mainstream climate scientists believe.”

>>>>>>

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/05/indirect-solar-forcing-of-climate-by-galactic-cosmic-rays-an-observational-estimate/

New paper links cosmic rays, clouds, and temperature

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/11/new-paper-links-cosmic-rays-clouds-and-temperature/

Ends with:-

“I see a paper on this in the near future, maybe even in Dessler record time.”

Yep.

“Role of sulphuric acid, ammonia and galactic cosmic rays in atmospheric aerosol nucleation”

Abstract:
Atmospheric aerosols exert an important influence on climate1 through their effects on stratiform cloud albedo and lifetime2 and the invigoration of convective storms3. Model calculations suggest that almost half of the global cloud condensation nuclei in the atmospheric boundary layer may originate from the nucleation of aerosols from trace condensable vapours4, although the sensitivity of the number of cloud condensation nuclei to changes of nucleation rate may be small5, 6. Despite extensive research, fundamental questions remain about the nucleation rate of sulphuric acid particles and the mechanisms responsible, including the roles of galactic cosmic rays and other chemical species such as ammonia7. Here we present the first results from the CLOUD experiment at CERN. We find that atmospherically relevant ammonia mixing ratios of 100 parts per trillion by volume, or less, increase the nucleation rate of sulphuric acid particles more than 100–1,000-fold. Time-resolved molecular measurements reveal that nucleation proceeds by a base-stabilization mechanism involving the stepwise accretion of ammonia molecules. Ions increase the nucleation rate by an additional factor of between two and more than ten at ground-level galactic-cosmic-ray intensities, provided that the nucleation rate lies below the limiting ion-pair production rate. We find that ion-induced binary nucleation of H2SO4–H2O can occur in the mid-troposphere but is negligible in the boundary layer. However, even with the large enhancements in rate due to ammonia and ions, atmospheric concentrations of ammonia and sulphuric acid are insufficient to account for observed boundary-layer nucleation.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v476/n7361/full/nature10343.html

Behind paywall, already cited by 2

“Any attempt to investigate the CR-cloud connection faces several problems”

Ain’t that the truth – the Team tops the the list. No doubt the paper will be characterized as “bad”, “fatally flawed” and a paper refuting it will be “out soon”.

Looks compelling, all I have to do is get acquainted with “superposed epoch analysis”. Apparently it’s “a statistical technique used in different scientific disciplines to test the effect of the occurrence of a certain type of event (named a key event) on a specified physical variable”.

“The result strongly supports the idea that cosmic rays influence the atmospheric processes and climate.”

“Forbush decreases – clouds relation in the neutron monitor era”
A. Dragic et al., Astrophys. Space Sci. Trans., 7, 315–318, 2011

http://www.astrophys-space-sci-trans.net/7/315/2011/astra-7-315-2011.pdf

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904537404576554750502443800.html#mod=djemWMP_t

It’s now indisputable that solar activity COULD be responsible for some or most of the global temperature changes experienced in the late twentieth century. This puts paid to the IPCC argument that anthropogenic forcing is the only possible explanation.