Tanada wrote:Unfortunately Kaiser the whole cosmic rays seeding clouds has already been debunked. Because the solar cycles are fairly regular it was not hard for paleoclimate records to be compared to past cycles and the impact is demonstrated. Unfortunately the scale of impact is greatly smaller than some people claim.
Natural solar cycles have an impact of about 1 C over a cycle of about 4400 years. Greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere are already at or over 1C of increase from 1850 temperatures, so best case scenario this will gradually compensate for the already emitted greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere if we stop additional emissions in the next 15 years.
The GCR-climate crank theory was BS from before it was ever conceived. GCR fluxes are anti-correlated with solar fluxes for the simple reason that the Sun's magnetic field intensifies during solar maxima compared to solar minima. And GCR are composed out of mostly protons and other ionized particles and therefore are deflected. The 11 year solar cycle is actually a 22 year magnetic pole reversal of the Sun. The magnetic field is weakest at the midway point in this transition.
GCR are supposed to affect clouds via cloud seeding (via water cluster formation on positive ions). So they would be most active in this role during solar minima. In other words they would be increasing he Earth's albedo when the Sun was less active (as long as its magnetic field was weaker; the sunspot cycle is more complex than simply solar magnetic reversals). So if we are going to invoke the Maunder minimum then we are looking at more cloud albedo and hence less ground absorption of sunlight. Now let's look at the solar cycle intensity over the last 50 years:
Do you see a trend? I don't see any trend which would even correlate with the temperature increase after 1980:
Where is the fingerprint of the 11 year solar cycle?