Here's the email addresses of the authors of the study, why not put your objections directly to them. I look forward to reading their responses.

A.D. Erlykina,
a.d.erlykin@durham.ac.uk
B.A. Lakenb
erlykin@sci.lebedev.ru
--------

Cosmic ray effects on cloud cover and their relevance to climate change

Abstract

A survey is made of the evidence for and against the hypothesis that cosmic rays influence cloud cover. The analysis is made principally for the troposphere.

It is concluded that for the troposphere there is only a very small overall value for the fraction of cloud attributable to cosmic rays (CR); if there is linearity between CR change and cloud change, the value is probably 1% for clouds below , but less overall. The apparently higher value for low cloud is an artifact.

The contribution of CR to ‘climate change’ is quite negligible.

Research highlights

►No correlation is found between cosmic ray changes and the whole cloud cover.

►Influence of cosmic rays on the cloud cover in the troposphere is at the level of 1%.

►Cosmic rays have negligible effect on the global temperature and on climate.

Click

honestly mate, why not think for yourself a bit here. i will show you what i mean-

http://insciences.org/article.php?article_id=8012

"My findings do not agree with the climate models that conventionally thought that greenhouse gases, mainly CO2, are the major culprits for the global warming seen in the late 20th century," Lu said. "Instead, the observed data show that CFCs conspiring with cosmic rays most likely caused both the Antarctic ozone hole and global warming. These findings are totally unexpected and striking, as I was focused on studying the mechanism for the formation of the ozone hole, rather than global warming."

link to the paper-

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physrep.2009.12.002

Oh, ok, you've gone off on a whole other tangent now.

You posted a link to a paper:

Cosmic-ray-driven electron-induced reactions of halogenated molecules adsorbed on ice surfaces: Implications for atmospheric ozone depletion and global climate change.

Which claims that:

CFCs conspiring with cosmic rays most likely caused both the Antarctic ozone hole and global warming.

Unfortunately for Qing-Bin Lu his idea went nowhere.

"Lu and colleagues’ theory has been strongly challenged in the literature. The comments focus on two main aspects, the weakness of the correlations, and the ancillary evidence that there isn’t any obvious evidence for CFC destruction in the polar vortex itself. In fact, correlations of CFCs with air mass tracers from the upper stratosphere are very stable, indicating that the photolytic conversion of the CFCs is by far the dominant source of Cl.

These rebuttals seem quite compelling, and there doesn’t seem to be much continued support for Dr. Lu’s GCR idea. However, Lu is still pushing it (hence the press release this year just weeks before the prediction would be put to the test). One might think Dr. Lu’s ideas wrong, but one can’t fault his bravery in putting them to the test.

As we stated above, the un-exceptional ozone loss this year pretty much undermines the correlations that were at the heart of Lu’s idea. Thus I predict that this is unlikely to be discussed very much more in the literature except as an example of how interesting ideas are generated, discussed, tested and (in this case) found wanting. This indeed is how scientific progress is made."

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/12/ozone-holes-and-cosmic-rays/

And another rebuttal here:

Could CFCs be causing global warming?

There are several problems with this analysis. The notion that global cooling has been occuring over the last few years is not borne out when one peruses the full range of empirical data. Lu uses HadCRUT data which does not cover the entire globe - the regions where most warming has occured are excluded from the HadCRUT record. Consequently, HadCRUT underestimates recent warming. When one considers the energy building in the entire climate system (especially the oceans where most heat resides), we see that the planet is still accumulating heat through to 2009 (Murphy 2009, von Schuckmann 2009). In recent years while the radiative forcing from CFCs was falling, the planet has still been in positive energy balance.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Could-CFCs-be-causing-global-warming.html

New paper: Cosmic rays contribute 40% to global warming
Posted on January 21, 2011 by Anthony Watts
From the Hindu

Physicist U.R. Rao says carbon emission impact is lower than IPCC claim

A key belief of climate science theology — that a reduction in carbon emissions will take care of the bulk of global warming — has been questioned in a scientific paper released by the Environment Ministry on Monday.

Physicist and the former ISRO chairman, U.R. Rao, has calculated that cosmic rays — which, unlike carbon emissions, cannot be controlled by human activity — have a much larger impact on climate change than The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) claims.

In fact, the contribution of decreasing cosmic ray activity to climate change is almost 40 per cent, argues Dr. Rao in a paper which has been accepted for publication in Current Science, the preeminent Indian science journal. The IPCC model, on the other hand, says that the contribution of carbon emissions is over 90 per cent.

‘Cosmic ray impact ignored’

Releasing Dr. Rao’s findings as a discussion paper on Thursday, Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh noted that “the impact of cosmic ray intensity on climate change has thus far been largely ignored by the mainstream scientific consensus.” He added that the “unidimensional focus” on carbon emissions by most Western countries put additional pressure on countries like India in international climate negotiations.


The continuing increase in solar activity has caused a 9 per cent decrease in cosmic ray intensity over the last 150 years, which results in less cloud cover, which in turn results in less albedo radiation being reflected back to the space, causing an increase in the Earth’s surface temperature.

While the impact of cosmic rays on climate change has been studied before, Dr. Rao’s paper quantifies their contribution to global warming and concludes that “the future prediction of global warming presented by IPCC’s fourth report requires a relook to take into the effect due to long term changes in the galactic cosmic ray intensity.”

Policy implications

This could have serious policy implications. If human activity cannot influence such a significant cause of climate change as cosmic rays, it could change the kind of pressure put on countries to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

Mr. Ramesh emphasised that Dr. Rao’s findings would not reduce domestic action on climate change issues, but he admitted that it could influence the atmosphere of international negotiations.

“International climate negotiations are about climate politics. But increasingly, science is becoming the handmaiden of politics,” he said.

In November 2009, Mr. Ramesh had released a report by glaciologist V.K. Raina claiming that Himalayan glaciers are not all retreating at an alarming pace. It had been disputed by many Western scientists, while IPCC chairman R.K. Pachauri dismissed it as “voodoo science.” However, Dr. Raina was later vindicated by the IPCC’s own retraction of its claim that the Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035.

“Since then, Western Ministers have reduced talk about the glaciers to me, they have stopped using it as frequently as a pressure point for India to come on board,” said Mr. Ramesh.

When Mr. Ramesh sent Dr. Rao’s paper to Dr. Pachauri, he replied that the next IPCC report was paying special attention to the impact of cloud cover on global warming. The Minister expressed hope that Dr. Rao’s findings would be seriously studied by climate researchers.

“There is a groupthink in climate science today. Anyone who raises alternative climate theories is immediately branded as a climate atheist in an atmosphere of climate evangelists,” he said. “Climate science is incredibly more complex than [developed countries] negotiators make it out to be… Climate science should not be driven by the West. We should not always be dependent on outside reports.”

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/21/cosmic-rays-contribute-40-to-global-warming-study/

New paper: Cosmic rays contribute 40% to global warming.

From the comments..

Something not quite right here. I was surprised by the graph correlating GCR flux and low cloud cover (Figure 2 in the original) which is captioned:

Correlation between cosmic ray intensity as measured by neutron monitors and the low level cloud intensity during 1983–2003. The corresponding values of solar irradiance are also shown (reproduced from Jan Veizer)

The Veizer reference is ‘Celestial Climate Driver: A Perspective from Four Billion Years of the Carbon Cycle’ http://etc.hil.unb.ca/ojs/index.php/GC/article/viewFile/2691/3114 who in turn reproduced it from Marsh and Svensmark, which in turn was shown to contain fatal flaws by Laut 2003 – ‘Solar activity and terrestrial climate: an analysis of some purported correlations’ http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/Laut2003.pdf who found that:

My analyses show that the apparent strong correlations displayed on these graphs have been obtained by an incorrect handling of the physical data

Oh dear, a long-discredited correlation then. Skeptical Science has more detail on the correlation which went MIA 15 years ago http://www.skepticalscience.com/cosmic-rays-and-global-warming.htm and RC commented on the Veizer paper. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/05/on-veizers-celestial-climate-driver/

And what of the figure for the GCR ‘forcing’?

A 8% decrease in galactic cosmic ray intensity during the last 150 years as derived from 10Be records will cause a decrease of 2.0% absolute in low cover clouds12
which in turn will result in increasing earth’s radiation budget by 1.1 Wm–2, which is about 60% of the estimated increase of 1.66 Wm–2 forcing due to increased CO2 emission during the same period

The sole justification for this is a reference to Lee, S. H. et al., ‘Particle formation by ion nucleation in the upper troposphere and lower stratosphere’ http://www.sciencemag.org/content/301/5641/1886.full.pdf which I’ve just looked at, and while it provides evidence for an increase in potential nucleation, whether this results in more clouds is by no means certain, as the paper concludes:

It has also been suggested that ions produced by cosmic rays can induce nucleation of particles that may grow into CCN and modify cloud properties ….

I can find no justification for stating this as a bald fact nor for calculating such a concrete figure (with no uncertainty bars) on it.

Cosmic rays linked to rapid mid-latitude cloud changes
B. A. Laken1,2, D. R. Kniveton1, and M. R. Frogley1
1Department of Geography, University of Sussex, Falmer, Brighton, England, BN1 9QJ, UK
2Instituto de Astrof´ısica de Canarias, 38205 La Laguna, Tenerife, Spain
Received: 7 June 2010 – Published in Atmos. Chem. Phys. Discuss.: 2 August 2010
Revised: 16 November 2010 – Accepted: 18 November 2010 – Published: 24 November 2010

Abstract. The effect of the Galactic Cosmic Ray (GCR)
flux on Earth’s climate is highly uncertain. Using a novel
sampling approach based around observing periods of significant
cloud changes, a statistically robust relationship is
identified between short-term GCR flux changes and the
most rapid mid-latitude (60–30 N/S) cloud decreases operating
over daily timescales; this signal is verified in surface
level air temperature (SLAT) reanalysis data. A General
Circulation Model (GCM) experiment is used to test the
causal relationship of the observed cloud changes to the detected
SLAT anomalies. Results indicate that the anomalous
cloud changes were responsible for producing the observed
SLAT changes, implying that if there is a causal relationship
between significant decreases in the rate of GCR flux
(0.79 GU, where GU denotes a change of 1% of the 11-
year solar cycle amplitude in four days) and decreases in
cloud cover (1.9 CU, where CU denotes a change of 1%
cloud cover in four days), an increase in SLAT (0.05 KU,
where KU denotes a temperature change of 1K in four days)
can be expected. The influence of GCRs is clearly distinguishable
from changes in solar irradiance and the interplanetary
magnetic field. 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.
These results provide perhaps the most compelling evidence
presented thus far of a GCR-climate relationship. From this
analysis we conclude that a GCR-climate relationship is governed
by both short-term GCR changes and internal atmospheric
precursor conditions.

http://www.atmos-chem-phys.org/10/10941/2010/acp-10-10941-2010.pdf

when i say



you dont think for a second?

i offer you a valid/logical/damning reason why you should not trust that paper you quoted, but instead of acknowledging this, you say, speak to the hand, go talk to the author about. ie you do not understand the implications of what i said.

the paper i linked to was no mistake. do you understand what they say about the paper? or are you just quoting the propaganda from gavin and skeptical science?

to me the flaws with both are just as obvious, yet to you its only one. dogma.

I accept that GCR can have some minor effect on climate.

But regarding the present warming, there are many lines of evidence today pointing to GHG, and scarce evidence (If any) pointing to GCR.

This graph showing a great excursion of cosmic rays during the Laschamp Event, and no visible corresponding variation of temperature, destroys the argument that GCR have a marked effect on temps.

Who is to say the proxy temps and the proxy cosmic rays and proxy magnetic are anywhere near correct...all this past data are all only vague estimations at best! Does not convince me, sorry!

Effect of ocean CO2 on climate studied
Published: April 25, 2011 at 8:36 PM

Comments (0)EmailPrintListen HOBART, Australia, April 25 (UPI) -- Global warming of the world's oceans can return huge stores of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere quicker than previously thought, Australian researchers say.

The oceans can take in and hold about 30 percent of human carbon dioxide emissions dissolved in their depths, slowing the rise of global warming somewhat, but as the warming continues the oceans emit CO2 and accelerate the warming, researchers say.

However, while previous studies have suggested it requires between 400 and 1,300 years for this to happen, a new study has reduced that time period significantly, NewScientist.com reported Monday.

"We now think the delay is more like 200 years, possibly even less," says Tas van Ommen from the Australian Antarctic Division in Hobart, who led the study.

Van Ommen and colleagues studied CO2 bubbles trapped in Antarctic ice cores and compared their measurements with records of atmospheric temperatures from the same time period.

When temperature went up carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increased, as expected, but the ice core data showed the lag was about 200 years, much shorter than previous studies found, the researchers said.

Climate modeling will need to be done before any speculation on how the results relate to current warming, Van Ommen said.



Read more: http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2011/04/.../#ixzz1KeQ2xF4I

Posted at 12:15 PM ET, 04/25/2011
Are La Nina and global warming behind the extreme tornado activity?
By Andrew Freedman

"Long term trends

There is no clear indication that severe thunderstorms and tornadoes have become more common due to climate change, in part because of major limitations in relying on the historical record of severe weather reports. While the number of tornadoes recorded in the U.S. has just about doubled during the past 50 years, the number of strong tornadoes (EF2 and above) has actually been decreasing. It may be the case that more tornadoes are being noticed today, given a network of trained storm spotters and a national Doppler radar network, both of which didn’t exist as recently as the early 1980s."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capi...oAiiE_blog.html

I found these more recent graphs quite convincing that GCR's have very little to do with the recent rise in temps.





Above is the solar record from 1978 to 2006 and the temperature record from 1975 to 2006. As you can see there is no trend in the overall solar intensity. Unlike the temperature record which is climbing, the solar record is simply going up and down by +/- 1 watt per meter squared which is the like saying the intensity of the sun changes by +/- 0.07%. The Temperature on the other hand is clearly rising. The Max Plank Institute confirms that the suns intensity hasn't changed since 1940. Tom Wiggly, a scientist from the National Center for Atmospheric Research who studies solar activity, made the official announcement that “Our results imply that, over the past century, climate change due to human influences must far outweigh the effects of changes in the Sun's brightness.

http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2006/brightness.shtml


This one is also quite convincing...

It is always a little more convincing when the charts are not accurate.

You said:
"It is always a little more convincing when the charts are not accurate."

Nice one Bill. You so easily dismiss the science with your claim that "the charts are not accurate".

No supporting evidence provided. Just a simple wave of the hand and the results that you don't like are null and void.

Those graphs show kindergarten basic sunspot and TSI and do not delve into the many solar outputs which all have different weather and climate effects. That is like taking the whole of the atmophere in bulk as the AGW input instead of looking at methane, water vapour, CO2, etc, etc, etc. Grossly wrong and grossly over simplified and done by scientists it appears who do not underatnd at all how the sun works and all the various outputs effect weather and climate.

Thanks for your opinion BD. Could you show me some graphs that correlate the recent rise in temps to increased GCR. The only graphs I've been able to find so far show that the temps are rising whilst solar output isn't.




Best regards, Spatch

TSI is not the be all end all... The number of solar storms has been increasing up to the last cycle... [i.e. the earths is bombarded by charged particles to which it the atmosphere (aurorae) and the geomagnetic fields react]. And if you then plot them as anomalies against some "hypothetical" mean ...:

Spatch re your questions:
Yes above that is one solar output, Arnost, that I used in my HSOCM4 global model for temp prediction back in 2007, but there are many more others that influence cliamet and weather...there are also lags of years to the solar through ocean back to atmosphere.
I went and looked for myself Spatch, and did the hard yards, and found out much more info that just reading papers written by other folk, though they are obviously useful, of course...But, have a look in detail at the solar yourself, do research, find out things for yourself. there is so much to be learnt there I can assure you!

spatch,

once again, you dont read my reply, just answer what you think i said, but didnt.

i am not proving to you that cosmic rays can alter climate, yet you answer this because it seems that is all you can do.

lets get something straight here, cagw has not been proven. cagw can NEVER be proven by elimination of other possible causes. this is just the most idiotic, arrogant way of thinking. the scientific method has no place for such stupid post modern ideas.

now, as for the question you never asked but answered on my behalf using your own misguided vision of my way of thinking, do i believe that cosmic rays can influence the climate? well yes. i believe they can influence the cloud formation more than that paper you quoted before, but the influence is more immediate, and can be counteracted by other unknown forces. i believe there is enough evidence to suggest this is the case, and a proxy about a blip 40k years ago when god knows what other influences could have possibly influence the climate AT THAT TIME, has little impact on this other than to say there is doubt about it.

the more recent data is clearer on this-



now, do i believe this proved cosmic rays drives the long term climate? NO

i do however believe this is an option that should not be dismissed with post modern papers about the last 50 years of questionable cloud data, which is why i posted what i did about the variations presented by the different cloud samples/measurements over the time period in question.

instead of dealing with this, you then ask me to prove that cosmic rays cause climate change!

come on. be yourself here and just talk to me instead of presenting some formulated propaganda about something completely different written by someone else.

which one shows the temperature, and which is propaganda?