This is the type of article I like. It looks like it attacks the conjecture on the reliability of Cosmic Ray Flux reconstruction, not on the actual possibility of Cosmic Rays effecting the earth’s climate.
Yes, this is how science works. Notice that articles by the cosmic ray crew were in fact published, and have some justification, and other scientists seriously consider them. Solar issues have been looked at for decades now.
I never said they weren’t. Basically it is fundamental to the whole discussion. That is why I asked for the reference.
Real complexity in clouds was known quite a while ago (note that even with strong cloud feedback reducing temperature you will still change climate and weather enough potentially to be quite significant!)
Disagree (with respect to cloud behavior being ‘known’ enough to accurately quantify). Second sentence is contingent on the first above. Most models I have seen use a constant feedback and don’t take into account energy transport in cloud formation. It is also why I try to watch the modeling community. My opinion is that the science is still evolving. This is also why I asked about center frequency of earth blackbody emissions as measured from space.
A quote from James Hansen: It is uncertain whether the cloud feedback is positive or negative, because clouds can increase or decrease in response to climate change. http://naturalscience.com/ns/articles/01-16/ns_jeh.html
Even he admits that factor is unknown. On a planet where the surface is 60% coverd by water, that is a big deal.
More: http://www.jamstec.go.jp/frsgc/jp/publications/news/no23/eng/04p.html
See third paragraph…
Note: The forth assessment report is the one that just came out.
Your ‘solution’ is interesting.. I think there may be quicker interim solutions and non-centralized.. ie. localized solar that will significantly help w/o too serious of an impact on the populace. Of course the established power companies will not like that.. and they are major contributors to both political parties(hedge their bets). I also think that the ‘sequestering’ of C02 is basically a non-starter. Takes energy to do most artificial forms of this.. and where will the energy come from.. more fossil fuel?
