2010-09-24 02:39:55ADVANCED 14: It's cosmic rays
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
38.223.231.249

This was a pretty easy one, I just copied the GCR section from my "it's the Sun" rebuttal and added a bit more, including the references from the intermediate rebuttal.  See what you think - advanced "it's cosmic rays" rebuttal.

2010-09-24 10:53:06Great rebuttal
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
124.185.151.34
Like the bullet list at start, lays it out logically. Also like pointing out that cosmic ray theory can't explain other observations, this is an important point to make, we should mention it when addressing all other possible explanations. Have one minor nitpick - in the opening paragraph, two consecutive sentences start with 'so'. Yep, that's the worst I could come up with :-)
2010-09-24 13:37:21valid point
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
71.137.148.215
Hah that's a valid point, I don't like starting consecutive sentences with the same word.  Especially 'so', which is rather informal.  I'll fix it.
2010-09-24 15:00:54when you list the 4 points that can be examined
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
195.202.153.35
it would be good to emphasize that ALL 4 would be expected, if the cosmic-ray explanation were true.
2010-09-24 21:02:21nucleation and growth missing
Riccardo

riccardoreitano@tiscali...
192.84.150.209
It's important to underline that the ionization produced by GCR (which is real and well known) is not enough by itself to have an impact on CCN and clouds.
The process proceeds in three steps: 1) aerosol formation induced by GCR; 2) growth of the newly formed aerosol to CCN size; 3) increase in cloud cover. The theory of GCR starts from step 1 (which no one question), does not consider step 2 and jumps to an unproven conclusion in step 3. This rebuttal focuses on step 3.
As an advanced version I think that a a paragraph or two on the theory of nucleation of aerosol and growth to CCN size wouldn't hurt. This would highlight that what we expect  is a negligible effect, hence no surprise that people couldn't detect it. It will also help dismiss the claim that the CLOUD experiment will give a definitive answer. It won't, it's just step 1 in a ultra clean and controlled atmosphere.
RealClimate has a good overview in two parts (part I, part II).
2010-09-25 01:57:40thanks
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
38.223.231.249
Good points and resources, thanks Riccardo.  I'll modify accordingly later today when I've got time.  And Neal, I'll reword to emphasize that all 4 must be true.
2010-09-25 05:34:02changed
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
38.223.231.249
The suggested changes have been made.
2010-09-25 06:35:50in Figure 3
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
195.202.153.35
there seems to be a significant upward trend in the short-term average.
2010-09-25 07:00:13Fig 3
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
38.223.231.249
Not since about 1975.  The problem is that the data only goes to 2000 in that paper, as it was published in '01.  As we know, solar activity has remained down since then.  I found a much better one which goes up to about 2009 in Eduardo (2010) though, and will update the figure tonight.
2010-09-25 08:23:27
Riccardo

riccardoreitano@tiscali...
93.147.82.77

 Should you decide to keep current fig.3 (which, by the way is the first :)) here's a better version

The published version of the Vieira and Solanki paper, if you have access to it (i don't), is here

Apart from this figure (and the numbering!) it looks good.

2010-09-25 09:02:39whoops
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
71.137.148.215
Whoops, I guess I forgot to renumber when I copied from "it's the Sun."   I fixed the numbering and inserted the updated solar magnetic field figure.  I'll also make it live now so I can get some external feedback.
2010-09-25 17:44:55
Riccardo

riccardoreitano@tiscali...
93.147.82.96
In fig. 1 it should be Vieira 2010, not Eduardo 2010
2010-09-26 05:40:12Vieira
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
71.137.148.215
Oh whoops, it's Luis Eduardo A Vieira.  Long name!  Thanks Riccardo.
2010-09-26 07:38:22all set
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
71.137.148.215
I'm happy with it, whenever you want to blog it John.
2010-09-26 17:05:33BTW, Published
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
124.185.151.34
This one's live, thanks, Dana
2010-09-27 03:46:19published
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
71.137.148.215
Er, well it was already live, but it hasn't been published on the main page.  I published it, hope you don't mind.
2010-09-27 08:26:03That's great
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
124.185.151.34

Yes, Dana, you're welcome to publish blog posts on the homepage. I've just emailed that blog post to the mailing list and also tweeted/facebooked it. Thanks!

Not sure why I said I'd published it but didn't post the blog post - I can only imagine I'd purposed to do it but got distracted by something else then forgot to come back to it - a habit of mine that frustrates Wendy on numerous occasions.