2011-01-24 13:04:04Clouds have a hundred times stronger effect on weather and climate than carbon dioxide
John Hartz
John Hartz

Here's the first part of another post by my nemesis, "Dahun"

"The most convincing argument yet, supporting a strong impact of the sun’s activity on climate change, is a direct connection between cloud coverage and cosmic rays, discovered by H. Svensmark and E. Friis-Christensen [111] in 1996. It is shown in Figure 6. Clouds have a hundred times stronger effect on weather and climate than carbon dioxide in the atmosphere."

Has this paper been directly rebutted on SkS?

I preume that Dana's "What's the net feedback from clouds" post is an indirect rebuttal.

2011-01-24 14:33:11
Glenn Tamblyn



Point him at this one


2011-01-24 14:55:26Glenn's got it
Dana Nuccitelli

Yes Svensmark is the galactic cosmic rays impacting global temperatures through cloud seeding argument.  I discussed that one in the link Glenn provides.

However, I have no idea where your nemesis get the "hundred times stronger effect" bullshit.  Even Svensmark wouldn't say anything so absurd.  Svensmark thinks GCRs have a larger effect than they do in reality (which is very little), but I doubt he would argue that they have any more effect than CO2, let alone 100 times more.  Your nemesis is talking out his butt.

2011-01-24 15:02:57dana1981
John Hartz
John Hartz
My nemesis cut & paste his post from:


2011-01-24 15:03:48Glenn Tamblyn
John Hartz
John Hartz
Muchos gracias!
2011-01-24 18:13:47
Ari Jokimäki


Here's my take on S & F-C (1997):


And a few papers on the minor effect of cosmic rays to climate: