Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Here is another post that Parados could not handle--As far as he was concered the post never existed. Here it is again Parados!!

Ican-Since Parados is afraid to debate with me, I will let you ponder the answer I gave about the alleged HORROR of Sea Level Rises. Neither Parados( who is so sure of his stances that he is afraid of trying to rebut) nor Monterey Jack have been able to rebut the following:

Ican-Monterey Jack ignores the posts he cannot respond to--Note:

Re: MontereyJack (Post 3576188)
No. Montery Jack. You have no idea, no idea at all of the cost benefit analysis involved.

I will quote from Lomborg.( of course,Parados says he is "Full of ****" but that just might be Parados describing himself!!

P. 61

Sea level increase by 2050 will be about five inches--no more than the change we have experienced since 1940 and less than the changethose Art Deco hotels have already stood through. Moreover with sea-level changes occuringslowly throughout the century, economically rational foresight will make sure that the protection will be afforded to property that is worth more than the protection costs and settlement will be avoided where costs will outweigh benefits.

THE IPCC CITES THE TOTAL COST FOR US NATIONAL PROTECTION AND PROPERTY ABANDONMENT FOR MORE THAN A THREE FOOT SEA LEVEL RISE( more than triple whatis expected )AT FIVE BILLION TO SIX BILLION OVER THE CENTURY."

Source--IPCC,2001b:396

end of quote

FIVE BILLION TO SIX BILLION OVER THE CENTURY???

Chump change--Just ask Obama to take it out of the TWO TRILLION!

When Parados sees a challenge he can't handle, he runs. The only thing that he can do is to post figures about heat. He can't do as Foxfyre asked and put them in understandable form. He rarely gives a source so that those interested in the
problem can check the source. He must be a solar panel salesman!!!

Note:

Parados is hysterical about sea level rise. There is no problem that cannot be handled with a rather small amount of money( I speak now in Obama terms having been used to seeing Billions thrown around). Note that this is from the IPCC

Note_


7.2.2.2. 2001 IPCC report.

If sea-level changes occur slowly, economically rational decisions could be made to protect only property that is worth more than its protection costs. With foresight, settlements can be planned to avoid much of the potential cost of protection, given that between 50 and 100 years are expected to pass before a 1-m sea-level rise would be expected. Yohe and Neumann (1997) offer a method by which this planning might be applied. This method can reduce the costs of protection by more than an order of magnitude. Yohe et al. (1996) estimate discounted (at 3% yr-1) cumulative U.S. national protection costs plus property abandonment costs for a 1-m sea-level rise by the end of the 21st century at US$5-6 billion, as opposed to previous estimates of $73-111 billion (Smith and Tirpak, 1989)

****************************************************************


Keep giving your evidence, Ican!!!

Yes, Foxfyre, thanks for asking. The chance is good that I can summarize my discussion in language that less-scientific types can read and understand. However, do not expect parados to agree with my summary.

Parados alleged that the sun's radiation cycles (i.e., increasing and decreasing radiation to the earth)--11 year and other cycles-- cannot be the major causes of measured increases and decreases in AAFT (i.e., Average Annual Global Temperature). His evidence was that the AAFT changes in the last 108 years are relatively too large for the smaller SI (i.e., Solar Irradiation) changes to have been the major causes of those AAFT changes.

I alleged that a relatively small SI %change can cause a relatively large AAFT %change. My evidence initially consisted of graphs and tables that I alleged showed increasing and decreasing AAFT changes over the last 108 years tended, after some time delay, to follow the SI changes, but not the CAD (i.e., Carbon dioxide Atmospheric Density) changes. I further alleged that since CAD was constantly increasing over those same 108 years, those steady CAD increases cannot be a major cause of any AAFT decreases, and therefore probably not a major cause of any AAFT increases.

Subsequently, I alleged that the decrease in SI, 2000 to 2008, accounts for the decrease in AAFT in that same period. Since CAD only increased during that period, CAD increases cannot be a major cause of AAFT decreases.

Later it occurred to me that the 1900 -2008 history of the ratios of AAFT %changes to both SI %changes and CAD %changes might provide additional relevant data. That led me to construct the table of numbers for the period 1900 - 2000 that I posted previously. Later, I'll discuss that table plus an addition to it that covers the 2000 - 2008 period.

And THIS is your simple and non technical explanation?

God help me if you decide to get technical.

This is the same logic that ican is using when he draws conclusions from his graphs.

There is no source listed for this graph. How can we know that it comes from a peer-approved validated study?

Yes, genoves, CO2 in the atmosphere can be lessened by precipitation of the H2O in which some of the CO2 dissolves, IF humans can survive by growing lots more CO2 absorbing plants and releasing enough less CO2 into the atmosphere by burning less to offset the amount volcanos release, the amount humans and animals exhale, and the amount of seawater containing CO2 that evaporates. BUT if the AAFT should substantially decrease, we will probably release even more CO2 in the atmosphere just trying to stay warm.

Alternatively, we humans could resort to space travel to escape the CO2 in our atmosphere. Of course, more rocket firings would cause more not less CO2 in earth's atmosphere.

The more bucks one wishes to spend on CO2 reduction and/or escape, the less CO2 there will be .... until one runs out of bucks.

Can't win for losin'!

Foxfyre_ For another view-

The truth about global warming - it’s the Sun that’s to blame
Well I would never expect to read this from the Telegraph, but new research is claiming that increased temperatures on the Sun are the real contributor to increased global temperatures. From the article;

Global warming has finally been explained: the Earth is getting hotter because the Sun is burning more brightly than at any time during the past 1,000 years, according to new research.

A study by Swiss and German scientists suggests that increasing radiation from the sun is responsible for recent global climate changes.

Dr Sami Solanki, the director of the renowned Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Gottingen, Germany, who led the research, said: “The Sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures.

The research adds weight to the views of David Bellamy, the conservationist. “Global warming - at least the modern nightmare version - is a myth,” he said. “I am sure of it and so are a growing number of scientists. But what is really worrying is that the world’s politicians and policy-makers are not.

“Instead, they have an unshakeable faith in what has, unfortunately, become one of the central credos of the environmental movement: humans burn fossil fuels, which release increased levels of carbon dioxide - the principal so-called greenhouse gas - into the atmosphere, causing the atmosphere to heat up. They say this is global warming: I say this is poppycock

Foxfyre--Another article which shows that Parados is not on target at all.



Sun and global warming: A cosmic connection?
By Richard Black
Environment correspondent, BBC News website



A web of theory has been spun around the Sun's climate influence
In February 2007, depending on what newspaper you read, you might have seen an article detailing a "controversial new theory" of global warming.

The idea was that variations in cosmic rays penetrating the Earth's atmosphere would change the amount of cloud cover, in turn changing our planet's reflectivity, and so the temperature at its surface.

This, it was said, could be the reason why temperatures have been seen to be varying so much over the Earth's history, and why they are rising now.

The theory was detailed in a book, The Chilling Stars, written by Danish scientist Henrik Svensmark and British science writer Nigel Calder, which appeared on the shelves a week after the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) had published its landmark report concluding it was more than 90% likely that humankind's emissions of greenhouse gases were warming the planet.

I think the Sun is the major driver of climate change

Henrik Svensmark
In truth, the theory was not new; Dr Svensmark's team had proposed it a decade earlier, while the idea of a cosmic ray influence on weather dates back to 1959 and US researcher Edward Ney.

The bigger question is whether it amounts to a theory of global warming at all.

Small change

Over the course of the Earth's history, the main factor driving changes in its climate has been that the amount of energy from the Sun varies, either because of wobbles in the Earth's orbit or because the Sun's power output changes.

Most noticeably, it changes with the 11-year solar cycle, first identified in the mid-1800s by astronomers who noticed periodic variations in the number of sunspots.

If it varied enough, it could change the Earth's surface temperature markedly. So is it?


Cosmic rays appear to influence the formation of clouds
"Across the solar cycle, the Sun's energy output varies only by about 0.1%," says Sami Solanki from the Max-Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Germany.

"When you look across much longer timescales, you also see changes only of about 0.1%. So just considering directly variations in energy coming from the Sun, this is not enough to explain the climatic changes we have seen and are seeing now."

This is why scientists have been investigating mechanisms which could amplify the changes in solar output, scaling up the 0.1% variation into an effect that could explain the temperature rise of almost half a degree Celsius that we have seen at the Earth's surface in just the last few decades.

One is Joanna Haigh from Imperial College, London, UK. She realised that although the Sun's overall energy output changes by 0.1%, it changes much more in the ultraviolet part of the spectrum.

"The changes in the UV are much larger, between 1% and 10%," she says.

"And that primarily has an impact in the stratosphere (the upper atmosphere) - UV is absorbed by ozone in the stratosphere and also produces ozone, and this warms the air."

FEELING THE HEAT
Three theories on how the Sun could be causing climate change


In graphics

Using computer models of climate, Dr Haigh's team showed that warming in the stratosphere could change the way energy is distributed across the troposphere, the lower atmosphere, changing wind and weather patterns. But not by much.

"We found it might raise temperatures by a maximum of half to one Celsius in certain regions," she says. "But in terms of an impact on the global average temperature, it's small, maybe about 0.2C."

Which is not enough to explain the warming that has occurred since the late 1970s.

Crash test

Henrik Svensmark and his collaborators at the Danish National Space Center (DNSC) believe the missing link between small solar variations and large temperature changes on Earth are cosmic rays.

"I think the Sun is the major driver of climate change," he says, "and the reason I'm saying that is that if you look at historical temperature data and then solar activity and cosmic ray activity, it actually fits very beautifully.

Proponents of this mechanism have tended to extrapolate their results beyond what is reasonable from the evidence

Joanna Haigh
"If CO2 is a very important climate driver then you would expect to see its effect on all timescales; and for example when you look at the last 500 million years, or the last 10,000 years, the correlation between changes in CO2 and climate are very poor."

When hugely energetic galactic cosmic rays - actually particles - crash into the top of the atmosphere, they set in train a sequence of events which leads to the production of ions in the lower atmosphere.

The theory is that this encourages the growth of tiny aerosol particles around which water vapour can condense, eventually aiding the formation of clouds.

And the link to the Sun? It is because cosmic rays are partially deflected by the solar wind, the stream of charged particles rushing away from the Sun, and the magnetic field it carries. A weaker solar wind means more cosmic rays penetrating the atmosphere, hence more clouds and a cooler Earth.

Maximum power

The theory makes some intuitive sense because over the last century the Sun has been unusually active - which means fewer cosmic rays, and a warmer climate on Earth.

"We reconstructed solar activity going back 11,000 years," relates Sami Solanki.


The Sky experiment showed ions could influence aerosol formation
"And across this period, the level of activity we are seeing now is very high - we coined the term 'grand maximum' to describe it. We still have the 11-year modulation on top of the long-term trend, but on average the Sun has been brighter and the cosmic ray flux lower."

There is evidence too that cosmic rays and climate have been intertwined over timescales of millennia in the Earth's past.

And the theory received some experimental backing when in October 2006, Henrik Svensmark's team published laboratory research showing that as the concentration of negative ions rose in air, so did the concentration of particles which could eventually become condensation nuclei.

Other scientists, meanwhile, had started putting the idea to the test in the real world.

Seeing the light

In 1947, British meteorologists began deploying instruments in various sites across the country to measure sunlight.

Whether through foresight or luck, they included one feature which was to prove very useful; the capacity to measure the relative amounts of direct and diffuse light.

It is the difference between a sunny day, when light streams directly from above, and a cloudy day, when it seems to struggle in from everywhere, and photographers give up and go home.

Giles Harrison from Reading University realised that the UK Met Office's record of hourly readings from its sunlight stations could be used to plot the extent of cloud cover over a period going back more than 50 years; the larger the ratio of diffuse to direct light, the cloudier the skies.

There is some double-speak going on

Giles Harrison
By chance, cosmic rays have been recorded continuously over almost exactly the same period. So Dr Harrison's team compared the two records, looking for a correlation between more intense cosmic rays and more clouds.

"We concluded that there is an effect, but that it is small - 'small but significant' was how we described it," he recalls.

"It varied UK cloud cover only by about 2%, although we suggested it would have a larger effect on centennial timescales; and it's difficult to assess what effect this would have on global surface temperature."

He concludes it would be premature to lay global warming at the door of cosmic rays. Perhaps surprisingly, you will find no references to his work in The Chilling Stars.

Cosmic flaw

In July, Mike Lockwood from the UK's Rutherford-Appleton Laboratory attempted a definitive answer to the question with what appeared to be a simple method. He simply looked at the changing cosmic ray activity over the last 30 years, and asked whether it could explain the rising temperatures.

His conclusion was that it could not. Since about 1985, he found, the cosmic ray count had been increasing, which should have led to a temperature fall if the theory is correct - instead, the Earth has been warming.

"This should settle the debate," he told me at the time.




'No Sun link' to warming
It has not. Last month Dr Svensmark posted a paper on the DNSC website that claimed to be a comprehensive rebuttal.

"The argument that Mike Lockwood put forward was that they didn't see any solar signal in the surface temperature data," he says.

"And when you look at [temperatures in] the troposphere or the oceans, then you do see a solar signal, it's very clear."

Dr Lockwood disagrees; he says he has re-analysed the issue using atmospheric temperatures, and his previous conclusion stands. And he thinks the Svensmark team has been guilty of poor practice by not publishing their argument in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

"Lots of people have been asking me how I respond to it; but how should I respond to something which is just posted on a research institute's website?" he asks.

"This isn't on, because the report title says it is a 'comprehensive rebuttal'; if it were that, then it would be his duty to publish it in a scientific journal and clean up the literature - that's how science filters out what is incorrect, and how it comes to a consensus view as to what is correct."

Droplets of doubt

This dispute presumably has some distance to run.

But Mike Lockwood's larger conclusion that current warming has nothing to do with solar changes is backed up by others - notably the IPCC, which concluded earlier this year that since temperatures began rising rapidly in the 1970s, the contribution of humankind's greenhouse gas emissions has outweighed that of the Sun by a factor of about 13 to one.

Even though misguided journalists have sometimes mistaken his work as implying a solar cause to modern-day warming, Sami Solanki agrees with the IPCC verdict.

"Since 1970, the cosmic ray flux has not changed markedly while the global temperature has shown a rapid rise," he says. "And that lack of correlation is proof that the Sun doesn't cause the warming we are seeing now."

Even to prove that the link between cosmic rays and cloud cover matters in the real world needs a lot more work, observes Joanna Haigh.


A weakening Sun could soon see the issue die down
"You need to demonstrate a whole long chain of events - that the atmosphere is ionised, then that the ionised particles act to nucleate the condensation of water vapour, then that you form droplets, and then that you get clouds; and you have to show it's important in comparison to other sources of nucleation.

"And that hasn't been demonstrated. Proponents of this mechanism have tended to extrapolate their results beyond what is reasonable from the evidence."

And Giles Harrison believes climate sceptics need to apply the same scepticism to the cosmic ray theory as they do to greenhouse warming - particularly those who say there are too many holes in our understanding of how clouds behave in the man-made greenhouse.

"There is some double-speak going on, as uncertainties apply to many aspects of clouds," he says.

"If clouds have to be understood better to understand greenhouse warming, then, as we have only an emerging understanding of the electrical aspects of aerosols and non-thunderstorm clouds, that is probably also true of any effect of cosmic rays on clouds."

Dr Svensmark agrees it would be wrong for anyone to claim the case has been proved.

"If anyone said that there is proof that the Sun or greenhouse gases alone are responsible for the present-day warming, then that would be a wrong statement because we don't really have proofs as such in the natural sciences," he says.

Waned world

Two events loom on the horizon that might settle the issue once and for all; one shaped by human hands, one entirely natural.

At Cern, the giant European physics facility, an experiment called Cloud is being constructed which will research the notion that cosmic rays can stimulate the formation of droplets and clouds. There may be some results within three or four years.

By then, observations suggest that the Sun's output may have started to wane from its "grand maximum".

If it does, and if Henrik Svensmark is right, we should then see cosmic rays increase and global temperatures start to fall; if that happens, he can expect to see a Nobel Prize and thousands of red-faced former IPCC members queuing up to hand back the one they have just received.

*************************************************************

ILL BET THAT PARADOS WON'T ADDRESS THIS, FOXFYRE OR THE REST OF THE POSTS I HAVE MADE.

Foxfyre, gungasnake, Okie, Ican--Note the following:

I am, of course, aware that the major player in these scientific studies is the IPCC, sponsored by the UN. I have clear evidence to show that the IPCC's reports in 2007 showed a REVISION DOWNWARDS of Sea Level Rise.

If the IPCC revised their predictions from their previous studies, it is not at all unlikely that there may be revisions in the future.

Note:

Re: genoves (Post 3566480)
3. Note the findings of the IPCC. Note that these findings were made using models. That means that data were fed into computers by scientists to model what temperatures might be in ninety years. That means that the scientists who set up these models were able to ACCURATELY PREDICT THE ACTION OF CLOUDS, OCEAN CURRENTS AND VOLCANOES AND THE INTERACTION OF THESE FACTORS FOR THE NEXT NINETY YEARS

quote from Wikipedia on IPCC
********************************************************


There are six families of SRES Scenarios, and AR4 provides projected temperature and sea level rises for each scenario family.

Scenario B1
Best estimate temperature rise of 1.8 °C with a likely range of 1.1 to 2.9 °C (3.2 °F with a likely range of 2.0 to 5.2 °F)
Sea level rise likely range [18 to 38 cm] (7 to 15 inches)
Scenario A1T
Best estimate temperature rise of 2.4 °C with a likely range of 1.4 to 3.8 °C (4.3 °F with a likely range of 2.5 to 6.8 °F)
Sea level rise likely range [20 to 45 cm] (8 to 18 inches)
Scenario B2
Best estimate temperature rise of 2.4 °C with a likely range of 1.4 to 3.8 °C (4.3 °F with a likely range of 2.5 to 6.8 °F)
Sea level rise likely range [20 to 43 cm] (8 to 17 inches)
Scenario A1B
Best estimate temperature rise of 2.8 °C with a likely range of 1.7 to 4.4 °C (5.0 °F with a likely range of 3.1 to 7.9 °F)
Sea level rise likely range [21 to 48 cm] (8 to 19 inches)
Scenario A2
Best estimate temperature rise of 3.4 °C with a likely range of 2.0 to 5.4 °C (6.1 °F with a likely range of 3.6 to 9.7 °F)
Sea level rise likely range [23 to 51 cm] (9 to 20 inches)
Scenario A1FI
Best estimate temperature rise of 4.0 °C with a likely range of 2.4 to 6.4 °C (7.2 °F with a likely range of 4.3 to 11.5 °F)
Sea level rise likely range [26 to 59 cm] (10 to 23 inches)



4. An examination of the IPCC findings shows that the MEDIAN TEMPERATURE RISE WILL BE( SEE SCENARIO B2 AND A1B) AND TAKE THE MID POINT BETWEEN THEM--2.6 C. rise by 2100.

It is most important to understand that the IPCC HAS REVISED ITS FINDINGS OVER AND OVER. THESE FIGURES ARE NOT WRITTEN IN STONE AND SINCE THEY ARE FINDINGS MADE THROUGH MODELING CAN SHOW DIFFERENCES.

Let us examine what the IPCC has said about Sea Level Rises---

In its report the IPCC estimates that sea levels will rise about a foot over the rest of the century..since 1860 we have experienced a sea level rise of about a foot--no major disruptions. IT IS IMPORTANT TO REALIZE THAT THE NEW PREDICTION IS L O W E R THAN THE PREVIOUS IPCC ESTIMATES AND MUCH LOWER THAN THE ESTIMATES FROM 1990 OF MORE THAN TWO FEET AND FROMTHE 1980'S WHEN THE EPA PROJECTED MORE THAN SIX FEET BY 2 100.

Note the above--Parados who is afraid of me has not rebutted the documented fact that the IPCC has lowered its predictions for sea level rise since it has been reporting>

Here is another post that Parados has not addressed. He has NOT rebutted the fact that Sea Level Rise predictions are being lowered:

This post is from Farmerman:

farmerman

1 Reply report Wed 11 Feb, 2009 05:46 am TWo marine geologists, John Kraft and Rhoads Fairbridge had, in the late 1970's predicted a global sea level rise that ,since new elements of isostacy and continental movement were factored in, have since reduced their own (then) famous curves significantly. Much of these predictions of water temps and sea level elevations are WAG's at best, and downright fraudulent at worst. The rush to publish a lot of crap data is where weve gotten into a lot of messes with the entire global warming mantra. Axial precession, change in sol,ar luminosity, release of continental heat sinks and the various planetary cycles havent even been factored accurately into the equation and still many insist that global warming is human induced and weve gotta curtail all commerce to stem it.
Jeez, Im sorry, I try to be open minded about a lot but Im still not seeing the relationship even of CO2 as a "causitive element" in climate hange. ALl Im seeing in the paleoclimate data is that CO2 is a "following" indicator. (temperatures change, then CO2 is released)

Okie. Foxfyre, Gungasnake, Ican.

Here was another post that Parados was afraid to address.

Re: ican711nm (Post 3567205)
and, Ican, if, as the left wingsays,co2 in the atmosphere should be lessened, can it be done?

Of course, we could achieve almost instantaneous stabilization of the atmosphere's co2 content by banning all use of fossil fuels right now but at the same time doing so would practically bring the world to a standstill. We could also let things take their course--assuming, of course, that we would agree to the deleterious consequences of CO2 emissions. In between these two extremes, we have the option of reducing co2 emissions somewhat and accepting some greenhouse warming.

William Nordhaus of Yale University has produced the first computer model to evaluate the pros and cons of different political choices. Nordaus has discovered that reduction is not only difficult IT IS EXTREMELY COSTLY. He found that the cost of cutting the first tonof carbon is almost nil whereas when cutting back 40 % the last ton wil cost about $100 dollars.

source--"The Skeptical Environmentalist"--Bjorn Lomborg--

Oh my God, is it alright with You God if I get more technical?

But for now here's another try at less technical. Over the last 108 years::
AAFT increased and decreased;.
SI increased and decreased;
CAD increased;
Cost of energy increased and decreased;
Lifespan of humans increased;
World population of humans increased;
USA Government expenditures increased;
...
Oh yes, my flight hours increased ...

Thank You, Ican--Now,it is up to parados to rebut you. He won't. Since he is afraid of me and the evidence I posted, he tries to appear like it isn't staring him in the face.

I will follow your lead,Ican. I have proved my points with evidence but I will follow your lead:

l. Sea level rise, which was supposed to increase according to the Goristas, has been predicted to lessen each year the IPCC has reported.

2. The horrendous problem which the Goristas told us would strike the shores of the US, are not very problematical at all. The IPCC itself told us that any minor sea rise would be easily taken care of with almost minimal cost.

genoves, the solution, according to Al Gore, is carbon credits, such as to plant trees. If we plant enough trees, they would cancel out all the CO2, the theory goes. Of course, when all the trees die and begin to rot, and begin to give off even more CO2, then its curtains for the earth and all of the inhabitants, for sure, it would be over!!!!!!!!!!! LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I have heard it said,Okie, that there are more trees in the world now than three hundred years ago. I'll have to do some research to see if that is true, but, remember, the basic fallacy is that co2 will destroy us. There is no proof that it will and no proof that it hasn't been vacillating for years and no proof that it isn't a trailing rather than leading factor and no proof that the sun and cosmic rays are not a major cause of the slight rise in temperature and, most important of all, no real proof, no real proof, that the programs and algorithms put into the models which allegedly predict global warming have been fed the right data. By right data, is meant the measurement of not only the factors that go into the models but the interactions of those factors on each other. It is well known, Okie, that the action of clouds is poorly understood. It may be that clouds and their action, which are not precisely measured, may be the key factor in making predictions valid or invalid.

Global Warming is a religion to the secular progressives who have no religion except worship of Gaia. Their lives are empty without an ideal to follow. They really think that they can predict the climate in 2100 and somehow change it--A great project for people who have no souls!!!

LOL..

volcanic CO2 production? It pales in comparison to human production. Volcanoes produce about .04% of what humans do annually
http://www.springerlink.com/content/631t022372116213/
or .6% from here
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/02/volcanos-emit-more-co2.php

Hey, okie..

In case you didn't realize it, a forest is composed of trees that are alive and trees that are rotting. The trees that are alive tend to take out more CO2 than the trees that are rotting produce.

Okie- Did you get that-_Parados is a genius. But he is still a sniveling coward who is afraid of answering my posts.

I love that one genoves...

Obviously you didn't read the article which you think I would disagree with.





By the way, your article is out of date. Svensmark has been roundly shown to be wrong in peer reviewed articles while Svensmark has yet to have peer reviewed publication.