Figure 5 - click to enlarge
This time based on real-world experimentation, rather than laboratory test results as with CERN/CLOUD. In this case, the paper looks at the link between Forbush decreases, which are a decrease in the galactic cosmic ray flux in response to a burst of gas ejected from the Sun towards the Earth, and the change in diurnal temperature variation (i.e. the difference between night and day). Fewer cosmic rays mean fewer clouds, which means colder nights and warmer days, in theory…
From Nigel Calder:
More than a year ago I began a succession of posts on whether or not observations in the real world support or falsify the Svensmark hypothesis. The most explanatory was the first – see link
The focus was on the “natural experiments” in which big puffs of gas from the Sun block some of the cosmic rays coming from the Galaxy towards the Earth. The resulting falls in cosmic ray influx, called Forbush decreases, last for a few days. The game is to look for observable reductions in cloudiness in the aftermath of these events. The results are most clearly favourable to the Svensmark hypothesis for the Forbush decreases with the largest percentage reductions in cosmic rays. Scientists keen to falsify the hypothesis have only to mix in some of the weaker events for the untidiness of the world’s weather to “hide the decline”.
The Serbs avoid that blunder by picking out the strongest Forbush decreases. And by using the simple, reliable and long-provided weather-station measurements of temperature by night and day, they avoid technical, interpretive and data-availability problems that surround more direct observations of clouds and their detailed properties. The temperatures come from 184 stations scattered all across Europe (actually, so I notice, from Greenland to Siberia). A compilation by the Mount Washington Observatory that spans half a century, from 1954 to 1995, supplies the catalogue of Forbush decreases.
The prime results are seen here in Dragić et al.‘s Figure 5 [image top right]. The graphs show the increase in the diurnal temperature range averaged across the continent in the days following the onset of cosmic ray decreases (day 0 on the horizontal scales). The upper panel is the result for 22 Forbush events in the range 7−10%, with a peak at roughly +0.35 oC in the diurnal temperature range. The lower panel is for 13 events greater than 10%. The peak goes to +0.6 oC and the influence lasts longer. It’s very satisfactory for the Svensmark hypothesis that the effect increases like this, with greater reductions in the cosmic rays. The results become hard (impossible?) to explain by any mechanism except an influence of cosmic rays on cloud formation.
The case for the Sun influencing climate by modulating cloud cover becomes stronger, little by little. By the way, just for the benefit of the Consensus Boys, this is how science works.
Read it here.
Australian Climate Madness 
I wonder how many thousand similar findings will it need before the IPCC notice it? It would wreck thousands of careers and cost trillions in lost taxes, so blind eyes will continue to be turned until enough of the public work out they have cheated and vote them all out with their solar panels too.
Well said.
No sign of any resignation or apology as yet from Natascha Töpfer, editor for Copernicus Publications, which published the paper.
Expect a published peer-reviewed rebuttal from Dessler in a matter of weeks!
[Note: I left this comment because it originated from a server at the Australian National University, home of government climate adviser Will Steffen. If this is the level of the staff or students at ANU, no wonder climate science is in such a mess – Ed]
The debate is over. There I told you.
Would your last name be Head, perchance?
If you have a spare hour, do yourself a favour and watch this Henrik Svensmark documentary on climate change, clouds and cosmic rays. It’s presented in layman terms so it’s easy for hoopleheads like me to understand.
Another effect of ionizing radiation, not mentioned here, is the impact it has on IR absorption by the species that dominate the AGW discussion. They will be ionized by the radiation and their IR absorption spectra will change. I’ve done detailed, high level TDDFT calculations and been able to show that the IR spectra of the ionized species shift so that their absorption of IR radiation is minimized or eliminated. This shows that their ability to contribute to “warming” will be reduced or eliminated.
Another effect of ionizing radiation, not mentioned here, is the impact it has on IR absorption by the species that dominate the AGW discussion. They will be ionized by the radiation and their IR absorption spectra will change. I’ve done detailed, high level TDDFT calculations and been able to show that the IR spectra of the ionized species shift so that their absorption of IR radiation is minimized or eliminated. This shows that their ability to contribute to “warming” will be reduced or eliminated.
David, hell will have to freeze over before the politicians of the IPCC give up their scam. There’s too many people and companies making too much money out of the global warming nonsense.
we should keep calm anyway.
As expected CR seems to have an effect, however 0.6C max, on a localized zone seems unable to explain the whole warming.
anyway it is one part of the problem explained.
for now it is only a critic of the “settled” word.