So, mhaze… still no links? No rebuttal to Neukom? No clarification of your “dozens of papers”? Just waving the word “assertion” and hoping no one notices the silence behind it?

mhaze,

You’ve laid out Svensmark’s cosmic ray theory like it’s an overlooked gem - but it’s been tested, reviewed, and largely discarded for one reason: it doesn’t match reality.

Cosmic rays and clouds:
Yes, cosmic rays can help form aerosols in a lab - but that’s not the same as large-scale cloud formation. The CLOUD experiment at CERN showed that the particles formed are too small to become cloud condensation nuclei unless specific vapours are present. In the real world, the effect is too minor and inconsistent to matter.
http://home.cern/news/news/experiments/cloud-experiment-shines-light-cloud-formation
http://www.nature.com/articles/nature10343

“More clouds = less warming” is wrong
Clouds aren’t a simple thermostat. Low clouds cool, high clouds warm, and night-time clouds trap heat. There’s no consistent global trend showing clouds - let alone cosmic rays - are driving the warming we’re seeing. If they were, we’d expect a completely different spatial and temporal pattern.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/Clouds

Cosmic rays haven’t changed enough
Even if the mechanism worked, cosmic ray levels haven’t declined in a way that matches modern warming. Studies show no consistent correlation between cosmic ray flux and global cloud cover. Greenhouse gases, on the other hand, do match the pattern - regionally, seasonally, and in the vertical profile of the atmosphere.
http://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspa.2007.1880

CO2 causes more than 0.01°C - by orders of magnitude.
That figure isn’t just wrong, it’s laughably wrong. CO2’s effect is calculated from physical laws and confirmed by satellite measurements, field data, and lab experiments. Claiming 0.01°C is like arguing the Earth is flat but warmer at the edges.

Models include clouds
This tired myth needs to go. Clouds are in the models. Always have been. They’re a challenge, yes - not an oversight.
http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/chapter/chapter-3
http://climate.nasa.gov/news/2451/how-nasa-is-solving-the-climate-models-cloud-problem

Rejection isn’t suppression.
Svensmark’s theory wasn’t censored - it was tested, found wanting, and moved on from. That’s not conspiracy. That’s science.
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048001/meta

If this theory’s your best alternative to AGW, it explains a lot more than you probably intended.

" No clarification of your “dozens of papers”?"

Why do I need to offer links. You've already decided they don't stand scrutiny which in your strange world-view is a valid way to operate.

As to Neukom, I'll consider spending time to explain why you got it just as wrong s you got Marcott13 after you've admitted you got Marcott13 completely arse-about. Otherwise it doesn't seem worth my while to further educate you.

"You’ve laid out Svensmark’s cosmic ray theory like it’s an overlooked gem"

No I was just adding my understanding of the theory to what Bezza had written rather than going faux dalek which seems to be your favourite MO.

Yes I see that yu've gone and dug up all the attacks on the theory. But its just a theory and needs further testing. Just rejecting it because it leaves out CO2 isn't science.

"Even if the mechanism worked, cosmic ray levels haven’t declined in a way that matches modern warming."

You misunderstand the theory which is probably a problem in trying to debunk it, although I suspect that merely getting it completely wrong won't be an impediment to you making further assertions.
The theory isn't about the level of cosmic rays but the level of solar wind that deflects the rays. The theory accepts that over the short-term the level of cosmic rays is essentially unchanged.

"This tired myth needs to go."
Oh good. Lucky I didn't mention it then. More verballing?

"Clouds are in the models. Always have been. "

Nup. Early models didn't have clouds because the computing power wasn't sufficient to dynamically model them. Later they added an unchanging cloud cover and found that their forecasted warming declined. Then they added a more dynamic cloud modelling and forecasted warming declined. But cloud modelling remains in its infancy and much more work is being done.

"If this theory’s your best alternative to AGW,"

I don't need an alternative to AGW. I've already said I accept AGW as a fact. But I just don't think of it as the bogey-man you obviously do.

I haven’t “decided,” mhaze.

//Why do I need to offer links. You've already decided they don't stand scrutiny…//

I’ve asked. Repeatedly. You’ve claimed for years to have “dozens of papers” showing past warming greater than today. When challenged, you offer nothing. My point is simple: they either don’t exist, or they don’t say what you think they do.

//I’ll consider spending time to explain why you got [Neukom] wrong... after you’ve admitted you got Marcott13 completely arse-about.//

No, I cited Marcott with its resolution limitations clearly stated - which is exactly why I also referenced Neukom et al. You’ve ignored Neukom entirely while demanding I “admit” something I never claimed about Marcott. That’s not correction - it’s misdirection.

//No I was just adding my understanding of the theory to what Bezza had written…//

That “understanding” matched Svensmark’s claims exactly - and those claims have been tested and found wanting. The CLOUD experiment at CERN showed the effect is too weak to drive large-scale cloud changes, and solar activity trends don’t align with modern warming. If the mechanism worked, it would show up in the data. It doesn’t.

//Nup. Early models didn't have clouds…//

False. Clouds have been included in models since the 1970s, albeit with simplified physics due to computing limits. What you’re describing is early modelling, not exclusion - and even then, no version of cloud feedback has reversed the conclusion that greenhouse gases are driving the warming.

And no, pointing out the “clouds are excluded” myth isn’t verballing - it’s addressing the clear implication of your argument, even if you avoided stating it outright. Imply, imply, then deny.

//I’ve already said I accept AGW…//

After all this? If that’s your position, fine - but don’t pretend the last ten posts weren’t spent casting doubt, misdirection, and smirking denialism.

Your entire approach to climate change is a Motte-and-Bailey fallacy: push fringe theories, downplay CO2, undermine models, and cherry-pick uncertainty - then retreat to the safety of “I accept AGW” the moment it gets uncomfortable.

"My point is simple: they either don’t exist, "

But they must exist since you've already said you'd ascertained that they don't "stand scrutiny". You need to work on getting your lies straight.

"I cited Marcott with its resolution limitations clearly stated"

Here's what you wrote when introducing Marcott to the discussion....
The current rate of warming - particularly since the 1970s - is faster than anything seen in the last 11,000 years, according to recent peer-reviewed reconstructions (e.g. Marcott et al., 2013; Neukom et al., 2019)."

No clear or even unclear statement about "resolution limitations" there that I can discern. It was only after I'd pointed out Marcott's discussions about the lack of clarity in the paleo record that you suddenly realised your monumental error and then wanted to stop talking about Marcott all together. That's fine. But if you think I'm going to continue to have a discussion with someone so ill-informed and so prepared to lie about what they said only a day or two earlier...well nup.

mhaze,

You’re again confusing scientific clarification with retreat.

I referenced Marcott to illustrate the long-term context of current warming. When you raised the question of short-term resolution, I acknowledged it immediately - because it’s a known and stated limitation of the study, not a “monumental error.” That’s called discussion, not concession.

You’re fixating on my initial phrasing because you don’t want to engage with the actual point - that’s why you’ve still dodged Neukom et al., a higher-resolution, multi-proxy reconstruction that directly addresses the rates of recent warming.

As for the “dozens of papers” - you still haven’t produced a single one. If they exist, you’d have posted them. Instead, you’re arguing about word choices because you can’t argue the evidence.

At this point, it’s obvious: you’re more invested in policing phrasing than addressing the science. That tells the story better than I ever could.