Discover Magazine, of all pubs, ran an inteview with a scientist looking at cosmic radiation as a cause of climate change. The impression I have is that many scientists, very quietly, agree that cosmic radiation may have a significant impact over the long term. Solar radiation, and increased solar output, also has a small but still measurable impact.
This scientist also pointed out that nearly all climate models do not adequately account for cloud cover, which has a heavy counter cyclic effect on warming.
He said he’s gotten a lot of direct threats for publishing this stuff, even though he has never had or accepted any kind of corporate funding.
Several months ago (more?), I heard about a supernova spotted in another galaxy. It was said that cosmic rays from that blast were so great that if that supernova had been anywhere in our galaxy, it would have destroyed all life on earth.
“This scientist also pointed out that nearly all climate models do not adequately account for cloud cover, which has a heavy counter cyclic effect on warming...”
-—<>-—<>-—<>-—<>-—<>-—
The reason for that is there is a complete lack of scientific understanding of the most important mechanisms of clouds with respect to temperature. Even the IPCCs reports have pointed out how woefully clouds, and their close cousins in effect, aerosols, are understood. They fail to point out that a 1% change in cloud cover by any means at all can account for ALL the temperature variations we’ve seen during the last century and more... even assuming the output of the sun were constant (which it hasn’t been - it’s hotter than it’s been for 8,000 years)