Given that the cosmic
ray effect described by Svensmark would be more than sufficient to account for the net estimated temperature change since the Industrial Revolution, the key question becomes: Has human activity actually warmed, cooled or had no net impact on the planet?
Not exact matches
Refraction, specifically the real component of refraction n (
describes bending of
rays, wavelength changes relative to a vacuum, affects blackbody fluxes and intensities — as opposed to the imaginary component, which is related to absorption and emission) is relatively unimportant to shaping radiant fluxes through the atmosphere on Earth (except on the small scale processes where it (along with difraction, reflection) gives rise to scattering, particularly of solar radiation — in that case, the
effect on the larger scale can be
described by scattering properties, the emergent behavior).
wilt, the paper you cite
describes what in their view is a «small but statistically significant
effect of cosmic
rays on cloud formation, which in no way invalidates the large and significant
effects of human emissions on the current anthropogenic radiative forcing budget of the atmosphere.
In 2007, Svensmark and Nigel Calder published a book The Chilling Stars: A New Theory of Climate Change which
described the theory that cosmic
rays «have more
effect on the climate than manmade CO2 ″: / / www.spacecenter.dk/~hsv /
It's a survey — they look at the relationship between cloud cover and GCR on multiple levels as
described in the recent literature, including during forbrush decreases, «positive cosmic
ray excursions», over the 11 - year solar cycle, in the troposphere, the stratosphere, regional
effects, etc..