Usted no se lo cree

Artículo de referencia: Perfil de los negacionistas climáticos: 3. Henrik Svensmark, el cósmico

1. Richard S. Lindzen et al (2001) – Does the earth have an adaptive infrared iris? – Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society BAMS 82:417-432 – Department of Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology  – 3 autores
   “This new mechanism would, in effect, constitute an adaptive infrared iris that opens and closes in order to control the Outgoing Longwave Radiation in response to changes in surface temperature in a manner similar to the way in which an eye’s iris opens and closes in response to changing light levels.”
2. Takmeng Wong et al (2005) – Re-examination of the Observed Decadal Variability of Earth Radiation Budget using Altitude-corrected ERBE/ERBS Nonscanner WFOV Data – Journal of Climate 19:4028:4040 – 01/01/2006 – NASA Langley Research Center –  6  autores
   “The new results do not support the recent Iris hypothesis (Lindzen et al. 2001; Lin et al. 2004). As tropical and global SST warms in the late 1990s during the 1997–98 El Niño, the Iris negative feedback predicts net flux to decrease (ocean cooling) as opposed to the increase (ocean heating) seen.”
3. Jeff Kanipe (2006) – Climate change: A cosmic connection – Nature 443:141-143 doi:10.1038/443141a – 14/09/2006
   «The experiment, called CLOUD (for Cosmics Leaving Outdoor Droplets), is designed to shed light on a sometimes acrimonious debate between a small number of physicists and astronomers, who believe that cosmic rays have a substantial influence on Earth’s climate, and many in the mainstream climate community who don’t. In CLOUD, a beam of particles from CERN’s Proton Synchrotron will stand in for the cosmic rays. And a team of atmospheric physicists, chemists and space scientists from nine countries will try to see how they affect cloud formation.»
4. Rolf-Dieter Heuer – Wie «Illuminati» den Cern-Forschern geholfen hat – Welt Online – 15/07/2011 – http://www.welt.de/wissenschaft/article13488331/Wie-Illuminati-den-Cern-Forschern-geholfen-hat.html
5. Henrik Svensmark and Nigel Calder (2003) – The Chilling Stars: A New Theory of Climate Change – Totem Books – 19/03/2003 – Solar-Terristrial Physics Division, Danish Metorological Institute –  256 pág. – ISBN-13: 978-1840468151 – 1ª reimpresión: 2007
6. Henrik Svensmark et al (2006) – Experimental Evidence for the role of Ions in Particle Nucleation under Atmospheric Conditions – Proceedings of the Royal Society A 463:385-396 doi: 10.1098/rspa.2006.1773 – 01/02/2007 – Centre for Sun-Climate Research, Danish National Space Centre – 5 autores
   “Experimental studies of aerosol nucleation in air, containing trace amounts of ozone, sulphur dioxide and water vapour at concentrations relevant for the Earth’s atmosphere, are reported. The production of new aerosol particles is found to be proportional to the negative ion density and yields nucleation rates of the order of 0.1–1 cm−3 s−1. This suggests that the ions are active in generating an atmospheric reservoir of small thermodynamically stable clusters, which are important for nucleation processes in the atmosphere and ultimately for cloud formation.”
7. T. Sloan and A.W. Wolfendale (2008) – Testing the proposed causal link between cosmic rays and cloud cover – Environmental Research Letters 3 024001 doi:10.1088/1748-9326/3/2/024001 – 03/04/2008 – Physics Department, University of Lancaster; Physics Department, Durham University – http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/3/2/024001/?ejredirect=.iopscience
   “A decrease in the globally averaged low level cloud cover, deduced from the ISCCP infrared data, as the cosmic ray intensity decreased during the solar cycle 22 was observed by two groups … We have examined this hypothesis to look for evidence to corroborate it. None has been found and so our conclusions are to doubt it … From the absence of corroborative evidence, we estimate that less than 23%, at the 95% confidence level, of the 11 year cycle change in the globally averaged cloud cover observed in solar cycle 22 is due to the change in the rate of ionization from the solar modulation of cosmic rays.”
8. John Cook (2011) – Could cosmic rays be causing global warming? – Skeptical Science – 23/05/2011 – http://www.skepticalscience.com/cosmic-rays-and-global-warming-advanced.htm
   “In summary, studies have shown that GCRs exert a minor influence over low-level cloud cover, solar magnetic field has not increased in recent decades, nor has GCR flux on Earth decreased.  In fact, if GCRs did have a significant impact on global temperatures, they would have had a cooling effect over the past 20 years.”
9. Nigel Calder in the Times – Real Climate – 12/02/2007 – http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/02/nigel-calder-in-the-times/
   “Whether cosmic rays are correlated with climate or not, they have been regularly measured by the neutron monitor at Climax Station (Colorado) since 1953 and show no long term trend. No trend = no explanation for current changes.”
10. Rasmus Benestad (2011) – An incremental step blown up – Real Climate – 27/05/2011 – Climate Division, Norwegian Meteorological Institute; NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies – http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/05/an-incremental-step-blown-up/
    “Clouds need particles of the size approximately 10000 nanometers (10 micrometers) to form cloud drops for air that is barely supersaturated, according to the Köhler curve (which is central to cloud micro-physics).”
11. Ken Carslaw (2009) – Atmospheric physics: Cosmic rays, clouds and climate – Nature 460:332-333 doi:10.1038/460332a – 16/07/2009 – School of Earth and Environment, University of Leeds
    “Galactic cosmic rays could influence Earth’s cloudiness by creating aerosol particles that prompt cloud formation. That possible effect looks to be smaller than thought, but the story won’t end there.”
12. Richard B. Alley (2009) – The Biggest Control Knob: Carbon Dioxide in Earth’s Climate History – American Geophysical Union Meeting 2009 Bjerknes Lecture  – 16/12/2009 – Evan Pugh Professor, Department of Geosciences and Earth and Environmental Systems Institute, The Pennsylvania State University – http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm09/lectures/lecture_videos/A23A.shtml
13. Andrew A. Lacis et al (2010) – Atmospheric CO2: Principal Control Knob Governing Earth’s Temperature – Science 330:356-359 doi:10.1126/science.1190653 – 14/10/2010 – NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies – http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/lacis101015.pdf – 4 autores
    «Ample physical evidence shows that carbon dioxide (CO2) is the single most important climate-relevant greenhouse gas in Earth’s atmosphere. This is because CO2, like ozone, N2O, CH4, and chlorofluorocarbons, does not condense and precipitate from the atmosphere at current climate temperatures, whereas water vapor can and does. Noncondensing greenhouse gases, which account for 25% of the total terrestrial greenhouse effect, thus serve to provide the stable temperature structure that sustains the current levels of atmospheric water vapor and clouds via feedback processes that account for the remaining 75% of the greenhouse effect. Without the radiative forcing supplied by CO2 and the other noncondensing greenhouse gases, the terrestrial greenhouse would collapse, plunging the global climate into an icebound Earth state.»
14. K.S. Carslaw et al (2002) – Cosmic Rays, Clouds, and Climate – Science 298:1732-1737 doi:10.1126/science.1076964 – 01/01/2002 – Institute for Atmospheric Science, School of the Environment, University of Leeds; Department of Meteorology, University of Reading –  – 3 autores
    “Physical mechanisms have been proposed to explain how cosmic rays could affect clouds, but they need to be investigated further if the observation is to become more than just another correlation among geophysical variables”
15. Eigil Friis-Christensen and K. Lassen (1991) – Length of the solar cycle: an indicator of solar activity closely associated with climate – Science 254:698-700 DOI:10.1126/science.254.5032.698 – 01/11/1991 – Danish Meteorological Institute
    «It has recently been suggested that the solar irradiance has varied in phase with the 80- to 90-year period represented by the envelope of the 11-year sunspot cycle and that this variation is causing a significant part of the changes in the global temperature. This interpretation has been criticized for statistical reasons and because there are no observations that indicate significant changes in the solar irradiance. A set of data that supports the suggestion of a direct influence of solar activity on global climate is the variation of the solar cycle length. This record closely matches the long-term variations of the Northern Hemisphere land air temperature during the past 130 years.»
16. Peter Laut (2003) – Solar activity and terrestrial climate: an analysis of some purported correlations – Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 65:801-812 – Accepted: 04/02/2003 – Department of Physics, Technical University of Denmark
    «My analyses show that the apparent strong correlations displayed on these graphs have been obtained by an incorrect handling of the physical data. Since the graphs are still widely referred to in the literature and their misleading character has not yet been generally recognized … I want to caution against drawing any conclusions based upon these graphs concerning the possible wisdom or futility of reducing the emissions of man-made greenhouse gases.»
17. Peter Laut (2003) – Solar activity and terrestrial climate: an analysis of some purported correlations – Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 65:801-812 – 04/02/2003 – Department of Physics, Technical University of Denmark
    «In 1991 Friis-Christensen and Lassen published an article, which seemed to demonstrate a strong correlation between solar cycle lengths and Northern Hemisphere temperatures over the period 1860–1990. In 1995 Lassen and Friis-Christensen presented an extension of this correlation covering the period 1579–1987, and in 2000 Lassen and Friis-Christensen gave an update of the same correlation in response to a critical article by [Laut and Gundermann 2000a]. At the same time [Thejll and Lassen 2000] also published an update containing some of the same results as [Lassen and Friis-Christensen 2000]. In 1997 Svensmark and Friis-Christensen published satellite cloud data ( [Svensmark and Friis-Christensen 1997]), which seemed to show that total cloud cover was strongly correlated to the galactic cosmic ray intensity (GCRI). These results were updated by [Svensmark 1998]. In 2000 Marsh and Svensmark offered a new hypothesis where ‘total cloud cover’ was replaced by ‘low cloud cover’ as relevant parameter. In all these articles graphs were presented showing strong correlations between the solar and terrestrial parameters. I have analyzed these graphs and show that the apparent strong correlations are not supported by the underlying physical observations.»
18. Knud Lassen and Eigil Friis-Christensen (1995) – Variability of the solar cycle length during the past 1ve centuries and the apparent association with terrestrial climate – Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 57:835–845 doi:10.1016/0021-9169(94)00088-6 – 01/07/1995 – Danish Meteorological Institute
    «Solar data have been used as parameters in a great number of studies concerning variations of the physical conditions in the Earth’s upper atmosphere. The varying solar activity is distinctly represented by the 11-yr cycle in the number of sunspots. The length of this sunspot period is not fixed. Actually, it varies with a period of 80–90 yr. Recently, this variation has been found to be strongly correlated with long-term variations in the global temperature. Information about northernhemisphere temperature based on proxy data is available back to the second half of the sixteenth century. Systematic monitoring of solar data did not take place prior to 1750. Therefore, a critical assessment of existing and proxy solar data prior to 1750 is reported and tables of epochs of sunspot minima as well as sunspot cycle lengths covering the interval 1500–1990 are presented. The tabulated cycle lengths are compared with reconstructed and instrumental temperature series through four centuries. The correlation between solar activity and northern hemisphere land surface temperature is confirmed.»
19. Peter Laut and Jesper Gundermann (1999) – Solar cycle length hypothesis appears to support the IPCC on global warming – Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 60:1719–1728 doi:10.1016/S1364-6826(98)00155-2  – 12/04/1999 – Technical University of Denmark, Department of Applied Chemistry; Danish Energy Agency
    “The correlation between smoothed northern hemisphere land air temperatures and filtered solar cycle lengths for the period 1579–1987 is substantially improved by assuming and subtracting an anthropogenic contribution to the historical warming trend of a character and size consistent with the assessment presented by the IPCC in its Second Assessment Report (1996). Therefore, instead of contradicting the IPCC assessment for human induced global warming, a confirmation of the solar cycle length hypothesis would in fact provide general support to the IPCC assessment.”
20. Henrik Svensmark and Eigil Friis-Christensen (1997) – Variation of cosmic ray flux and global cloud coverage—a missing link in solar-climate relationships – Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 59:1225–1232 doi:10.1016/S1364-6826(98)00155-2 – 01/07/1997 – Solar-Terrestrial Physics Division, Danish Meteorological Institute
    “In the search for a physical mechanism that could account for reported correlations between solar activity parameters and climate, we have investigated the global cloud cover observed by satellites. We find that the observed variation of 3–4% of the global cloud cover during the recent solar cycle is strongly correlated with the cosmic ray flux. This, in turn, is inversely correlated with the solar activity. The effect is larger at higher latitudes in agreement with the shielding effect of the Earth’s magnetic field on high-energy charged particles. The observed systematic variation in cloud cover will have a significant effect on the incoming solar radiation and may, therefore, provide a possible explanation of the tropospheric and stratospheric 10–12 year oscillations which have been reported. The above relation between cosmic ray flux and cloud cover should also be of importance in an explanation of the correlation between solar cycle length and global temperature, that has been found.”
21. Henrik Svensmark (1998) – Influence of Cosmic Rays on Earth’s Climate – Physical Review Letters 81:5027–5030 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.81.5027 – 30/11/1998 – Solar-Terristrial Physics Division, Danish Metorological Institute
    ”During the last solar cycle Earth’s cloud cover underwent a modulation more closely in phase with the galactic cosmic ray flux than with other solar activity parameters. Further it is found that Earth’s temperature follows more closely decade variations in galactic cosmic ray flux and solar cycle length, than other solar activity parameters. The main conclusion is that the average state of the heliosphere affects Earth’s climate.”
22. Peter Laut and Jesper Gundermann (2000) – Solar cycle lengths and climate: a reference revisited – Journal of Geophyisical Research 105:27489-27492 doi:10.1029/2000JA900068 – 01/05/2000 – Technical University of Denmark, Department of Applied Chemistry; Danish Energy Agency
    ”An article published by Friis-Christensen and Lassen [1991] appeared to indicate an association between solar cycle lengths (SCLs) and climate. It attracted worldwide attention and has since been extensively referred to. We here present an updated analysis using a recent temperature reconstruction with the time period of comparison considerably expanded. The correlation is found to be weak. In the light of this new result we analyze the question how the article by Friis-Christensen and Lassen was able to create the impression of a ‘strikingly good agreement’, as the authors described it. We show that the main reason is an unacceptable mixing of filtered and nonfiltered data in the graphical representation. Hereby, an artificial agreement of the solar data with the global warming since 1970 was established. The article by Friis-Christensen and Lassen has created and still creates confusion both in scientific and public discussions on climate change. We have therefore found it relevant to deliver the present analysis.”
23. Knud Lassen and Eigil Friis-Christensen (2000) – Reply to the article “Solar cycle lengths and climate: a reference revisited” by P. Laut and J. Gundermann – Journal of Geophyisical Research 105:27493–27495 doi:10.1029/2000JA900067 – 01/05/2000 – Danish Meteorological Institute
    ”In a critical assessment of the results regarding a possible association between solar activity variations and climate by Friis-Christensen and Lassen [1991] and Lassen and Friis-Christensen [1995], Laut and Gundermann [this issue] conclude that the correlation between the solar cycle length parameter and the Northern Hemisphere land temperature is weak. In this short reply we confirm our earlier conclusion, on the basis of new and independent temperature data, that during 400 years, from 1570 to 1970, there is a significant statistical correlation between these parameters, indicating that solar forcing constitutes an important contribution to the natural temperature fluctuations. This does not exclude, as also stated previously, that other climate forcings may have an effect on global temperature, including the effect of man-made greenhouse gases, in particular, after 1970.”
24. P. Thejll and K. Lassen (2000) – Solar forcing of the Northern hemisphere land air temperature: New data – Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 62:1207–1213 doi:10.1016/S1364-6826(00)00104-8 – 02/05/2000 – Solar-Terrestrial Physics Division, Danish Meteorological Institute
    “It has previously been demonstrated that the mean land air temperature of the Northern hemisphere could adequately be associated with a long-term variation of solar activity as given by the length of the approximately 11-year solar cycle. Adding new temperature data for the 1990s and expected values for the next sunspot extrema we test whether the solar cycle length model is still adequate. We find that the residuals are now inconsistent with the pure solar model. We conclude that since around 1990 the type of Solar forcing that is described by the solar cycle length model no longer dominates the long-term variation of the Northern hemisphere land air temperature.”
25. Nigel D. Marsh and Henrik Svensmark (2000) – Low Cloud Properties Influenced by Cosmic Rays – Physical Review Letters 85 5004-5007 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.85.5004 – 04/12/2000 – Danish Space Research Institute – http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v85/i23/p5004_1
    “The influence of solar variability on climate is currently uncertain. Recent observations have indicated a possible mechanism via the influence of solar modulated cosmic rays on global cloud cover. Surprisingly the influence of solar variability is strongest in low clouds ≤ 3 km, which points to a microphysical mechanism involving aerosol formation that is enhanced by ionization due to cosmic rays. If confirmed it suggests that the average state of the heliosphere is important for climate on Earth.”
26. Stephen Schneider (2002) – Global Warming: Neglecting the Complexities – Scientific American – 01/01/2002 – Department of biological sciences and senior fellow at the Institute for International Studies at Stanford University + editor of Climatic Change and the Encyclopedia of Climate and Weather – http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=misleading-math-about
    “As a final example, he quotes a controversial hypothesis from Danish cloud physicists that solar magnetic events modulate cosmic rays and produce «a clear connection between global low-level cloud cover and incoming cosmic radiation.» The Danish researchers use this hypothesis to support an alternative to carbon dioxide for explaining recent climate change. Lomborg fails to discuss–and I haven’t seen it treated by the authors of that speculative theory either–what such purported changes to this cloud cover have done to the radiative balance of the earth. Increasing clouds, it has been well known since papers by Syukuro Manabe and Richard T. Wetherald in 1967 and myself in 1972, can warm or cool the atmosphere depending on the height of the cloud tops, the reflectivity of the underlying surface, the season and the latitude. The reason the IPCC discounts this theory is that its advocates have not demonstrated any radiative forcing sufficient to match that of much more parsimonious theories, such as anthropogenic forcing.”
27. Henrik Svensmark (2003) – Comments on Peter Laut’s paper: ”Solar Activity and terrestrial climate: an analysis of some purported correlations”, Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 65 (2003) 801—812 – Danish Space Research Institute – 01/05/2003 – Danish Space Research Institute – http://www.space.dtu.dk/upload/institutter/space/forskning/05_afdelinger/sun-climate/full_text_publications/comments%20on%20peter%20lauts%20paper.pdf
    “The intension with this writing has been to demonstrate that perfectly sound scientific procedures have been used in our work, that there has been a consistent development in the idea that clouds are correlated with cosmic rays, that PL allegations towards me of publishing manipulated data and misleading the scientific community are erroneous.”
28. Peter Laut (2003) – Comments by Peter Laut on: Henrik Svensmark’s “Comments on Peter Laut’s paper: ‘Solar activity and terrestrial climate: an analysis of some purported correlations’. Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 65 (2003) 401-812”                         –  – 07/12/2003 – Department of Physics, Technical University of Denmark – http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/Laut2003a.pdf
    “Henrik Svensmark’s comments demonstrate that he simply misunderstands the definition of a physicalparameter (i.e. the DSMP dataset, see Ad page 3, paragraph 6, below), that plays a decisive role in creating the misleading message in his world-famous figure from his 1998 article in Physical Review Letters, namely, the incorrect claim, that there should be a strong agreement between the variationof ‘total global cloud cover’ and ‘galactic cosmic ray intensity’. This misunderstanding is, of course, a strange and troubling fact, which is quite extraordinary in the context of serious scientific work.”
29. Peter Laut (2003) – Solar activity and terrestrial climate: an analysis of some purported correlations – Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 65:801-812 doi:10.1016/S1364-6826(03)00041-5 – 04/02/2003 – Department of Physics, Technical University of Denmark
    “My findings do not by any means rule out the existence of important links between solar activity and terrestrial climate. Such links have over the years been demonstrated by many authors. The sole objective of the present analysis is to draw attention to the fact that some of the widely publicized, apparent correlations do not properly re9ect the underlying physical data.”
30. Paul E.Damon and Peter Laut (2004) – Pattern of Strange Errors Plagues Solar Activity and Terrestrial Climate Data – EOS Transactions of the American Geophysical Union 85:370-374 doi:10.1029/2004EO390005 – 28/09/2004 – University of Arizona; Technical University of Denmark
    “Other examples of unacceptable handling of observational data are presented by Svensmark and Friis-Christensen [1997] and Svensmark [1998].They, too, show a strikingly good agreement of solar and terrestrial data, in this case of the intensity of galactic cosmic radiation (representing solar activity) and total global cloud cover.Again,a close examination reveals a strange data selection.The agreement over a substantial part of the period investigated, i.e. over the last several years,has been obtained by employing data from the U.S. Defense Meteorological Satellite Program that actually do not represent total global cloud cover and therefore do not belong in the context of their analysis.”
31. Nir J. Shaviv (2002) – Cosmic ray diffusion from the galactic spiral arms, iron meteorites, and a possible climate connection? – Physical Review Letters 89:051102 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.89.051102 – 06/08/2002 – Racah Institute of Physics, Hebrew University, Jerusalem +  Canadian Institute for Theoretical Astrophysics, University of Toronto
    “We find that although the geological evidence for the occurrence of IAEs in the past Eon is not unequivocal, it appears to have a nontrivial correlation with the spiral arm crossings – agreeing in period and phase. Thus, a better timing study of glaciations could either confirm this result as an explanation to the occurrence of IAEs or refute a CRF climatic connection.”
32. Nir J. Shaviv (2003) – The spiral structure of the Milky Way, cosmic rays, and ice age epochs on Earth – New Astronomy 8:39-77 doi:10.1016/S1384-1076(02)00193-8 – 18/10/2002 – Racah Institute of Physics, Hebrew University, Jerusalem +  Canadian Institute for Theoretical Astrophysics, University of Toronto
    “The short term variability of the galactic cosmic ray flux (CRF) reaching Earth has been previously associated with variations in the global low altitude cloud cover. This CRF variability arises from changes in the solar wind strength. However, cosmic ray variability also arises intrinsically from variable activity of and motion through the Milky Way. Thus, if indeed the CRF climate connection is real, the increased CRF witnessed while crossing the spiral arms could be responsible for a larger global cloud cover and a reduced temperature, thereby facilitating the occurrences of ice ages. This picture has been recently shown to be supported by various data [PhRvL 89 (2002) 051102]. In particular, the variable CRF recorded in Iron meteorites appears to vary synchronously with the appearance ice ages. Here, we expand upon the original treatment with a more thorough analysis and more supporting evidence. In particular, we discuss the cosmic ray diffusion model which considers the motion of the galactic spiral arms. We also elaborate on the structure and dynamics of the Milky Way’s spiral arms. In particular, we bring forth new argumentation using HI observations which imply that the galactic spiral arm pattern speed appears to be that which fits the glaciation period and the cosmic-ray flux record extracted from Iron meteorites. In addition, we show that apparent peaks in the star formation rate history, as deduced by several authors, coincides with particularly icy epochs, while the long period of 1 to 2 Gyr before present, during which no glaciations are known to have occurred, coincides with a significant paucity in the past star formation rate.”
33. Nir J. Shaviv and Ján Veizer (2003) – Celestial driver of Phanerozoic climate? – GSA Today 13:4-10 – 01/07/2003 – Racah Institute of Physics, Hebrew University, Jerusalem +  Canadian Institute for Theoretical Astrophysics, University of Toronto; Institut für Geologie, Mineralogie und Geophysik, Ruhr Universität + Ottawa-Carleton Geoscience Centre, University of Ottawa – http://www.phys.huji.ac.il/~shaviv/Ice-ages/GSAToday.pdf
    “Assuming that the entire residual variance in temperature is due solely to the CO2 greenhouse effect, we propose a tentative upper limit to the long-term “equilibrium” warming effect of CO2, one which is potentially lower than that based on general circulation models.”
34. Stefan Rahmstorf et al (2004) – Cosmic Rays, Carbon Dioxide and Climate – EOS Transactions of the American Geophysical Union 85:370-374 doi:10.1029/2004EO040002  – 27/01/2004 – Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research – http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publications/Journals/rahmstorf_etal_eos_2004.html  – 11 autores
    “Conclusions:  Two main conclusions result from our analysis of [Shaviv and Veizer, 2003]. The first is that the correlation of cosmic ray flux (CRF) and climate over the past 520 m.y. appears to not hold up under scrutiny. Even if we accept the questionable assumption that meteorite clusters give information on CRF variations, we find that the evidence for a link between CRF and climate amounts to little more than a similarity in the average periods of the CRF variations and a heavily smoothed temperature reconstruction. Phase agreement is poor. The authors applied several adjustments to the data to artificially enhance the correlation. We thus find that the existence of a correlation has not been convincingly demonstrated.  Our second conclusion is independent of the first. Whether there is a link of CRF and temperature or not, the authors’ estimate of the effect of a CO2-doubling on climate is highly questionable. It is based on a simple and incomplete regression analysis which implicitly assumes that climate variations on time scales of millions of years, for different configurations of continents and ocean currents, for much higher CO2 levels than at present, and with unaccounted causes and contributing factors, can give direct quantitative information about the effect of rapid CO2 doubling from pre-industrial climate. The complexity and non-linearity of the climate system does not allow such a simple statistical derivation of climate sensitivity without a physical understanding of the key processes and feedbacks. We thus conclude that [Shaviv and Veizer, 2003] provide no cause for revising current estimates of climate sensitivity to carbon dioxide.”
35. Knud Jahnke and Rasmus Benestad (2008) – A Galactic glitch – Real Climate – 10/03/2008 –  – http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/03/a-galactic-glitch/
    “Remarkably, the poor scientific basis of the galactic cosmic ray hypothesis seems to be inversely related to the amount of media backing it is getting. At least 3 documentaries (‘The Climate Conflict’, the ‘Global Warming Swindle’, and now ‘The Cloud Mystery‘) have been shown on television – all with a strong thrust of wanting to cast doubt on the human causes of global warming.”
36. Andrew C. Overholt et al (2009) – Testing the link between terrestrial climate change and Galactic spiral arm transit – Arxiv doi:10.1088/0004-637X/705/2/L101 – 16/09/2009 – University of Kansas – http://arxiv.org/abs/0906.2777 – 3 autores
    “We re-examine past suggestions of a close link between terrestrial climate change and the Sun’s transit of spiral arms in its path through the Milky Way galaxy. These links produced concrete fits, deriving the unknown spiral pattern speed from terrestrial climate correlations. We test these fits against new data on spiral structure based on CO data that does not make simplifying assumptions about symmetry and circular rotation. If we compare the times of these transits to changes in the climate of Earth, not only do the claimed correlations disappear, but also we find that they cannot be resurrected for any reasonable pattern speed.”
37. J. Calogovic et al (2010) – Sudden Cosmic Ray Decreases: No Change of Global Cloud Cover – Geophysical Research Letters 37 L03802 doi:10.1029/2009GL041327 – 03/02/2010 – Hvar Observatory, Faculty of Geodesy, Zagreb –  – 6 autores
    “We report on an alternative and stringent test of the CRC-hypothesis by searching for a possible influence of sudden GCR decreases (so-called Forbush decreases) on clouds. We find no response of global cloud cover to Forbush decreases at any altitude and latitude … A closer inspection of Svensmark’s list of used Fd events revealed 5 Fd events which did not fulfill our selection criteria…  Without further discussion we would like to state that a study as the one by Svensmark et al. [2009] including Fd events which are associated with the solar proton events leads easily to questionable or even contradictory results (see also [Laken et al., 2009]).”
38. Henrik Svensmark (2007) – Cosmoclimatology: a new theory emerges – News and Reviews in Astronomy and Geophysics 48:18-24 – 25/01/2007
    “Variations in the cosmic-ray influx due to solar magnetic activity account well for climatic fluctuations on decadal, centennial and millennial timescales. Over longer intervals, the changing galactic environment of the solar system has had dramatic consequences, including Snowball Earth episodes. A new contribution to the faint young Sun paradox is also on offer.”
39. Rasmus Benestad (2007) – ‘Cosmoclimatology’ – tired old arguments in new clothes – Real Climate – Norwegian Meteorological Institute + Oslo Climate Group (OCG) – 09/03/2007 –  – http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/cosmoclimatology-tired-old-arguments-in-new-clothes/
    “I have the impression that the A&G article comes from the same school as “The Skeptical Environmentalist“, which also has been criticised for cherry picking references to make mere speculation appear as more solidly founded. To ignore aspects that don’t fit the hypothesis is definitely not science. Neither is adjusting data so to provide a good fit without a solid and convincing justification. Science, however, means objectivity, transparency, repeatability, and in principle the possibility of falsification. Furthermore, it is only a lack of respect for the readers to publish an article that doesn’t provide all relevant sides to the story. I hope that Svensmark reads my comments and responds to them here at RealClimate. I also hope that this is read by scholars and journalists who start asking the critical questions. I do not know the answer to the questions that I pose here, so I’d be interested to hear your view.”
40. Steven Milloy  – New Research Adds Twist to Global Warming Debate – Fox News – 12/10/2006 – http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,220341,00.html#ixzz1SXt0Cc1h
    “The media’s lack of interest hardly reflects upon the importance of Svensmark’s experiment so much as it reflects upon the media’s and global warming lobby’s excessive investment in greenhouse gas hysteria.”
41. Paul E.Damon and Peter Laut (2004) – Pattern of Strange Errors Plagues Solar Activity and Terrestrial Climate Data – EOS Transactions of the American Geophysical Union 85:370-374 doi:10.1029/2004EO390005 – 28/09/2004 – University of Arizona; Technical University of Denmark
    “Several of the figures discussed here have attracted worldwide attention. One example of the exploitation of the graphs in the public debate is a 2001 TV documentary, “The Climate Conflict,” produced for Danish state television by Lars Mortensen. It featured Henrik Svensmark and Eigil Friis-Christensen as the ingenious mavericks of today’s climatology, who discovered the dominant influence of solar activity upon our climate and now fight a stubborn scientific establishment—represented by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—and the ruthless proponents of the “so-called greenhouse theory.” The film has made a tremendous impact upon public opinion in Denmark and several other countries and is now part of the curriculum in many Danish high schools. It won an impressive series of international awards: Special Prize of H.M.The Prince Rainier III in 2001 at the 41e Festival de Télévision de Monte-Carlo; Best Environmental Film at Téléscience in Montreal 2001; Best Science Film at Telecencia, Portugal; and the Silverserpent at Filmobidos 2001 in Obidos, Portugal. The suggestive basis for the solar claims – as presented personally by Svensmark and Friis-Christensen on the screen – are the misleading graphs from the above mentioned 1991 and 1998 articles.”
42. An experiment that hints we are wrong on climate change – The Sunday Times – 11/02/2007 –  – http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1363818.ece
    “So one awkward question you can ask, when you’re forking out those extra taxes for climate change, is “Why is east Antarctica getting colder?” It makes no sense at all if carbon dioxide is driving global warming. While you’re at it, you might inquire whether Gordon Brown will give you a refund if it’s confirmed that global warming has stopped.”
43. Marion Long (2007) – Sun’s Shifts May Cause Global Warming – Interview with Henrik Svensmark – Discover Magazine – 25/06/2007 – http://discovermagazine.com/2007/jul/the-discover-interview-henrik-svensmark/article_view?b_start:int=0&-C
    “So it’s difficult to do climate research without being suspected of having a hidden agenda? Yes, it is frustrating. People can use this however they want, and I can’t stop them. Some are accusing me of doing it for political reasons; some are saying I’m doing it for the oil companies. This is just ridiculous. I think there’s a huge interest in discrediting what I’m doing, but I’ve sort of gotten used to this. I’ve convinced myself the only thing I can do is just to continue doing good science. And I think time will show that we are on the right track.”
44. Newsnight – The Chilling Stars by Calder and Svensmark – BBC Two – 14/02/2007 –  – http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/2007/02/the_chilling_stars_by_calder_and_svensmark.html
    “The Chilling Stars by science writer Nigel Calder and climate physicist Henrik Svensmark outlines a controversial new theory on the origins of global warming. The book sets out to prove that a combination of clouds, the Sun and cosmic rays – sub-atomic particles from exploding stars – have altered our climate far more than human carbon emissions.”
45. Richard Black (2008) – No Sun link’ to climate change  – BBC News – 03/04/2008 – Environment correspondent, BBC News website – http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7327393.stm
    “Scientists have produced further compelling evidence showing that modern-day climate change is not caused by changes in the Sun’s activity.  The research contradicts a favoured theory of climate «sceptics», that changes in cosmic rays coming to Earth determine cloudiness and temperature.”
46. Lyndon LaRouche Political Action Committee – German TV Special Exposes The Fraud of Global Warming – Lyndon LaRouche Political Action Committee – 22/05/2007 – http://www.larouchepac.com/pages/breaking_news/2007/05/22/global_warming.shtml –
    “On May 21, German public television attacked the British-created Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) censorship of critics of the global warming «theory» popularized by Al Gore. Last night prime time, ARD, the first channel of Germany’s public television, provided a platform for prominent critics of the IPCC, in its Report magazine. Critics included the Danish climatologists Bjorn Lomborg and Henrik Svensmark, Richard Tol from Ireland, and Nigel Calder from Britain, charging the IPCC with locking out dissident voices among climatologists, systematically and intentionally.»
47. Cosmic meddling with the clouds by seven-day magic – Danish Technical University – 29/07/2009 – http://www.realclimate.org/wp-content/uploads/Cosmic-meddling-with-the-clouds-by-seven-day-magic.pdf
    “This research, to which Torsten Bondo and Jacob Svensmark contrib-uted, validates 13 years of discoveries that point to a key role for cosmic rays in climate change. In particular, it connects observable variations in the world’s cloudiness to laboratory experiments in Co-penhagen showing how cosmic rays help to make the all-important aerosols.”
48. Martin B. Enghoff et al (2011) – Aerosol nucleation induced by a high energy particle beam – Geophysical Research Letters 38, L09805, doi:10.1029/2011GL047036 – 12/05/2011 – National Space Institute, Technical University of Denmark – 5 autores – http://www.leif.org/EOS/2011GL047036.pdf
    “We have studied sulfuric acid aerosol nucleation in an atmospheric pressure reaction chamber using a 580 MeV electron beam to ionize the volume of the reaction chamber. We find a clear contribution from ion-induced nucleation and consider this to be the first unambiguous observation of the ion-effect on aerosol nucleation using a particle beam under conditions that resemble the Earth’s atmosphere. By comparison with ionization using a gamma source we further show that the nature of the ionizing particles is not important for the ion-induced component of the nucleation. This implies that inexpensive ionization sources – as opposed to expensive accelerator beams – can be used for investigations of ion-induced nucleation.”
49. – Scientists at Aarhus University (AU) and the National Space Institute (DTU Space) show that particles from space create cloud cover – Faculty of Science, Aarhus University – 16/05/2011 – http://science.au.dk/en/news-and-events/news-article/artikel/forskere-fra-au-og-dtu-viser-at-partikler-fra-rummet-skaber-skydaekke/
    “New input to the United Nations climate model: Ulrik Ingerslev Uggerhøj, Physics and Astronomy, AU, along with others including Jens Olaf Pepke Pedersen and Martin Bødker Enghoff, DTU Space, have directly demonstrated in a new experiment that cosmic radiation can create small floating particles – so-called aerosols – in the atmosphere. By doing so, they substantiate the connection between the Sun’s magnetic activity and the Earth’s climate.”
50. CLOUD – Wikipedia – 08/04/2011 – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CLOUD
    “The experiment consists of a 3 m diameter aerosol chamber which is exposed to an adjustable particle beam that simulates GCRs at any altitude or latitude. The chamber is filled with air, water vapour, selected trace gases and can be operated at any temperature or pressure found in the atmosphere. UV illumination allows photolytic reaction. The chamber contains an electric field cage to control the drift of small ions and charged aerosols.[1] CERN posted a 2009 progress report on the CLOUD project.[2] J. Kirkby (2009) reviews developments in the CERN CLOUD project and planned tests. He describes cloud nucleation mechanisms which appear energetically favourable and depend on GCRs.”
51. Nigel Calder – “No, you mustn’t say what it means!” – Calder’s Updates – 17/07/2011 – https://calderup.wordpress.com/2011/07/17/%E2%80%9Cno-you-mustnt-say-what-it-means%E2%80%9D/
    “The once illustrious CERN laboratory ceases to be a truly scientific institute when its Director General forbids its physicists and visiting experimenters to draw the obvious scientific conclusions from their results.”

Artículo de referencia: Perfil de los negacionistas climáticos: 3. Henrik Svensmark, el cósmico