/sci/ - Science & Math

>>8621501
There is no trend correlated between GCR flux and the warming trend:
https://phys.org/news/2015-03-cosmic-fluctuations-global-temperatures-doesnt.html

But this is just a scientific article, what does the literature say about GCR and climate change?

http://www.pnas.org/content/112/11/3253

>we present an analysis based on convergent cross mapping, which uses observational time series data to directly examine the causal link between CR and year-to-year changes in global temperature. Despite a gross correlation, we find no measurable evidence of a causal effect linking CR to the overall 20th-century warming trend.
>we find no measurable evidence of a causal effect linking CR to the overall 20th-century warming trend.

http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/6/4905/2006/acp-6-4905-2006.pdf

> Our analysis indicates that the variation of ionization by galactic cosmic rays over the decadal solar cycle does not entail a response in aerosol production and cloud cover via the second indirect aerosol effect that would explain observed variations in global cloud cover

>We estimate that the variation in radiative forcing resulting from a response of clouds to the change in galactic cosmic ray ionization and subsequent aerosol production over the decadal solar cycle is smaller than the concurrent variation of total solar irradiance.

If you want to learn about the role of the Sun on Earth's climate, aerosols in the atmosphere, etc. Don't trust some uninformed shitposter on /sci/, go to the source, examine the evidence in the literature, you know, like a good scientist would, not someone looking for confirmation bias.