It seems you don't even know what the paper you're championing says. It doesn't argue that temperature drives CO2; rather that over the past billion years changes in climate have driven changes in the biosphere, and it's the biosphere changes which are the primary influence on CO2 levels. However the assumptions involved are so simplistic that it hardly takes a scientist to note the difficulties:
That's assuming that the prehistoric changes in galactic cosmic radiation have been as significant as Svensmark asserts in the first place. However that itself is rather dubious.
Sloan and Wolfendale 2013 (Cosmic rays and climate change over the past 1000 million years) suggest that:
The Galactic cosmic ray (GCR) intensity has been postulated by others to vary cyclically with a peak to valley ratio of ∼3:1, as the Solar System moves from the Spiral Arm to the Inter-Arm regions of the Galaxy. These intensities have been correlated with global temperatures and used to support the hypothesis of GCR induced climate change. In this paper we show that the model used to deduce such a large ratio of Arm to Interarm GCR intensity requires unlikely values of some of the GCR parameters, particularly the diffusion length in the interstellar medium, if as seems likely to be the case, the diffusion is homogeneous. Comparison is made with the existing gamma ray astronomy data and this also indicates that the ratio is not large. The variation in the intensity is probably of order 10–20% and should be no more than 30% as the Solar System moves between these two regions, unless the conventional parameters of the GCR are incorrect.
In
another 2013 paper (Cosmic rays, solar activity and the climate) Sloan and Wolfendale further examine the GCR hypothesis:
Although it is generally believed that the increase in the mean global surface temperature since industrialization is caused by the increase in green house gases in the atmosphere, some people cite solar activity, either directly or through its effect on cosmic rays, as an underestimated contributor to such global warming. In this letter a simplified version of the standard picture of the role of greenhouse gases in causing the global warming since industrialization is described. The conditions necessary for this picture to be wholly or partially wrong are then introduced. Evidence is presented from which the contributions of either cosmic rays or solar activity to this warming is deduced. The contribution is shown to be less than 10% of the warming seen in the twentieth century.
They are not the only ones who have critiqued the notion which Svensmark so doggedly pursues.
Feng and Bailer-Jones 2013:
Numerous studies have claimed an association between [biodiversity] variation and the motion of the Sun around the Galaxy, invoking the modulation of cosmic rays, gamma rays, and comet impact frequency as a cause of this biodiversity variation. However, some of these studies exhibit methodological problems, or were based on coarse assumptions (such as a strict periodicity of the solar orbit). Here we investigate this link in more detail.... Thus, while we cannot rule out there being some connection between solar motion and biodiversity variations on the Earth, we conclude that it is difficult to give convincing positive conclusions of such a connection using current data.
Krissansen-Totton and Davies 2013:
Our long-term analysis of MISR data finds no statistically significant correlations between cosmic rays and global albedo or globally averaged cloud height, and no evidence for any regional or lagged correlations.
Benestad 2013:
A set of Monte Carlo simulations nevertheless indicated that the weak amplitude of the global mean temperature response associated with GCR could easily be due to chance (p-value?=?0.6), and there has been no trend in the GCR. Hence, there is little empirical evidence that links GCR to the recent global warming.
Laken et al 2013:
Despite over 35 years of constant satellite-based measurements of cloud, reliable evidence of a long-hypothesized link between changes in solar activity and Earth’s cloud cover remains elusive. . . . At present, two long-term independent global satellite cloud datasets are available (ISCCP and MODIS). Although the differences between them are considerable, neither shows evidence of a solar-cloud link at either long or short timescales. Furthermore, reports of observed correlations between solar activity and cloud over the 1983–1995 period are attributed to the chance agreement between solar changes and artificially induced cloud trends.
Erlykin et al 2013:
The problem of the contribution of cosmic rays to climate change is a continuing one and one of importance. In principle, at least, the recent results from the CLOUD project at CERN provide information about the role of ionizing particles in ’sensitizing’ atmospheric aerosols which might, later, give rise to cloud droplets. Our analysis shows that, although important in cloud physics the results do not lead to the conclusion that cosmic rays affect atmospheric clouds significantly, at least if H2SO4 is the dominant source of aerosols in the atmosphere. An analysis of the very recent studies of stratospheric aerosol changes following a giant solar energetic particles event shows a similar negligible effect. Recent measurements of the cosmic ray intensity show that a former decrease with time has been reversed. Thus, even if cosmic rays enhanced cloud production, there would be a small global cooling, not warming.
It seems your "self-referential cheering" over your blind assumption that "there has been no paper attempting to 'debunk' the finding" was more than a little premature :lol:
And these are just papers from 2013:
ScepticalScience.com provides further links to numerous earlier studies which had been casting doubt on the hypothesis since Svensmark first decided to run with it in 1998. Of course, just glancing over the most obvious available data even I had already pointed out to you the last 50 years' non-correlation between GCR and temperature and various other problems, in the discussion quoted above :roll:
