Bet That Isn't In the Model

Too often, climate change activists assume that the output of computer models is actual data about the climate. But they don't know nearly as much as they think they do. The data reconstruction of the past is ripe for error given the sometimes narrow basis of extrapolation. And the model itself has to fit in all the data accurately--if they have all the inputs down solid. Which they don't have.

Here's one more thing to plug into the model:

The first results from the lab’s CLOUD (“Cosmics Leaving OUtdoor Droplets”) experiment published in Nature today confirm that cosmic rays spur the formation of clouds through ion-induced nucleation. ...

“[I]t is clear that the treatment of aerosol formation in climate models will need to be substantially revised, since all models assume that nucleation is caused by these vapours [sulphuric acid and ammonia] and water alone.

Wait. What?

Unsurprisingly, it’s a politically sensitive topic, as it provides support for a “heliocentric” rather than “anthropogenic” approach to climate change: the sun plays a large role in modulating the quantity of cosmic rays reaching the upper atmosphere of the Earth.

Fancy that. Perhaps we can put a hold on those trials for global warming "deniers" that some activists think is a good idea.

Oh, here's a new label. I discovered that too much of my "Landfill" category was global warming related.

UPDATE: The global warming mafia can deem the science settled all they want. But the truth is out there. Literally. If not the whole truth, then surely a large part of it.

Who could have imagined that the big hot thing up in the sky (and its more distant brothers) affected our climate?