Wayne Stollings wrote:
Snowy123 wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
So using that measurement, those who claim cosmic rays are the cause have a negative amount of evidence?
Not true at all.
As there is actually a mechanism with evidence to support it for CO2 and none for cosmic rays, the cosmic rays would have even less evidence of cause and effect., thus it would have to be negative.
Snowy123 wrote:
Not true, observational evidence shows that GCRs impact aerosoles, precipitation events, precipitation trends, and correlate well to both cloud cover and temperatures.
Correlation does not equate to causation. You keep being told this large fact and you continue to claim the correlation and causation are the same in this case. What is the mechanism shown by any reproduced experimentation that impacts both cloud cover and temperature sufficiently to match the observations? Unless and until you can show such a mechanism you have only correlation and nothing else.
Quote:
Where is the observational proof that CO2 is having a large impact on the atmospheric parameters?
The same type of correlation and if you tweak the data sufficiently it will match up just like the tweaking made the same correlation appear in some of the papers you support. The major difference is there is an actual mechanism which can be shown for CO2 and that is more than can be said for the hypothesis you support.