Recent work by Aplin and Lockwood [1] was interpreted by them as showing that there is a multiplying ratio of order 10$^{12}$ for the infra-red energy absorbed in the ionization produced by cosmic rays in the atmosphere to the energy content of the c
osmic rays themselves. We argue here that the interpretation of the result in terms of infra-red absorption by ionization is incorrect and that the result is therefore most likely due to a technical artefact
Various aspects of the connection between cloud cover (CC) and cosmic rays (CR) are analysed. Many features of this connection indicate that there is no direct causal connection between low cloud cover (LCC) and CR in spite of the evident long-term c
orrelation between them. However, most of these features are indirect. If only some part of the LCC is connected and varies with CR, then its value, obtained from the joint analysis of their 11-year variations, and averaged over the globe, should be most likely less than 20%. The most significant argument against a causal connection of CR and LCC is the anticorrelation between LCC and the medium cloud cover (MCC). The scenario of the parallel influence of the solar activity on the global temperature and CC on one side and CR on the other, which can lead to the observed correlations, is discussed and advocated.
Various aspects of the connection between cloud cover (CC) and cosmic rays (CR) are analysed. We argue that the anticorrelation between the temporal behaviour of low (LCC) and middle (MCC) clouds evidences against causal connection between them and C
R. Nevertheless, if a part of low clouds (LCC) is connected and varies with CR, then its most likely value averaged over the Globe should not exceed 20% at the two standard deviation level.
