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
One of the big problems of the age concerns Global Warming, and whether it is man-made or natural. Most climatologists believe that it is very likely to be the former but some scientists (mostly non-climatologists) subscribe to the latter. Unsurprisi
ngly, the population at large is often confused and and is not convinced either way. Here we try to explain the principles of man-made global warming in a simple way. Our purpose is to try to understand the story which the climatologists are telling us through their rather complicated general circulation models. Although the effects in detail are best left to the climatologists models, we show that for the Globe as a whole the effects of man-made global warming can be demonstrated in a simple way. The simple model of only the direct heating from the absorption of infrared radiation, illustrates the main principles of the science involved. The predicted temperature increase due to the increase of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere over the last century describes reasonably well at least most of the observed temperature increase.
A decrease in the globally averaged low level cloud cover, deduced from the ISCCP infra red data, as the cosmic ray intensity decreased during the solar cycle 22 was observed by two groups. The groups went on to hypothesise that the decrease in ioniz
ation due to cosmic rays causes the decrease in cloud cover, thereby explaining a large part of the presently observed global warming. We have examined this hypothesis to look for evidence to corroborate it. None has been found and so our conclusions are to doubt it. From the absence of corroborative evidence, we estimate that less than 23%, at the 95% confidence level, of the 11-year cycle change in the globally averaged cloud cover observed in solar cycle 22 is due to the change in the rate of ionization from the solar modulation of cosmic rays.
