The answers are "yes" and "yes". If you know the physics of how cloud chambers work (which we do), then we know that cosmic rays unquestionably DO help create clouds. The ONLY thing this experiment "might" do is generate more precise data to answer the quantitative question of "how much". But the problem is that any data generated in lab experiments get plugged into math models, which have the same problems as CO2/warming models....they are MODELS. And unless verified by field experiments (which I have no idea how anyone would do) basically PROVE nothing.
Thanks for the explanation, and I certainly yield to your knowledge of the physics involved.
However, I still don’t see why it would not be important to have more precise measurements of how the process works under various conditions. Simply showing that there is a range of credible possibilities (if that proves to be the case) would undermine all the pretence that there are NO doubts about the processes of “climate change” and/or AGW.
Kirkby was quoted in one of the articles (from way back around 1988) that the contribution of cosmic rays to potential climate warming might turn out to be anywhere from very low to 50% or more.
Even if it can only be estimated by more mathematical and computer models, at least that might prove some comparison to all the AGW hype artists who pretend that their modeling is definitive. Let’s assume that nothing can be settled or proved by the measurements of these experiments — even if they establish that the range of uiencertainty and debate on AGW vs. cosmic rays etc. is wide, that goes against all the claims that “the science is settled” for the AGW movement.... or so it seems to me looking at what you’ve emphasized and what is discussed in these articles.
Anyway, I do appreciate your insights and comments.