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.
oops, that Kirby quote (in the National Post article) was from 1998 not 1988 - just a typo!
It would definitely be important to have more precise data. To put it simply, anybody who says cosmic rays DON'T influence cloud formation is either complete ignorant, or lying (just as anybody who says that CO2 doesn't cause increased heat retention by the atmosphere, which is NOT the same as saying it causes warming). The question in both cases is, "how much". Modelling for the cosmic ray case is actually easier than for CO2 because (at least to the best of my knowledge), there are no feedback loops for cosmic rays, while there are MANY for CO2 warming. Once that cosmic ray ionizes a track in the atmosphere, nucleation WILL happen, and water/ice particles WILL form.