The article doesn't say that the amount of Solar energy reflected might account for the unaccounted temperature increase the last 3 decades. It simply says it's a possible factor in determining the temperature. It may just as likely mitigate the human-induced warming.
"To further complicate matters, cloud properties may change with a changing climate, and human-made aerosols may confound the effect of greenhouse gas forcing on clouds.
Depending on whether and how cloud cover changes, the cloud feedback could almost halve or almost double the warming."
I may be missing something but this study does nothing to dispel the theory of human-induced climate changes. Rather, it does more to explain the discrepancy in temperatures between the earth surface and the low atmosphere that has led some scientists to argue that "the case for human-induced climate change is weak, because our forcing should presumably show a uniform temperature rise from the surface up through the atmosphere."
From the article...
"Many scientists agree that the Earth's surface appears to be warming, while low atmosphere temperatures remain unchanged"
and then
"The discrepancy in temperatures has led some scientists to argue that the case for human-induced climate change is weak, because our influence should presumably show a uniform temperature rise from the surface up through the atmosphere.
Although researchers have proposed that changes in cloud cover could help to explain the discrepancy, none had been able to account for the varying heat profiles.
But the study suggested that cosmic rays, tiny charged particles which bombard all planets with varying frequency depending on solar wind intensity, could be the missing link."
Slashdot Mirror
The article doesn't say that the amount of Solar energy reflected might account for the unaccounted temperature increase the last 3 decades. It simply says it's a possible factor in determining the temperature.
It may just as likely mitigate the human-induced warming.
"To further complicate matters, cloud properties may change with a changing climate, and human-made aerosols may confound the effect of greenhouse gas forcing on clouds. Depending on whether and how cloud cover changes, the cloud feedback could almost halve or almost double the warming."
I may be missing something but this study does nothing to dispel the theory of human-induced climate changes. Rather, it does more to explain the discrepancy in temperatures between the earth surface and the low atmosphere that has led some scientists to argue that "the case for human-induced climate change is weak, because our forcing should presumably show a uniform temperature rise from the surface up through the atmosphere." From the article ...
"Many scientists agree that the Earth's surface appears to be warming, while low atmosphere temperatures remain unchanged"
and then
"The discrepancy in temperatures has led some scientists to argue that the case for human-induced climate change is weak, because our influence should presumably show a uniform temperature rise from the surface up through the atmosphere.
Although researchers have proposed that changes in cloud cover could help to explain the discrepancy, none had been able to account for the varying heat profiles.
But the study suggested that cosmic rays, tiny charged particles which bombard all planets with varying frequency depending on solar wind intensity, could be the missing link."