WUWT reader Max_B tips us off to this article and video.
According to Nigel Calder’s Blog, CERN’s CLOUD experiment (testing Svensmarks’s cosmic-ray theory) shows a large enhancement of aerosol production and the results are due for release in 2 or 3 months’ time. There is a short Physics World interview with Jasper Kirkby which is worthwhile viewing and was published a couple of days ago…
Further down, we have some information from Bishop Hill liveblogging from the recent conference in Cambridge, UK where he makes notes on Q&A with Svensmark, plus a Josh livetoon.
From Physics World Head in a CLOUD:
In this special video report for physicsworld.com CLOUD project leader Jasper Kirkby explains what his team is trying to achieve with its experiment. “We’re trying to understand what the connection is between a cosmic ray going through the atmosphere and the creation of so-called aerosol seeds – the seed for a cloud droplet or an ice particle,” Kirkby explains.
The CLOUD experiment recreates these cloud-forming processes by directing the beamline at CERN’s proton synchrotron into a stainless-steel chamber containing very pure air and selected trace gases.
One of the aims of the experiment is to discover details of cloud formation that could feed back into climate models. “Everybody agrees that clouds have a huge effect on the climate. But the understanding of how big that effect is is really very poorly known,” says Kirkby.
Here’s the video, click image below to launch it.
Bishop Hill liveblogs from Cambridge about Q&A with Henrik Svensmark:
- Solar effect appears to be large. If exclude solar or regime change, then it makes anthropogenic look much bigger. These effects are not well covered by climate models.
- Can effect be seen in climate? Use ocean heat content. Forcings = volcanoes, gcr, anthropogenic and a regime change in 1977. Solar effect ~1Wm-2, compares well with Shaviv. If remove solar effect left with apparent regime change in 1977. This can be seen in eg tropospheric temps.
- Coronal mass ejections – decrease in gcrs at earth – forbush decrease. Is there an atmospheric response? Liquid water in clouds over oceans fall after forbush decrease. Ditto in low clouds etc. Aerosols ditto
- Always lots of nucleation centres in atmosphere. Is this right?
- Use trace gases in atmosph concentrations. Change amount of ionisation. See if you get more aerosol particles. SKY experiment.
- Correlation between low clouds and GCRs – but need mechanism. Ions?
- Discussion of LIA and solar. Solar irradiance too small to explain Need amplification mechanism – clouds.
- Get correlations between eg stalagmite 18O and solar variability
- One particle entering atmosphere generates shower of particles – incl ions which change chemistry
- CRs accelerated by solar events – supernovae.
Josh Livetoons it:
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Great, thanks for the update!
Kirkby gave an excellent presentation on the topic at CERN in 2009, titled “Evidence for pre-industrial solar-climate variability.” It can be viewed at this link:
http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1181073/
It’s long, but well worth watching to get some of the basics down. Interesting to learn that CERN may be validating Svensmark’s theory!
Hope the orthodox publishers can’t delay publication very much. Ought not to be that easy with CERN-articles.
“Sun-deniers” will probably have a though time trying to ignore or explain away the results.
Ridicule of Svensmark theory will undoubtedly increase in some camps, including some of the established commentinuim at this site. Being an outsider who has been open minded, I find Svensmark’s work the most exciting. Supernova actually create a mechanism that both cools the planet through cloud generation and has the potential clean us off the planet.
>>“Sun-deniers” will probably have a though time trying to ignore
>>or explain away the results.
Not sure what is happening with the AGWers in the UK at the moment. We had the warmest April on record, and the BBC did not mention GW once. Have they learned their lesson? Will pigs fly?
Real science for a change. How novel in the climate business.
‘“Sun-deniers” will probably have a though time trying to ignore or explain away the results.’
I suspect the Main Stream Media will ignore it though – unless someone can really connect it up with the massive AGW expenditure versus Austerity – and put that in the context of repeatable experiments confirming that AGW is minimal.
If this experiment does indeed confirm Svensmark’s theory, then we may be in climatic trouble if we get continued low solar activity. The solar wind still seems to be low in the mean, despite an increase in sun specs. We’ve been preparing for warming at the very time we might have needed to be preparing for cooling.
Absolutely fascinating that Svensmark may be vindicated. If so it is a serious blow to the CAGW hypothesis and a great stride towards a real scientific explanation of climate phenomena, including the role of the Sun.
How did they get it funded? You would think the peer-review pirates would gather at the gangway to keep any of this kind of knowledge off the ship at all costs. Possibly the importance to climate research was not obvious to them. I notice the list of scientists working on the project does not include any of the famous names of Climate Science.
A triumph for Henrik and Jasper and their teams!
Science at its best, perseverance at its best and a robust demonstration of how humankind’s knowledge of earth and space science will inexorably advance, thanks to the dedication of a committed few.
This is a tale of scientific endeavor that our kids and grandkids will read about, and learn from, many years from now…
Godt gået!
the results are due for release in 2 or 3 months’ time.
Would be welcome. I seem to have seen this ‘2 or 3 month’s time’ being claimed several times over the past several years…
REPLY: well maybe they are facing some hostility for publication and dirty tricks which is delaying publication…I know some people that has happened to – Anthony
Experiments!!!! This is unsientific anti-science. What’s wrong with experiments using computer models? What is the world coming to?
This is very interesting! Let me see if I understand this issue correctly.
Jasper Kirby’s comments (video) on the CLOUD experiment provide preliminary confirmation that the flux of galactic cosmic rays impinging on earth’s atmosphere correlate with the rate of nucleation of water droplets that are the foundation of cloud formation in our atmosphere. More galactic cosmic rays (GCRs) striking the atmosphere causes more clouds in the atmosphere. More clouds means less solar radiation reaching the surface of earth, which leads to global cooling. Less GCRS striking the atmosphere means less cloud formation, more solar radiation reaching earth’s surface, and global warming.
Two known variables can affect the flux of GCRs striking the earths atmosphere:
1. Coronal Mass Ejections (CMEs) from our own sun that are roughly ‘aimed’ at earth in its orbit, when they happen. The magnetic fields associated with the CME plasma deflect ionized GCRs. If earth happens to be within the magnetic field of influence from a solar CME, earth’s atmosphere is hit by fewer GCRs, causing less cloud formation and allowing more solar radiation to reach earth’s surface. An active Sol means more CMEs, more time when the earth is ‘shielded’ from GCRs, fewer clouds in earth’s atmosphere, and a warming planet. For an inactive Sol, the converse is true and we have a cooling planet.
2. The proximity of our solar system to a super nova event Galactic cosmic rays (GCRs) are ionized subatomic particles (primarily protons) ejected from super novae at near light speeds. The closer our solar system is to a super nova event within our galaxy, the higher the flux of GCRs sleeting through our solar system and potentially striking earths atmosphere will be. Higher GCR flux correlates to more earthly clouds and a cooler earth. Lower GCR flux means fewer clouds and a warmer earth.
We have 2 variables or ‘thermostats’, one solar and one super nova galactic, adjusting earths temperature, and both are way beyond mankind’s control.
Have I grasped this correctly?
Do we know if the flux of galactic cosmic rays through our solar system has any effect on our solar activity? Stated another way, are GCRs and CMEs truly independent variables? It seems improbable that GCRs might influence old Sol’s production of CME’s…. but I guess that isn’t really any stranger than GCRs’ regulating cloud formation on our planet!
Leif Svalgaard says:
May 14, 2011 at 10:32 am
REPLY: well maybe they are facing some hostility for publication and dirty tricks which is delaying publication…I know some people that has happened to – Anthony
It is not clear if ‘release’ means submission or publication. If publication, then the paper would already be in press and have passed the dirty tricks. If submission [at which time a preprint is often available], then dirty tricks down the road wouldn’t matter. I’ll wager $100 that we’ll not see anything in 2-3 month’s time. For the record, I’ll like to lose this one.
Leif Svalgaard says:
May 14, 2011 at 10:32 am
“the results are due for release in 2 or 3 months’ time.
Would be welcome. I seem to have seen this ’2 or 3 month’s time’ being claimed several times over the past several years…”
Leif, there are now at least two recent videos around where Kirkby announces this publicly. If he has made similar announcements in the past, i’m not aware of it, but one should assume that there are traces on the internet. So can you back up your claim with a link?
I think the enormous amount of scientific horsepower that has gone into this endeavor along with hard evidence produced in a world-class, controlled environment will make the impact of this one very much more significant than the assumptions and conjecture that normally dominate both sides of the AGW debate.
Very exciting and interesting stuff. The role of GCR’s in the modulation of cloud cover needs to be pinned down exactly for climate models to fully account for the role of the sun in an accurate way. The CLOUD experiment is going to be a huge help in this effort. In the end we could all hope for more more accurate numbers attached to causes of earth’s temperature fluctuations in the past century…especially during the recent periods when temperatures begin to diverge more broadly from solar activity.
I’ve been watching Dr. Svensmark’s work for about 8 years.
When one takes his own lab’s experiements, the Forebush decrease/cloud cover correllation, and then adds the CERN work, one will have to say: “What more do we need?”
I’m even a fan of the idea that “wobble” in and out of the galactic plane, might increase and decrease cosmic and account for periodic ice ages.
More on that later!
Max
The notes on Svensmark’s Cambridge talk mention the term “regime change”. Could somebody please explain that term for the climate-challenged (me!)?
Mac the Knife says:
May 14, 2011 at 10:48 am
This is very interesting! Let me see if I understand this issue correctly.
You missed one – the continual solar wind itself modulates the number of GCR reaching the atmosphere. So at times of low solar activity there are more GCR see:
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2009/01apr_deepsolarminimum/
“But is it supposed to be this quiet? In 2008, the sun set the following records:
A 50-year low in solar wind pressure: Measurements by the Ulysses spacecraft reveal a 20% drop in solar wind pressure since the mid-1990s—the lowest point since such measurements began in the 1960s. The solar wind helps keep galactic cosmic rays out of the inner solar system. With the solar wind flagging, more cosmic rays are permitted to enter, resulting in increased health hazards for astronauts. Weaker solar wind also means fewer geomagnetic storms and auroras on Earth.”
I hope they take thier time and present thier findings in as solid and error-free manner as possible.
And why hasn’t the press been all over the warm April in the UK?
Piers Corbyn has them nursing thier last set of self-inflicted wounds.
I seem to recall an Israeli geologist and an American astronomer (or perhaps vice versa), finding a 250 million year (or so) variation in climate (as deduced from rocks somehow) that correlated with Solar system passage through spiral arms of our galaxy and assumed increase in GCR. If the cloud experiments verify the seeding conjecture, we could have a major step forward in understanding really long cycle effects – and fewer straight line projections on the rising parts of sine waves in the data!
DirkH says:
May 14, 2011 at 10:50 am
Leif, there are now at least two recent videos around where Kirkby announces this publicly. If he has made similar announcements in the past, i’m not aware of it, but one should assume that there are traces on the internet. So can you back up your claim with a link?
Recent videos would not support this for obvious reasons. I only expressed my impression about this, as people have for years been claiming the CLOUD experiment as already showing the effect, rather than admitting that we have no idea, as the experiment had not been run yet. The prototype experiment in 2006 didn’t show anything, except that the chamber was dirty. On the surface of it, it would seem that there up to now has been no published positive result [and we still won’t know for another ‘2-3 months’]. WUWT had a discussion of this a while back: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/16/preliminary-results-for-the-cern-cloud-cosmic-ray-experiment/ but that seemed an example of ‘publication by press release’ which was not very satisfying.
As I said, I would very much like to see the outcome published, but fear it won’t be for some time to come. I’m willing to lose a bet on that.
I am convinced that Svensmark is right, but his theory cannot conjure up the Water Vapour that is needed for clouds to form.
Let’s not repeat, or duplicate the CAGW people’s mistake – which is, as far as I can see, a mysterious inability to accept that there is never just “one single thing” causing changes. (In AGW science CO2 is the all mighty one.)
Like right now we have low activity as far as “Sunspots” are concerned and more Cloud should form.
Fair enough, – But is there enough Water Vapour present to support such a cloud formation?
Or, once again, – is there more than just those two factors that have to marry up before anybody’s “GRAND PLAN” can come together?
Ian W says:
May 14, 2011 at 11:29 am
With the solar wind flagging, more cosmic rays are permitted to enter, resulting in increased health hazards for astronauts. Weaker solar wind also means fewer geomagnetic storms and auroras on Earth.
The modulation of the Galactic Cosmic Rays is only a few percent and does not significantly present a health hazard. The dangerous cosmic rays [which we today don’t call cosmic rays anymore, but ‘Solar Energetic Particles’] do not come from the Galaxy, but from the Sun. The question is if a less active sun means fewer solar storms [I don’t think so] or stronger and more dangerous ‘superstorms’ [among the fewer that occur]. There is some [weak] evidence that low to moderate solar activity actually allows storms to grow bigger and more dangerous.
Leif Svalgaard says:
May 14, 2011 at 12:20 pm
The question is if a less active sun means fewer solar storms [I don’t think so]</i<
Fat-fingered. I do think so.
Oh, by the way Paul O you say on May 14, 2011 at 10:32 am: “Godt gået! ”
– May I, – as I am interested in many things, inquire as to what that means? Is it a translation from another funny kind of language? – Or is it some kind of ancient form of greeting, – I am curious, please explain!