Update on the CERN CLOUD experiment

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:

About these ads
This entry was posted in Aerosols, Cosmic rays and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

128 Responses to Update on the CERN CLOUD experiment

  1. CRS, Dr.P.H. says:

    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!

  2. Philip T. Downman says:

    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.

  3. Gary Krause says:

    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.

  4. Ralph says:

    >>“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?

  5. pat says:

    Real science for a change. How novel in the climate business.

  6. BENG says:

    ‘“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.

  7. Bruce says:

    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.

  8. Paul O says:

    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!

  9. 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

  10. Jimbo says:

    Experiments!!!! This is unsientific anti-science. What’s wrong with experiments using computer models? What is the world coming to?

  11. Mac the Knife says:

    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!

  12. 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.

  13. DirkH says:

    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?

  14. Claude Harvey says:

    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.

  15. R. Gates says:

    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.

  16. Max Hugoson says:

    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

  17. Michael J says:

    The notes on Svensmark’s Cambridge talk mention the term “regime change”. Could somebody please explain that term for the climate-challenged (me!)?

  18. Ian W says:

    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.”

  19. rbateman says:

    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.

  20. keith at hastings uk says:

    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!

  21. 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.

  22. 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?

  23. 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.

  24. 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.

  25. 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!

  26. Engchamp says:

    I am a simple engineer on a ship – I fix things that go wrong, and try to prevent machinery break-downs by using my senses in the first instance, and relying on other mechanical, electrical or electronic sensors to relay information, usually by an alarm of some sort.
    Most failures of plant may be attributed to human activity at some stage, either resulting from stripping a machine down that did not need it, and making mistakes in the refit, or by ignoring an alarm situation – not so much an ‘activity’, but an oversight.
    I have always been taught to be thorough whilst I was training, and I try to instill this aspect in the girls and boys that I have to look after from time to time. I am also aware that one has to keep ones hands clean – not easy when one has to battle to purchase strong disposable gloves at twice the price of ones that tear easily.
    My point here is that no matter how clean the powers-that-be think that their little cloud chamber is going to stay spotlessly clean, I cannot agree, until, of course someone puts me right.

  27. Paul Vaughan says:

    Jasper Kirkby: The CLOUD experiment at CERN
    Uploaded by SFUNews on Apr 20, 2011

  28. O H Dahlsveen says:
    May 14, 2011 at 12:43 pm
    “Godt gået! ”
    Good going, so far. or “well done to now”

  29. Philip T. Downman says:

    So the Sun ought to save its spots for the day when Betelgeuse goes supernova. They might be needed then.

  30. Fit_Nick says:

    Unlike the Leopard…. the Sun will always change it’s spots..!

    I travel a lot by air for my work and over the past few years i have seen a noticable difference in cloud cover… or seems that way?

  31. vukcevic says:

    Any scientist using cosmic rays (10Be as the proxy) records based on the Greenland ice cores, to backtrack temperature records prior to 1950, is going to find a encouraging correlation with England’s temperature.
    Solar scientists also found that the strength of helispheric magnetic field conveniently does the same.
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET&10Be-2.htm
    Of course that is not so, but both groups persist in with their erroneous belief that they know what 10Be data represent.
    Even top experts are wrong more often then not, but don’t expect a confession any time soon.

  32. Paul Vaughan says:

    Interesting observation:

    Bruce May 14, 2011 at 10:20 am “I notice the list of scientists working on the project does not include any of the famous names of Climate Science.”

  33. maksimovich says:

    One of the troublesome properties of the climate problem, is that various actors tend to over emphasis certain externalities and omit that is well known, eg the effects say of GCR on the chemistry and dynamics of the middle atmosphere.

    What needs to be ascertained are what are the natural variations?,what properties do they have? are they amenable to a deterministic description.

    Influence of Galactic Cosmic Rays on atmospheric composition and dynamics

    http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/11/4547/2011/acp-11-4547-2011.html

  34. DirkH says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    May 14, 2011 at 11:52 am
    “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.”

    From the linked text:
    “The data should help the team to quantify how much of an impact the Sun is having on climate within 2-3 years, Curtius says – though there are a lot more pieces of the puzzle to fill in.”

    And the post is from DEC 2010… the CLOUD team seems to be conservative with their estimates. YMMV.

  35. DirkH says:
    May 14, 2011 at 3:14 pm
    “The data should help the team to quantify how much of an impact the Sun is having on climate within 2-3 years, Curtius says – though there are a lot more pieces of the puzzle to fill in.”
    Perhaps, or maybe just trying to postpone the moment of truth or the day of reckoning. They would be really safe, if they said the next 20-30 years, but that would be bad for funding…
    I think there is a possibility that he meant the climate 2-3 years down the road. If accept that he was just being conservative we also must accept that there up to now is no experimental support from CERN for the Cosmic Ray Hypothesis, one way or the other. I’m still betting that nothing will be ‘released’ [whatever that means] the next 3 months [until 14 Aug]. I would love to lose.

  36. Brian H says:

    Bruce says:
    May 14, 2011 at 10:20 am

    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?

    Ans: with great difficulty. It was about 7 yrs. late, with much scraping and scrounging and dodging necessary.

  37. Brian H says:

    Claude Harvey says:
    May 14, 2011 at 10:53 am

    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.

    More significant, and unique. There are no other experimental bases for climate theory I’m aware of beyond the simplistic ancient ‘IR thru a glass container of CO2′ ones. And there’s no comparison in terms of relevance and validity.

    I’ve never doubted Svensmark’s analysis, but it’s sure nice to see hard evidence.

  38. RayG says:

    I would expect that at least initial papers will be submitted to one of the Physical Review, journals, perhaps Phys Rev A or B because the work was done at CERN by a physicist-heavy team. If that is indeed the case, the Team will find it difficult to interfere. They lack the “chops” to compete in this arena.

  39. Carla says:

    Mac the Knife says:
    May 14, 2011 at 10:48 am
    ~
    That was pretty good Mac..but seems there is still the issue of ACR, Anomalous Cosmic Rays.

    Time-variability in the Interstellar Boundary Conditions
    of the Heliosphere: Effect of the Solar Journey on the
    Galactic Cosmic Ray Flux at Earth
    Priscilla C. Frisch · Hans-Reinhard Mueller
    rev. 3 Feb. 2011
    “””The interpretation of the geological record of cosmogenic isotopes relies on accurate
    models of the cosmic ray spectra. One factor that is not included in
    the interpretation of the geological record of cosmogenic isotopes is that the cosmic ray
    spectrum incident on the Earth consists of two components that behave differently as
    the Sun travels through space. Galactic cosmic rays dominate at high energies, > 500
    MeV, and are subject to heliospheric modulation as the Sun travels through space.
    However a second cosmic ray component at lower energies is formed inside of the
    heliopause from interstellar neutrals that penetrate and are ionized inside of the heliosphere,
    forming pickup ions. These are subsequently accelerated to form lower-energy
    anomalous cosmic rays (ACRs) with a composition derived from neutral interstellar
    atoms in the CISM (Fisk et al. 1974).
    The local interstellar cosmic ray spectrum that
    creates the geological radio-isotope record is thus composed of two components that
    vary differently over time and space, the higher energy galactic cosmic rays (GCRs)
    that are modulated by a variable heliosphere, and the ACRs that also depend on the
    density and fractional ionization of the surrounding interstellar cloud.

    In this paper we present the overall picture of the ISM characteristics that result
    from the motion of the Sun and interstellar clouds through space. Observations of interstellar
    absorption lines towards nearest stars show that spatial variations in velocity,
    temperature, and ionization of the circumheliospheric ISM create temporal variations
    in the heliosphere boundary conditions. These then cause temporal variations in the
    spectrum and fluxes of cosmic rays at Earth. We also draw possible connections between
    interstellar cloud transitions and the geological radio isotope record.”””
    Time-variability in the Interstellar Boundary Conditions
    of the Heliosphere: Effect of the Solar Journey on the
    Galactic Cosmic Ray Flux at Earth
    Priscilla C. Frisch · Hans-Reinhard Mueller
    rev. 3 Feb. 2011

    We have some “radiation belt” probing going on soon that should help in this area..Canadian ORBITAL and NASA Radiation Belt Storm Probes RBSP.

    They find solar ACR at Earth’s magnetopause region also being produced there.

    Leif and Vuks ..never mind..oh hell..
    Little cloudlets (TASS Tiny Atomic Scale Structures) would take the heliosphere only a decade to pass, may encounter them every 100 years or so, quite dense too.
    Mini drag*ons in the vicinity of a not so homogenous local bubble, open ended cavity.
    You know the rain in our bubble, flows mainly from above the plane..

  40. Carla says:

    Mac the Knife says:
    May 14, 2011 at 10:48 am
    ..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!
    ~
    More like the neutrals + solar wind charge exchange= accelerated particles back up wind. Or something like that..just increase or decrease the neutral density in the background. speed density temp direction …

  41. Carla says:
    May 14, 2011 at 7:25 pm
    Or something like that..just increase or decrease the neutral density in the background. speed density temp direction …
    That changes on time scales of thousands of years, so is not relevant to recent climate change.

  42. Carla says:

    Talk about measuring energetic particles..IBEX was back in the news.

    Mysterious ‘Ribbon’ of Energy and Particles That Wrap Around Solar System’s Heliosphere Isolated

    ScienceDaily (Mar. 31, 2011) —
    ..In a paper to be published in the April 10, 2011

    ..Notes Schwadron, an associate professor at UNH’s Institute for the Study of Earth, Oceans, and Space and department of physics, “Isolating and separating the ribbon from the IBEX maps was like pulling the drapes from our window to discover the landscape at the edge of the solar system.”

    Of the singular images the IBEX mission has been able to achieve, lead scientist David McComas of the Southwest Research Institute (SwRI) says, “These maps are very rich scientifically and are critical in helping scientists understand how our space environment is controlled by the galactic medium. They provide the first images of our solar system’s boundaries, which control the access to potentially harmful galactic cosmic rays as well as all other matter from deep space.”

    The most energetic galactic cosmic rays penetrate even the powerful magnetic fields closest to Earth and eventually collide and interact with Earth’s atmosphere. The direct or indirect effects of these cosmic rays on Earth system, including our biosphere, remain poorly understood and are often highly controversial.

    The IBEX team is using the maps to learn how the heliosphere is shaped and what its physical properties are. This detailed information about our solar system’s boundaries will allow scientists to better understand how galactic cosmic rays evolve in our space environment, which in turn will provide fundamental information about the radiation environment on Earth and its implications on the evolution of life.

    The IBEX scientists analyzed data from the mission’s first year of observations and, after developing an effective separation method, were able to isolate and resolve the unanticipated energetic ribbon feature. The ribbon appears to be wrapped like a belt on top of the globally distributed emissions of the broader sky, and by separating it from the background emissions scientists can now see what’s underneath the ribbon.

    Says Schwadron, “There are many theories about how the ribbon is created, and we don’t understand exactly what we’re seeing but it seems to be telling us something about how the local galactic magnetic field interacts with the heliosphere.”

    Additional evidence for that interaction was the discovery of a “tail” of emissions in the underlying boundary landscape, which is apparently deflected in the direction of the galactic magnetic field as the ribbon seems to indicate.

    “This galactic magnetic field may be a missing key to understanding how the heliosphere protects the solar system from galactic cosmic rays,” says Schwadron.

    Also seen in the maps is the expected feature of the “nose” of the heliosphere. The nose represents the direction in which the solar system moves through the local part of the galaxy nearest to our Sun and that Schwadron compares to the “bow wave in front of a ship, which shows us how our motion through the galaxy compresses and deflects the material of the local galactic medium around our heliosphere.”

    The IBEX maps differ so radically from what was expected prior to the mission that the scientists have been struggling to untangle the vast amount of information the maps contain. The team notes that getting emissions from the nose of the heliosphere has been an important “lamp post” towards understanding how the global heliosphere is controlled by the interaction of the Sun with the local galactic medium.

    Says McComas, “Prior to IBEX, most scientists believed that the global boundaries of our solar system were controlled mainly by the motion of our solar system through the galaxy and the solar wind, an extremely fast flow of electrically charged matter that flows out from the Sun. The IBEX maps reveal the galactic magnetic field is also a critical part of the Sun’s interaction with the galaxy..”
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/03/110331114935.htm

    Check out the crew on Schwadron’s et al team Leif..and the wording in the above article should be making you crazy by now .. I mean all that hinting about ISM shaped heliospheres gotta be getting the hair standing up on the back of your head..heh..
    SEPARATION OF THE INTERSTELLAR BOUNDARY EXPLORER RIBBON FROM GLOBALLY DISTRIBUTED ENERGETIC NEUTRAL ATOM FLUX
    N. A. Schwadron et al. 2011 ApJ 731 56 doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/731/1/56

    N. A. Schwadron1,2,14, F. Allegrini2,3, M. Bzowski4, E. R. Christian5, G. B. Crew6, M. Dayeh2, R. DeMajistre7, P. Frisch8, H. O. Funsten9, S. A. Fuselier10, K. Goodrich9, M. Gruntman11, P. Janzen12, H. Kucharek1, G. Livadiotis2, D. J. McComas2,3, E. Moebius1, C. Prested13, D. Reisenfeld12, M. Reno2, E. Roelof6, J. Siegel13 and R. Vanderspek5
    http://iopscience.iop.org/0004-637X/731/1/56?fromSearchPage=true&v_showaffiliations=yes

  43. Carla says:
    May 14, 2011 at 8:45 pm
    Check out the crew on Schwadron’s et al team Leif..and the wording in the above article should be making you crazy by now .. I mean all that hinting about ISM shaped heliospheres gotta be getting the hair standing up on the back of your head..heh..
    No, 1) it is not news that there is a galactic magnetic field interacting with the solar wind http://www.leif.org/EOS/JA074i016p04157.pdf 2) changing to the outer boundary does not travel upstream

  44. Max_B says:

    Paul Vaughan says:
    May 14, 2011 at 12:47 pm

    Nice to see a bit of example data from the November run of the CLOUD experiment in the video you’ve posted @ 45:07

  45. Mac the Knife says:

    Ian W says
    May 14, 2011 at 11:29 am
    “You missed one – the continual solar wind itself modulates the number of GCR reaching the atmosphere. ”

    Thanks for refreshing my recollection! I get ‘hasty’, when I think I’m finally grasping the essence of a somewhat complex hypothesis! Solar and atmospheric physics are not my specialty. I’m an MS – Metallurgical Engineer by training, with 24 years of R&D and missile/aircraft program experience to buffer my ‘bullshit meter’ response to claimed correlations or causations. Add that to the prior experiences of an old farm boy, welder/mechanic, iron worker, and foundry rat, and you have the mix of education and experience that makes a 50 something American hard to con.

    I eagerly await the published data from the CERN CLOUD experiments. I hope this isn’t just an ‘empty tease’… Thanks for the ‘Come Back’, Ian! MtK

  46. Julian in Wales says:

    Surely any future IPCC report will be bound to include these finding in their deliberations? And if the effect CGR are as large and obvious as they say, the IPCC report will have to admit that cloud cover is largely regulated by influences other than changes to the trace Co2 levels?

    Doesn’t that pretty much do for the present crop of AGW models?

  47. Mac the Knife says:

    Carla says:
    May 14, 2011 at 7:11 pm

    Mac the Knife says:
    May 14, 2011 at 10:48 am
    “That was pretty good Mac..but seems there is still the issue of ACR, Anomalous Cosmic Rays………
    You know the rain in our bubble, flows mainly from above the plane..”

    Way beyond LOL! Thanks for the belly laugh! You are clearly more knowledgeable on this topic than I am!

    Can you tell me, what is the ratio or relative flux of Anomolous Cosmic Rays (ACRs) to Galactic Cosmic Rays (GCRs) reaching our upper atmosphere? Do ACRs have the same effects on water droplet formation and cloud cover as GCRs… or more or less effective? Given their lower energies, are they more easily deflected by the magnetic shielding effects of Coronal Mass Ejections?

    Joseph Kirkby’s narrative seemed to indicate that the CERN CLOUD experiements were exploring the energetic ranges of simulated GCRs. What energy range are the ACRs in (MeV?, KeV?) and will the CLOUD experiments explore this range of ‘cloud seeding’ effects as well?

    Thanks for your kindness, informative responses, and participation! MtK

  48. John Ballam says:

    Bian H said:

    “There are no other experimental bases for climate theory I’m aware of beyond the simplistic ancient ‘IR thru a glass container of CO2′ ones. And there’s no comparison in terms of relevance and validity.”

    There is experimental evidence that increased CO2 in the atmosphere comes from human activity and that it is causing warming. Go take a look at skepticalscience.com (and if you don’t like the messenger, follow the links to the primary sources). Here are a couple of examples.

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-fingerprint-in-global-warming.html

    “Confirmation that rising carbon dioxide levels are due to human activity comes from analysing the types of carbon found in the air. The carbon atom has several different isotopes (eg – different number of neutrons). Carbon 12 has 6 neutrons, carbon 13 has 7 neutrons. Plants have a lower C13/C12 ratio than in the atmosphere. If rising atmospheric CO2 comes fossil fuels, the C13/C12 should be falling. Indeed this is what is occuring (Ghosh 2003) and the trend correlates with the trend in global emissions.”

    And:

    http: //www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm

    “Direct observations find that CO2 is rising sharply due to human activity. Satellite and surface measurements find less energy is escaping to space at CO2 absorption wavelengths. Ocean and surface temperature measurements find the planet continues to accumulate heat. This gives a line of empirical evidence that human CO2 emissions are causing global warming.”

    Of course that doesn’t mean it will be catastrophic, but that’s another matter.

    Any self-respecting skeptic should visit skepticalscience.com if only to find out what we’re up against.

  49. Bengt A says:

    Leif S (May 14 10:48 am)

    Do you really think Kirkby would show us those interesting graphs (45 min into the video clip posted by Paul Vaughan May 14, 2011 at 12:47 pm) if their submission wasn’t about to be accepted? There probably are some minor issues about the CLOUD submission that prevents it from being published as of now. Hopefully they will get resolved soon.

  50. John Marshall says:

    Brilliant experiment. I feel sure that Svensmark’s theory will be vindicated.

  51. Bob Maginnis says:

    We have had a quiet Sun for years now, so with extra cosmic ray enabled clouds it should be cooling, but it isn’t. That suggests evidence of AGW.

  52. Bengt A says:
    May 15, 2011 at 3:14 am
    There probably are some minor issues about the CLOUD submission that prevents it from being published as of now. Hopefully they will get resolved soon.
    One might hope that it will be ‘released’ soon. I don’t like teasers. Kirkby could have been straight and said that the paper had been submitted and that there were some issues, but that he expects them to be resolved soon. On the other hand, such public announcement could be seen as putting pressure on the referees. The better strategy is not to tease at all; but, as I said, I would love to lose the bet.

  53. Richard M says:

    Bob Maginnis says:
    May 15, 2011 at 6:12 am
    We have had a quiet Sun for years now, so with extra cosmic ray enabled clouds it should be cooling, but it isn’t. That suggests evidence of AGW.

    Like many things … it depends. This depends on the lag time. What the clouds may do essentially is reduce the thermal input into the oceans, the oceans will then release less heat into the atmosphere over time. We just don’t know (to any degree) how quickly this plays out. Some claim it should be immediate, others claim decades of lag time.

  54. Bob Maginnis says:
    May 15, 2011 at 6:12 am
    We have had a quiet Sun for years now, so with extra cosmic ray enabled clouds it should be cooling, but it isn’t. That suggests evidence of AGW.
    Not AGW necessarily, but it does work against the Cosmic Ray Theory. The climate now and for at least 150 years past has not varied as the cosmic rays. Solar activity is now where it was a century ago, but the climate looks rather different. The rise in temperatures since the 1970s did not follow a trend in cosmic rays. The measurements of albedo we have do not show a solar cycle [i.e. cosmic ray] dependence. So, CLOUD may have been designed to explain something that is not even observed. With the politics involved, it seems doubtful that anything will be resolved. There will still be conflicting papers, still be claims and counterclaims. People will believe what they want to believe, regardless of the outcome. Even in this thread you see that folks say the they are ‘convinced’ and ‘have no doubt’, even as the results are not released yet.

  55. Richard M says:
    May 15, 2011 at 6:58 am
    Some claim it should be immediate, others claim decades of lag time.
    Svensmark claims no lag.

  56. Richard S Courtney says:

    John Ballam:

    At May 15, 2011 at 2:10 am you say;

    “Any self-respecting skeptic should visit skepticalscience.com if only to find out what we’re up against.”

    I agree, and I have read Mein Kampf for the same reason, but I would not want to make a habit of doing it.

    Importantly, the arguments purporting to show an anthropogenic cause of the recent increase in atmospheric CO2 are all wrong or circular. The isotope ratio changes are in the right direction (there is a 50:50 chance they would be in the right direction) but they have the wrong magnitude. And all the other arguments amount to “assume nothing changes except the anthropogenic emission and the analysis shows the increase results from the anthropogenic emission”.

    So, your attempt to demean the importance of the CLOUD experiment fails.

    Richard

  57. Pamela Gray says:

    Just intuition (after studying issues recommended by Leif – any new book recommendations?) tells me that solar particles would cause temporary cloud effects, and even then, the anomaly would be buried in the cloud formations forced and driven by oceanic/atmospheric couplings.

    A place to discover solar-driven cloud effects: Only during multi-decadal ENSO neutral parameters. Otherwise my hunch is that the fickle mercurial noisy Earth will overwhelm Solar driven anomalies. Indeed, that would be the null hypothesis.

  58. beng says:

    ****
    Max Hugoson says:
    May 14, 2011 at 11:11 am

    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.
    ****

    The ice-age periodicity follows the Milankovitch changes almost exactly. That leaves little room for significant galactic-plane crossing effects, at least at the magnitude of ice-age changes.

  59. Ian W says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    May 14, 2011 at 12:20 pm
    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 thank you for correcting the NASA web page http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2009/01apr_deepsolarminimum/ which was the _reference_ I quoted. ;-)

  60. Bengt A says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    May 15, 2011 at 6:46 am

    The better strategy is not to tease at all

    But why shouldn’t Kirkby tell us about some of the findings at CERN? He was invited to the conference for this purpose. What he presents is a graph from one run, not much and nothing that can interfere with a forthcoming scientific publication, but still enough to give us a hint about their progress. I find his presentation an excellent example of communicating research to the general public.

  61. Paul Vaughan says:

    Reading many of the comments here, it’s plain to see that few have watched Kirkby’s recent SFU IRMACS presentation. Kirkby, who is honest & forthright about what is NOT known, presents new results with NO ambiguity and NO doubt. It’s crystal clear that he’s confident about the findings. In the context of his other comments, it’s also plain to see that he would not be conveying results publicly if he thought this currently inappropriate.

    Kirkby drew sharp attention to neither interannual nor semi-annual oscillations during his presentation. However advanced is his handle on particle physics, this leaves questions (quite serious ones) about his current abstract conceptualization of observed spatiotemporal patterns. I suspect we’ll see a change on this front moving forward. (If this accounts for the publication delays, then the delays are eminently sensible …but I’m not suggesting this accounts for the delays – on the contrary, I’m suggesting that delays for other reasons might be fortuitous.)

    WUWT readers may be interested to know that Kevin Trenberth gave a talk in the same presentation series at SFU. For whatever reason, the series was not well publicized.

  62. Ian W says:
    May 15, 2011 at 7:52 am
    Leif thank you for correcting the NASA web page http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2009/01apr_deepsolarminimum/ which was the _reference_ I quoted. ;-)
    And that web page certainly needs some corrections as there are several things wrong with it.

    Bengt A says:
    May 15, 2011 at 8:22 am
    I find his presentation an excellent example of communicating research to the general public.
    I agree with that assessment. What I have a problem with is when people say that Kirkby communicating research equates to telling us the result: “would he show the graphs if the results are not positive?” If so, who needs publication?

  63. Paul Vaughan says:

    Leif Svalgaard May 15, 2011 at 7:08 am
    “[...] it does work against the Cosmic Ray Theory. The climate now and for at least 150 years past has not varied as the cosmic rays. Solar activity is now where it was a century ago, but the climate looks rather different. The rise in temperatures since the 1970s did not follow a trend in cosmic rays. The measurements of albedo we have do not show a solar cycle [i.e. cosmic ray] dependence. So, CLOUD may have been designed to explain something that is not even observed.”

    It’s the variance, not the mean, that moves with neutron count, as shown by Le Mouel, Blanter, & Shnirman (2010). Is there not a single reader around here who understands this ABSOLUTELY SIMPLE & FUNDAMENTAL point?

  64. Paul Vaughan says:

    Pamela Gray, interannual terrestrial oscillations are not “noise”, nor are they independent of changes in solar activity. The misconceptions in your comment (May 15, 2011 at 7:51 am) perfectly exemplify the primary bottleneck in our discussions of climate at WUWT.

  65. Paul Vaughan says:
    May 15, 2011 at 8:47 am
    It’s the variance, not the mean, that moves with neutron count, as shown by Le Mouel, Blanter, & Shnirman (2010). Is there not a single reader around here who understands this ABSOLUTELY SIMPLE & FUNDAMENTAL point?
    The variance scales with the mean. This is an absolutely simple & fundamental point. you even say that yourself: the variance moves with the count [the count is the mean]. For seeding the clouds [the Svensmark hypothesis], the actual count [not the variance] matters.

  66. John F. Hultquist says:

    keith at hastings uk says:
    May 14, 2011 at 11:51 am
    I seem to recall
    . . .

    This paper (Figure 9; page 1.23) has a diagram:
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/338170/svensmark-2007cosmoclimatology

  67. Paul Vaughan says:

    Leif, you’ve misunderstood my comment, which was not about the variance of neutron count.

  68. roger samson says:

    So Leif do you believe in the earth as a giant cooking pot theory and that cosmic rays (or vice versa the aa index) don’t have to keep increasing (or decreasing) for temperatures to decline? I am a cooking expert in developing countries and think there could be some profound simplicity to the earths temperature trends For example see El -borie and Al-thoyaib 2006
    http://www.academicjournals.org/ijps/abstracts/abstracts/abstrats2006/Oct/El-Borie%20and%20Al-Thoyaib.htm

    To me this data roughly indicates (with a lag) that if the earth is at a global temperature mean of:
    -0.2: a solar wind above an aa index of 10 slowly warms it and below 10 cools it;
    0.0: a solar wind above an aa index of 15 slowly warms it and below 15 cools it
    0.2: a solar wind above an aa index of 18 slowly warms it and below 18 cools it
    if the earth reaches the corresponding aa index and temperature stabilizes it doesn’t appreciably change from those values unless the aa index moves appreciably.
    regards

    roger samson

  69. vukcevic says:

    I have had certain amount investigation into this. There are correlations, but not for claimed reasons. It is analogous to as if it were clamed that when a person steps on scales, on a sunlit pavement, it is the weight of the shadow that moves the dial.

  70. Paul Vaughan says:
    May 15, 2011 at 9:28 am
    Leif, you’ve misunderstood my comment, which was not about the variance of neutron count.
    Perhaps some precision as to what you mean would be convenient. The Svensmark hypothesis [and the CLOUD] experiment is not about the variance of the cloud amount, albedo, or climate. The LeMouel et al. paper you refer to is too flawed to be of any import [as we have discussed at length already] and is, in any event, not relevant for CLOUD.

  71. Leif Svalgaard says:
    May 15, 2011 at 9:48 am
    Paul Vaughan says:
    May 15, 2011 at 9:28 am
    Leif, you’ve misunderstood my comment, which was not about the variance of neutron count.

    The LeMouel et al. paper you refer to is too flawed to be of any import [as we have discussed at length already] and is, in any event, not relevant for CLOUD. And what they actually conclude is “The main part of the semi-annual variation in lod is due to the variation in mean zonal winds”. So a variation of the mean of the winds, not of the ‘variance’.

  72. Vince Causey says:

    beng,

    “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.
    ****

    The ice-age periodicity follows the Milankovitch changes almost exactly. That leaves little room for significant galactic-plane crossing effects, at least at the magnitude of ice-age changes.”

    I believe what is being proposed are ice epochs which have come and gone over time scales of hundreds of millions of years, rather than the periodicity of the glacial/interglacial cycles within an existing ice epoch, which as you point out, follows the Milankovitch changes. This corresponds to the roughly 250 my cycle of the solar orbit around the galaxy.

  73. roger samson says:
    May 15, 2011 at 9:31 am
    I am a cooking expert in developing countries and think there could be some profound simplicity to the earths temperature trends For example see El -borie and Al-thoyaib 2006
    Their study dies not seem very conclusive. Their claim seems a bit on the weak side; they note: “Our results do not, by any means, rule out the existence of important links between solar activity and terrestrial climate”

  74. Bengt A says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    May 15, 2011 at 8:42 am

    What I have a problem with is when people say that Kirkby communicating research equates to telling us the result: “would he show the graphs if the results are not positive?” If so, who needs publication

    So if your problem is that people misinterpret what Kirkby says I’m with you 100%. People tend to misinterpret most everything and research results are regularly overstated. We shouldn’t blame Kirkby for that.

  75. Paul Vaughan says:

    Leif Svalgaard May 15, 2011 at 10:02 am
    “The LeMouel et al. paper you refer to is too flawed to be of any import [...]“

    You’re absolutely wrong about this.

  76. Paul Vaughan says:
    May 15, 2011 at 11:12 am
    “The LeMouel et al. paper you refer to is too flawed to be of any import [...]“
    You’re absolutely wrong about this.

    We know you are enamored by that paper, but that does not make the paper any better.
    you claim “Kirkby drew sharp attention to neither interannual nor semi-annual oscillations during his presentation. However advanced is his handle on particle physics, this leaves questions (quite serious ones) about his current abstract conceptualization of observed spatiotemporal patterns”. I don’t think Kirkby is interested so much in ‘abstract conceptualization’ [or is deficient there], but rather in what data the experiment produces, its quality, and possible sources of errors.

  77. G. Karst says:

    Leif Svalgaard is exercising appropriate skepticism, as we all should, at least until results are fully published and critiqued. We should never accept anything, just because we like conclusions that support our paradigm. There are plenty enough people doing that, with CO2 based AGW, already. GK

  78. Gary Krause says:

    Lief says:

    “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.”

    I say:

    Galactic cosmic rays (GCR) are accelerated in the blast waves of supernova remnants. So, Leif, how are the GCR being sourced from our sun? Is the energy of solar radiation equivalent to GCR? Here is a picture of the gamma ray all-sky survey, courtesy of Dr. Carl Fichtel and the EGRET Instrument Science Team: http://helios.gsfc.nasa.gov/gamma.html

    “In 2009, cosmic ray intensities have increased 19 percent beyond anything we’ve seen in the past 50 years,” said Richard Mewaldt of Caltech. “The increase is significant, and it could mean we need to re-think how much radiation shielding astronauts take with them on deep-space missions.” Looks like a health problem and is very significant.

    What is your motivation to focus of your comments on whether something is published today or tomorrow? The point of the research is easily obtained on the internet. Individuals who are truly interested in the science of GCR and the impact of cloud formation relative global climate as revealed by Svensmark will do their own discovery through whatever sources are available.

  79. Pamela Gray says:

    Paul, I am unsure what you are thinking when you say that temperature is not noisy. I refer to noisy data as just that. Might you be thinking I am including contaminated data? Even the most pristine unsmoothed temperature data set will be noisy. Weather, and weather pattern variation, is noisy. Add oceanic/atmospheric oscillations to that and the noise is nearly deafening. I am not referring to trends and smoothed data. These are statistical constructs.

    I know what noisy data looks like. Our brains produce very noisy synaptic electrical signals that can be picked up with electrodes placed on the scalp. The brainwaves we see at the cortical level in the absence of auditory signals are a complicated set of waves that to the untrained eye, are very noisy indeed. Much the same way unsmoothed temperature data is noisy.

    Contamination in temperature data comes from an uncontrolled sample drop-out, moves, and in-situ contamination impinging on an already noisy data set. That said, I don’t know of a single meterologist who would say that pristine unsmoothed temperature is not noisy.

  80. Paul Vaughan says:

    Leif,

    Le Mouel, Blanter, Shnirman, & Courtillot (2010) made a simple OBSERVATION.

    There is no way to defeat that observation, short of vandalizing LOD data.

  81. Alex says:

    And in commentary we have more talk about temperatures in last 30 years 50 years 150 years like if they had the necessary accuracy…

  82. Paul Vaughan says:

    Pamela Gray, there appears to have been a misunderstanding. Your initial comment was about ENSO-timescale (i.e. interannual); you will note “interannual” in my reply. I acknowledge that you do not have access to the complex analyses that lead me to assert confidently that interannual terrestrial oscillations are not independent of solar variations (e.g. interannual [not to be confused with decadal] rate of change of solar wind speed). I will be happy to share a simplified version of the findings if WUWT will oblige. I know there will be misunderstandings – serious ones. This does not matter. What matters is that any capable few investigators start working on the problem. There are more questions than answers and careful exploration is prerequisite to sensible abstraction. The mainstream has not conducted sufficiently careful data exploration (which should be confused with neither physics nor statistical inference in these multidisciplinary endeavors). Regards.

  83. Brian H says:

    John Ballam says:
    May 15, 2011 at 2:10 am

    Nope. That’s observational, not experimental. I was referring to the much-touted “basic physics” that supposedly underlies the AGW hypothesis at the laboratory level.

    As for the isotopic balances, that’s hardly experimental; it’s not even correct. Biogenic Carbon isotopes are the same whether from fossil fuels or present-day flora.

  84. Paul Vaughan says:

    Re: G. Karst May 15, 2011 at 11:47 am

    Kirkby CLEARLY & CONFIDENTLY announced SOME of his results at SFU recently. (See the video to which I linked above. You will see NO DOUBT.)

  85. Brian H says:

    John Ballam says:
    May 15, 2011 at 2:10 am

    As for “scepticalscience”, my gag reflex tolerance level won’t allow me to give them clicks and views.

  86. Pamela Gray says:

    Yessir, Misser Paul. Don want no complicated stuff. Kain’t unnerstan it. I’s jes a country hic.

  87. Paul Vaughan says:

    Pamela, complex (as in complex numbers); not complex as in complicated.

  88. Gary Krause says:
    May 15, 2011 at 11:53 am
    Galactic cosmic rays (GCR) are accelerated in the blast waves of supernova remnants.
    And come equally from all directions. Here is an image of the cosmic ray sky: http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/science/know_l1/cosmic_rays.html the uniform grey is the image.

    So, Leif, how are the GCR being sourced from our sun?
    They do not come from the Sun. the sun produces its own energetic particles which are not GCRs. The G stands for ‘Galactic’.

    Is the energy of solar radiation equivalent to GCR?
    No, solar radiation is millions of times stronger.

    Here is a picture of the gamma ray all-sky survey
    Gamma rays are not GCRs. The [misnamed] Cosmic Rays are not Rays at all, but particles.

    “In 2009, cosmic ray intensities have increased 19 percent beyond anything we’ve seen in the past 50 years,” said Richard Mewaldt of Caltech. “The increase is significant, and it could mean we need to re-think how much radiation shielding astronauts take with them on deep-space missions.” Looks like a health problem and is very significant.
    The 19% increase is misleading. It is seen in the lowest energy cosmic rays [that are not so dangerous] and is just compared with the previous solar minimum [if you actually look at his plot]. Here is the cosmic ray record for the past half-century:
    http://www.leif.org/research/thule-cosmic-rays.png or here:
    http://www.puk.ac.za/opencms/export/PUK/html/fakulteite/natuur/nm_data/data/SRU_Graph.jpg [check the red curve for Hermanus]

    The point of the research is easily obtained on the internet. Individuals who are truly interested in the science of GCR and the impact of cloud formation relative global climate as revealed by Svensmark will do their own discovery through whatever sources are available.
    The internet is the most unreliable source there is. 99% is pure junk. Truly interested people will find in that junk just what they want to believe.

    Paul Vaughan says:
    May 15, 2011 at 12:18 pm
    Le Mouel, Blanter, Shnirman, & Courtillot (2010) made a simple OBSERVATION.
    There is no way to defeat that observation, short of vandalizing LOD data.

    no, they claim a correlation between OBSERVED LOD and vandalized cosmic ray data.

  89. Paul Vaughan says:
    May 15, 2011 at 12:59 pm
    Kirkby CLEARLY & CONFIDENTLY announced SOME of his results at SFU recently. (See the video to which I linked above. You will see NO DOUBT.)
    when people have NO DOUBT, don’t believe them.

  90. vukcevic says:

    GCR do not come equally from all directions, the data from IceCube, a neutrino detector in Antarctica, shows that GCR distribution is anisotropic.
    http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/45958

  91. Gary Krause says:
    May 15, 2011 at 11:53 am
    “In 2009, cosmic ray intensities have increased 19 percent beyond anything we’ve seen in the past 50 years,” said Richard Mewaldt of Caltech. “The increase is significant, and it could mean we need to re-think how much radiation shielding astronauts take with them on deep-space missions.” Looks like a health problem and is very significant.

    Here is Mewaldt’s ‘real view’ [i.e. not for public press release hype consumption]
    http://meetings.aps.org/Meeting/DPP06/Event/52074
    Abstract: GM1.00001 : Solar Energetic Particles — A Radiation Hazard to Humans and Hardware in Space
    R.A. Mewaldt
    “During large solar energetic particle (SEP) events the intensity of greater than 30 MeV protons in nearby interplanetary space can increase by a million times over the steady intensity of galactic cosmic rays, creating a radiation hazard to both humans and hardware in space.”
    Perhaps it is now clear that 19% increase in galactic cosmic rays is not so significant when compared to the million times increase during a SEP.

  92. vukcevic says:

    “There are problems with the cosmic-ray hypothesis. One is that although there was a clear correlation between global temperatures and the intensity of cosmic rays reaching the Earth’s surface (as measured by neutron counters) prior to 1970,
    ( http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET&10Be-2.htm )
    that correlation has broken down over the last 40 years” (since satellite measurements became available).
    GCR data records pre 1970 are just a ‘shadow’, full details on line sometime in June.

  93. vukcevic says:
    May 15, 2011 at 2:12 pm
    GCR do not come equally from all directions, the data from IceCube, a neutrino detector in Antarctica, shows that GCR distribution is anisotropic.
    The anisotropy is so minuscule that it for all practical purposes does not exist. It takes the extreme IceCube detector to find it [after a century of scientists looking for it]. So, your post is highly misleading. There are also other [very small] anisotropies that are equally inconsequential, e.g. the siderial day anisotropy. A proper sense of proportion would help you here.

  94. Paul Vaughan says:

    Leif Svalgaard May 15, 2011 at 1:26 pm
    regarding Le Mouel, Blanter, Shnirman, & Courtillot (2010):
    “no, they claim a correlation between OBSERVED LOD and vandalized cosmic ray data.”

    The correlation observed is NOT with LOD. You continue to either misrepresent &/or misunderstand their observation. Absolutely unacceptable Leif; the community needs more from you.

  95. Paul Vaughan says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    May 15, 2011 at 1:35 pm
    “when people have NO DOUBT, don’t believe them.”

    Do YOU have doubt in your own proclamations Leif?

    Non-vandalized neutron count rate data:
    http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/vaughn_lod_fig1a.png
    http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/vaughn_lod_fig1b.png

    Anthony, my last name is Vaughan (not Vaughn – no offense taken, no need to correct past slips).

    Leif, have you ever plotted rate of change solar rotation? Noticed anything?…

  96. Paul Vaughan says:
    May 15, 2011 at 2:52 pm
    The correlation observed is NOT with LOD. You continue to either misrepresent &/or misunderstand their observation. Absolutely unacceptable Leif; the community needs more from you.
    They said: ““The main part of the semi-annual variation in lod is due to the variation in mean zonal winds”. So with the size of the semiannual wave in LOD. It should have been clear to an astute observer [like yourself] that OBSERVED LOD was but a shorthand for the more cumbersome phrase.

    Paul Vaughan says:
    May 15, 2011 at 3:02 pm
    Do YOU have doubt in your own proclamations Leif?
    Most of what I say is [well-founded] speculation on my part and is always laced with suitable doubt.

    Non-vandalized neutron count rate data
    So, you acknowledge that theirs was manipulated. Yours does not show nearly as good a correlation and certainly not good enough to single the cosmic rays out from several other confounding factors [sunspot, magnetic field, etc]

    Leif, have you ever plotted rate of change solar rotation? Noticed anything?…
    We don’t know solar rotation well enough to plot the rate of change to any meaningful accuracy. Many people over the decades have plotted such things, nothing significant has emerged. I am somewhat of an expert on solar rotation. Here are some of the very noisy data: http://www.leif.org/research/ast10867.pdf
    Solar rotation is not a well-defined quantity to begin with [even if we had perfect data]. Rotation where? surface? what latitudes? at depth? rotation of plasma? of magnetic fields? corona? solar wind? All of these are different and vary differently.

  97. Paul Vaughan says:
    May 15, 2011 at 2:52 pm
    The correlation observed is NOT with LOD.
    On your plot you use the notation LOD’, but that is a misrepresentation, because it would mean that if we integrate the curve we should get LOD+[arbitrary]constant, and we don’t. It is also not the variance [which has an equally precise definition as any textbook on analysis can tell you]. But it i possible that you don’t mean either the derivative or the variance, but have just invented your own symbol [LOD'] for the amplitude of a cyclic variation with a period of 1/2 year. So, stop the nitpicking on terminology.

  98. beng says:

    ****
    Vince Causey says:
    May 15, 2011 at 10:14 am

    I believe what is being proposed are ice epochs which have come and gone over time scales of hundreds of millions of years, rather than the periodicity of the glacial/interglacial cycles within an existing ice epoch, which as you point out, follows the Milankovitch changes. This corresponds to the roughly 250 my cycle of the solar orbit around the galaxy.
    ****

    OK, but isn’t the argument that passing into the plane exposes the earth to increased cosmic rays (and more cloudiness) due to the proximity of closer CR sources (like supernova remnants)? We’re in an ice-age right now, and we’re not (relatively speaking) in the galactic plane. The similar argument for ice-ages caused by passing thru galactic spiral arms can also be questioned — we’re out of an arm now, but experiencing an ice-age.

  99. Gary Krause says:

    Leif, I am aware of what the “G” is. Recall your post that cosmic energy does not come from anywhere except the sun… “do not come from the Galaxy, but from the Sun.”

    I have seen the grey image, which conflicts with the link to the image I provided.

    Actually, the internet is an excellent source of information. That is how we have this discussion. By your measure, why bother with any website that provides good intellectual information. Not sure what 99% you are reading. And if you are correct about the internet, why are you posting comments (which by the way I appreciate)?

    In fact, the following are some great websites from which we can learn from each other…they look familiar:
    Appinsys
    Bishop Hill
    Carlin Economics
    Climate Audit
    Climate Conversation – NZ
    Climate Sanity
    Climate Skeptic
    Climate Views
    CO2 Science
    Digging in the Clay
    Ecotretas
    Haunting the library
    ICECAP
    Jennifer Marohasy
    Jo Nova
    NC Watch
    Niche Modeling – David Stockwell
    Small Dead Animals
    Solar Cycle 24 Board
    Surfacestations Gallery
    Surfacestations Main
    Tallbloke’s Talkshop
    The Air Vent
    The Chiefio – E.M. Smith
    The Daily Bayonet
    The Reference Frame
    Tom Nelson
    Warren Meyer
    Warwick Hughes
    William Briggs
    World Climate Report

    And these are just tip of the “ice berg.” Electronic media is instant. Paper journals are antique dinosaurs that we see plagued with complaint. Just as we and you suggest with publishing. The cure, is using the internet to get past the garbage I read in journals.

  100. Gary Krause says:
    May 15, 2011 at 7:17 pm
    I have seen the grey image, which conflicts with the link to the image I provided.
    You are confusing Cosmic Rays [that are not rays, but particles] with Gamma Rays are indeed rays [electromagnetic radiation, i.e. light].

    Actually, the internet is an excellent source of information. That is how we have this discussion. By your measure, why bother with any website that provides good intellectual information. Not sure what 99% you are reading. And if you are correct about the internet, why are you posting comments (which by the way I appreciate)?
    Try to google ‘evolution is wrong’, you’ll get about 78,800,000 results. More than 99% of those are junk. Now, if only 1% is NOT junk, that still leaves millions of pages with good information. The problem is to know which is which.

  101. Cementafriend says:

    Could not see in the cooments above a link to Jasper Kirby’s 2008 article http://aps.arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0804/0804.1938v1.pdf . I think he likes to do things properly so there is little criticism.

  102. Paul Vaughan says:

    As you well-know Leif, I have carefully HIGHLIGHTED the confounding (perhaps much to the irritation of GCR fans). [ http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/23/confirmation-of-solar-forcing-of-the-semi-annual-variation-of-length-of-day/ "Cautionary Notes: 1) Sensible interpretation of the preceding data exploration requires awareness of the confounding of numerous solar variables." ] Issues such as confounding & paradox are ALWAYS FOREMOST in the minds of careful data explorers. I understand your concerns that others will misinterpret summaries. I went through the whole OMNI2 database — there’s no better match btw, but I don’t claim that this “proves” anything – I just explore.

    As for this “correlation with LOD” or “correlation with LOD’ ” business (or however one wants to frame & label it): The issue I was raising wasn’t that [another misunderstanding] but rather that it’s actually the decadal amplitude of the semi-annual wave. You and I both know that, so we’re just consuming time playing for the audience here.

    I agree that solar rotation is interesting. More on this another day.

  103. G. Karst says:

    Paul Vaughan:

    “Kirkby CLEARLY & CONFIDENTLY announced SOME of his results at SFU recently. (See the video to which I linked above. You will see NO DOUBT.)”

    Yes, very exciting, very interesting, very convincing presentation… however… what does this have to do with healthy skeptical argument?? At this early stage, it is even more important to examine all counter arguments before forming opinion regarding conclusions. But gosh-darn, it IS high on the goosebump scale. I look forward to reading ALL arguments, when the paper is published and Kirkby’s confidence/data is community tested. GK

  104. Gary Krause says:
    May 15, 2011 at 7:17 pm
    By your measure, why bother with any website that provides good intellectual information.
    Even the august WUWT website sports comments that link to websites with pure nonsense, pushed as if they were Gospel Truth or Nobel Prize Stuff. It is only because the regular visitors have learned to sift the wheat from the chaff that such links do no real harm. However, for casual visitors they must be an absolute turn-off giving skeptical views a bad odor.

  105. Paul Vaughan says:
    May 15, 2011 at 9:40 pm
    The issue I was raising wasn’t that [another misunderstanding] but rather that it’s actually the decadal amplitude of the semi-annual wave. You and I both know that, so we’re just consuming time playing for the audience here.
    I don’t have any interest in playing for the audience. You were the one that kept on shouting UNACCEPTABLE. But, enough of that. You see, misunderstandings come from cryptic, vague ‘hints’ [that you are so fond of giving] rather than the black-and-white, stark statements that I’m used to, and are not deliberate.

  106. Paul Vaughan says:

    Re: G. Karst May 15, 2011 at 9:45 pm

    My comments were about Kirkby’s projection.

  107. Brian H says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    May 15, 2011 at 9:25 pm

    Try to google ‘evolution is wrong’, you’ll get about 78,800,000 results. More than 99% of those are junk. Now, if only 1% is NOT junk, that still leaves millions of pages with good information. The problem is to know which is which.

    Remedial Math:
    1% of 78 million = <1 million, not "millions".

  108. vukcevic says:

    It is stated
    The anisotropy is so minuscule that it for all practical purposes does not exist. It takes the extreme IceCube detector to find it [after a century of scientists looking for it]. So, your post is highly misleading. There are also other [very small] anisotropies that are equally inconsequential, e.g. the siderial day anisotropy. A proper sense of proportion would help you here.
    in http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/14/update-on-the-cern-cloud-experiment/#comment-660970

    The above statement appear to contradict the IceCube researchers’ paper entitled:
    Large Scale Cosmic Ray Anisotropy With IceCube
    http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0907/0907.0498v2.pdf
    It is often case that scientists (here and elsewhere, possibly including IceCube’s ones) give a spin according to the agenda pursued.
    Most of us (certainly myself) are not in position to judge what is in this case
    inconsequential or large scale anisotropy
    and who is correct in the matter.
    “You pays your money and you takes your choice”.

  109. Brian H says:
    May 15, 2011 at 11:04 pm
    1% of 78 million = <1 million, not "millions".
    1% of internet in general.

    vukcevic says:
    May 15, 2011 at 11:16 pm
    The above statement appear to contradict the IceCube researchers’ paper entitled:
    Large Scale Cosmic Ray Anisotropy With IceCube [...]
    Most of us (certainly myself) are not in position to judge what is in this case
    inconsequential or large scale anisotropy and who is correct in the matter.

    That is why you should listen to and not try to contradict someone who can judge, or perhaps just read the paper you refer to [says anisotropy is 0.0006].
    “You pays your money and you takes your choice”.
    No, if you are unsure or you don’t understand, you can ask.

    The essential point is that the typical energy for the IceCube cosmic rays detections are 10,000 times larger than the typical GCRs observed by our ordinary detectors. Such high energy particles are VERY rare and are less scattered by the turbulent galactic magnetic fields. Even in spite of that, the anisotropy is less than 1 in a 1000 so of no consequence for interactions with the Earth or the solar system. It is, on the other hand, very interesting for resolving the age-old problem of where the GCRs are coming from.

  110. vukcevic says:

    Science based on opinions gave us the AGW ‘soap serial’ narratives.

  111. Carla says:

    @Mtk..
    Not that knowledgable bout the Solar cosmic rays/energetic particles, ACR anomalous cosmic rays, GCR galactic cosmic rays or IGCR Intergalactic cosmic rays.
    GCR TeV and ACR MeV..population..good luck..lot of it there though..are they H or He or some other growing population..endless..

    My question for this week, the distrubution role, that the Van Allen Cosmic Raydiation belts play..
    What role do the ACRs have on the GCR within the belt..those and ICWs coupled with all that solar stuff..
    Cosmic Rays hit spaceage high. Van Allen Cosmic Radiation Belts expand and Earth’s atmosphere lowers..
    I guess the Canandian ORBITAL and NASA Radiation Belt Storm Probes RBSP, are late..
    but better late than never..

    Vuks I thought GCR/ACR entry was most often in the weaker areas of Earth’s magnetic field..maybe thats one of my clues this weeks lesson always subject to a rapid change..
    Almost forgot Vuks..Is this something you might have interest..
    Resonance zones for electron interaction with plasma waves in the Earth’s dipole magnetosphere. II. Evaluation for oblique chorus, hiss, electromagnetic ion cyclotron waves, and magnetosonic waves
    Binbin Ni1 and Danny Summers2
    Resonance zones in the Earth’s dipole magnetosphere are determined for electron cyclotron resonance with obliquely propagating very-low-frequency chorus, extremely-low-frequency hiss, electromagnetic ion cyclotron, and magnetosonic waves. The resonance zones, which are presented in (L,λ) space, where L is magnetic shell and λ is magnetic latitude, depend on the assumed particle density distributions inside and outside the plasmasphere, the specified wave bands, and the electron kinetic energy. This work is a companion paper of Ni and Summers [Phys. Plasmas 17, 042902 (2010)] , which considers strictly field-aligned wave propagation. Inclusion of the wave normal angle parameter adds an extra degree of freedom to the calculations, and emphasizes the need for global observational data on the wave spectral properties. Comparison of resonance zones with global wave distributions is a useful aid in the modeling of radiation belt electron dynamics. Resonance zones are also of potential use in the interpretation of observational data on particles and waves at given points in space.
    http://pop.aip.org/resource/1/phpaen/v17/i4/p042903_s1?isAuthorized=no

    Leif, thanks for the link again to that 69 Schatten & Wilcox paper. Pperhaps it is now time to read it.

    Cosmic Rays hit spaceage high. Van Allen Cosmic Radiation Belts expand and Earth’s atmosphere lowers..
    I guess the Canandian ORBITAL and NASA Radiation Belt Storm Probes RBSP, are late..
    but better late than never..

  112. Gary Krause says:

    Lief say: regarding websites: “The problem is to know which is which.” Would you suggest we have the same problem with all media?

    Your point is true, however clear minded folks soon discover what is 99% junk… we would hope. :)

  113. SteveSadlov says:

    The CLOUD results just might make you worry a little bit about what may happen (or, may start happening) in 2012.

    Forget all the hype about instantaneous cataclysm. Long term subtle main effects are what cause real pain.

  114. Gary Swift says:

    Philip T. Downman says:
    May 14, 2011 at 9:43 am

    “Hope the orthodox publishers can’t delay publication very much. Ought not to be that easy with CERN-articles”

    The CERN people can publish in either a physics journal or, even better yet, a chemistry journal, and totally avoid The Team. It won’t be cited in the IPCC 5AR either way though, so no need to worry about this influencing the concensus.

  115. Carla says:
    May 16, 2011 at 6:13 am
    Cosmic Rays hit spaceage high.
    They do that every solar minimum: http://www.puk.ac.za/opencms/export/PUK/html/fakulteite/natuur/nm_data/data/SRU_Graph.jpg

  116. Carla says:

    Mac the Knife says:
    ..Can you tell me, what is the ratio or relative flux of Anomolous Cosmic Rays (ACRs) to Galactic Cosmic Rays (GCRs) reaching our upper atmosphere? Do ACRs have the same effects on water droplet formation and cloud cover as GCRs… or more or less effective? Given their lower energies, are they more easily deflected by the magnetic shielding effects of Coronal Mass Ejections?..
    ~
    Did some scouting Mtk..you should find this useful as I would think Stephen Wilde might also. Some extra links to follow of some animations you may find particularly or not interesting.
    Meet the SAMPEX data.. Anyone know the current status on this mission?

    ..SAMPEX — major discoveries published in refereed journals
    Anomalous Cosmic Rays
    Discovery of the precise location of trapped anomalous cosmic rays in the magnetosphere.
    Measurement of the elemental composition of trapped ACR, including C, N, 0, and Ne.
    “Early” return of the anomalous cosmic ray component in the 1992 solar minimum period, well before the relativistic ions. LI>Discovery that trapped anomalous cosmic rays are the dominant component of high energy (>10 MeV/nuc) ions heavier than He in the magnetosphere.
    Solar Energetic Particles
    Determination of “normal” solar system isotopic abundances for Ne and Mg in the large solar particle events of October/November 1993.
    Excesses (factor 4) of neutron rich isotopes of Ne and Mg in 3He-rich solar particle events.
    Magnetospheric Physics
    Discovery that magnetospheric electrons are globally accelerated in association with the impact of high speed solar wind streams.
    Other
    Demonstration that NASA can develop, test, and launch a successful scientific satellite within a period of three years.
    SAMPEX–major discoveries reported at scientific meetings but not yet published in refereed journals
    Anomalous Cosmic Rays
    Determination that ACR nitrogen, oxygen, and neon are singly charged.
    Determination that the upper limit of ACR O2+ is less than 10% of the total ACR oxygen, thus limiting acceleration time scales in the heliosphere.
    Discovery that the interplanetary spectrum of anomalous oxygen extends to at least 100 MeV/nucleon, implying that the ACR acceleration mechanism (termination shock?) accelerates particles to at least 1.6 GeV..
    http://sunland.gsfc.nasa.gov/smex/sampex/mission/

    SAMPEX – A Synoptic View of Earth’s Electron Radiation Belts: North Pole Energetic Fluxes from PET
    http://www.nasaimages.org/luna/servlet/detail/NSVS~3~3~6843~106843:SAMPEX—A-Synoptic-View-of-Earth-s
    SAMPEX – A Synoptic View of Earth’s Electron Radiation Belts: South Pole Energetic Fluxes from PET (1/1/1995)
    http://www.archive.org/details/SVS-1387

    Where was that shelf life of those ACR and the production of ..

  117. movielib says:

    I’m not so sure why anyone thinks it’s been an inordinate amount of time for CLOUD’s first results to be published. The CLOUD chamber arrived at CERN less than two years ago as can be seen in this post on Lubos Motl’s blog:

    http://motls.blogspot.com/2009/06/cern-cloud-on-cloud-number-nine.html

    Meanwhile, the results of another experiment (in which Svensmark has been involved), have been published:

    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2011GL047036.shtml

    It looks to me like things are moving along fine.

  118. Robert says:

    The Goethe Institue is a good source of news on the project.
    http://www.uni-frankfurt.de/english/research/inter_projects/clouditn/News/index.html
    According to the latest news entry, the paper that has been submitted to Nature was posted in early February 2011.
    From following the progress of this project it is my impression that Kirkby is being quite understated about the results. Presumably this is to not over publicise speculative data and instead wait for experimental results and peer reviewed papers to back up the claims. This would be a sound strategy for such a sensitive subject.

  119. Al Gored says:

    Truly exciting research. Very interesting universe we live in. The irony is that the same ‘green’ folk who are living in the little CO2 box are also at least superficially aware of how ecosystems work yet choose not to see our planet as part of the solar system and impacted by it. It is almost classic doublethink.

    Look forward to seeing the results.

    In terms of religious potential, sun worship has CO2

  120. Carla says:

    IMHO seems to me the cosmic ray folks are fingering the wrong cosmic rays..

    More on anomalous cosmic rays in the interplanetary and terrestrial spaces..

    K. Scherer et al 2008 ApJ 680 L105 doi: 10.1086/589969
    Are Anomalous Cosmic Rays the Main Contribution to the Low-Energy Galactic Cosmic Ray Spectrum?
    FREE ISSUE
    Abstract
    “”While the high-energy part of the Galactic cosmic ray spectrum is well observed, its nature at energies below about 1 GeV nucleon-1 is still not known well. Recent in situ measurements made with the Voyager 1 spacecraft in the heliosheath between the solar wind termination shock and the heliopause have added further constraints on the local interstellar spectrum of Galactic cosmic rays at low energies. We show here that they also suggest how the low-energy proton part is formed locally in the heliosphere and globally in the Galaxy. The measured flux of anomalous cosmic rays in the heliosheath is unexpectedly high compared to expectations before Voyager 1 reached the shock, which might be a temporal effect or due to an additional acceleration beyond the termination shock. Combining this finding with recent model results for astrospheres immersed in different interstellar environments shows that the astrospheric anomalous cosmic ray fluxes of solar-type stars can be a hundred times higher than thought earlier and, consequently, their total contribution to the lower end of the interstellar spectrum can be significant.””
    http://iopscience.iop.org/1538-4357/680/2/L105

    And Leif.. this statement is just for you..
    “””Combining this finding with recent model results for astrospheres immersed in different interstellar environments shows that the astrospheric anomalous cosmic ray fluxes of solar-type stars can be a hundred times higher than thought earlier and, consequently, their total contribution to the lower end of the interstellar spectrum can be significant.”””

  121. Carla says:
    May 17, 2011 at 5:48 am
    IMHO seems to me the cosmic ray folks are fingering the wrong cosmic rays.. [...]
    “Combining this finding with recent model results for astrospheres immersed in different interstellar environments shows that the astrospheric anomalous cosmic ray fluxes of solar-type stars can be a hundred times higher than thought earlier and, consequently, their total contribution to the lower end of the interstellar spectrum can be significant.”

    In spite of that, the ACRs are of low energy [i.e, have almost no effect] and are very rare [about 1000 times less common than ordinary GCRs near the Earth].

  122. Pamela Gray says:

    I’m of the opinion that dust particles and sea spray form the lion’s share of particles that water vapor is want to attach to. In fact, I’m surprised it doesn’t rain inside my house, but that is another topic, altogether domestic.

    Dust is such a powerful attractant that I have witnessed it rain after a dust storm when nary a cloud can be seen in the sky. Cosmic particles can’t hold a candle to that.

    So let me cycle back to the domestic link. As a person adept at making lemonade out of lemons, I choose to believe that the dust in my house serves a very valuable role: cloud formation.

  123. Brian H says:

    GN Mode/”want wont to attach to” /GN Mode

    And about 80% of household dust is floating skin flakes. So that contribution is very personal!

  124. Brian H says:

    Oops, omitted ref above:

    Pamela Gray says:
    May 17, 2011 at 6:51 pm

  125. Carla says:

    1992 solar min. dominate species of Cosmic Rays were Anomalous Cosmic Rays..
    Anomalous cosmic rays are singly charged..what does this do to the global electric potential..like does it stall weather systems..like we have been seeing lately..does it prevent the jetstream from moving north..does it create those humpy looking jetstreams??

    ..SAMPEX — major discoveries published in refereed journals
    Anomalous Cosmic Rays
    Discovery of the precise location of trapped anomalous cosmic rays in the magnetosphere.
    Measurement of the elemental composition of trapped ACR, including C, N, 0, and Ne.
    “Early” return of the anomalous cosmic ray component in the 1992 solar minimum period, well before the relativistic ions. LI>Discovery that trapped anomalous cosmic rays are the dominant component of high energy (>10 MeV/nuc) ions heavier than He in the magnetosphere.
    .. Magnetospheric Physics
    Discovery that magnetospheric electrons are globally accelerated in association with the impact of high speed solar wind streams.
    .. SAMPEX–major discoveries reported at scientific meetings but not yet published in refereed journals
    .. Anomalous Cosmic Rays
    Determination that ACR nitrogen, oxygen, and neon are singly charged.
    Determination that the upper limit of ACR O2+ is less than 10% of the total ACR oxygen, thus limiting acceleration time scales in the heliosphere.
    Discovery that the interplanetary spectrum of anomalous oxygen extends to at least 100 MeV/nucleon, implying that the ACR acceleration mechanism (termination shock?) accelerates particles to at least 1.6 GeV..
    http://sunland.gsfc.nasa.gov/smex/sampex/mission/

    Time-variability in the Interstellar Boundary Conditions
    of the Heliosphere: Effect of the Solar Journey on the
    Galactic Cosmic Ray Flux at Earth
    Priscilla C. Frisch • Hans-Reinhard Mueller
    rev. 3 Feb. 2011
    “””The interpretation of the geological record of cosmogenic isotopes relies on accurate
    models of the cosmic ray spectra. One factor that is not included in
    the interpretation of the geological record of cosmogenic isotopes is that the cosmic ray
    spectrum incident on the Earth consists of two components that behave differently as
    the Sun travels through space. Galactic cosmic rays dominate at high energies, > 500
    MeV, and are subject to heliospheric modulation as the Sun travels through space.
    However a second cosmic ray component at lower energies is formed inside of the
    heliopause from interstellar neutrals that penetrate and are ionized inside of the heliosphere,
    forming pickup ions. These are subsequently accelerated to form lower-energy
    anomalous cosmic rays (ACRs) with a composition derived from neutral interstellar
    atoms in the CISM (Fisk et al. 1974).
    The local interstellar cosmic ray spectrum that
    creates the geological radio-isotope record is thus composed of two components that
    vary differently over time and space, the higher energy galactic cosmic rays (GCRs)
    that are modulated by a variable heliosphere, and the ACRs that also depend on the
    density and fractional ionization of the surrounding interstellar cloud.
    In this paper we present the overall picture of the ISM characteristics that result
    from the motion of the Sun and interstellar clouds through space. Observations of interstellar
    absorption lines towards nearest stars show that spatial variations in velocity,
    temperature, and ionization of the circumheliospheric ISM create temporal variations
    in the heliosphere boundary conditions. These then cause temporal variations in the
    spectrum and fluxes of cosmic rays at Earth. We also draw possible connections between
    interstellar cloud transitions and the geological radio isotope record.”””

  126. Carla says:
    May 18, 2011 at 6:21 am
    1992 solar min. dominate species of Cosmic Rays were Anomalous Cosmic Rays..
    Carla, you really have to get your stuff straight. The article talks about ACRs heavier than Helium. These make up a minute portion of the cosmic rays [1% or less] and have very little energy and therefore cannot penetrate into the atmosphere.

  127. Spaceman Spiff says:

    Leif Svalgaard,

    Regarding the releasedate, I mailed CERN last year and they said the experiment had been conducted and that it had revealed “interesting results” and the data were being processed. Results were expected “later that year”.

    Now…. Almost a year later, I’m still waiting… The delay of the report itself does not bother me too much, but I kinda fear it will be adjusted to the political consensus and “political correctness”, but what I’ve seen from these two, Jasper Kirkby and Henrik Svensmark, is that they do not seem to stray too far away from wthat they believe in.

Comments are closed.