Update on the CLOUD experiment at CERN

Rik Gheysens says: in Tips and Notes

The latest results of the CLOUD experiment in CERN are published: http://science.orf.at/stories/1717291/. It’s a German article with the following statements of Jasper Kirkby (head of the CLOUD experiment):

At the present time we can not say whether cosmic rays affect the climate. What we have investigated so far, is the production of condensation nuclei for cloud droplets, namely those arising from gases: The technical term is “gas-to-particle conversion”. They make up about half of condensation nuclei in the atmosphere. The remaining germs come from soot and dust.

Which gases are involved in this process?
We first looked at sulfuric acid and ammonia. The results of the first tests were: the cosmic rays enhance the formation of condensation nuclei from gases by a factor of ten. But that alone is not enough to significantly affect the formation of clouds. According to our previous experiments, there must be other gases or vapors that enhance this process. Presumably organic substances.

Which substances?
The results are currently under review in a journal. Unfortunately, I can not say more about it. Only this: The results are very interesting. During the year some results will be published.

Suppose you demonstrate that cosmic rays affect the formation of clouds actually at a greater extent. What would that mean?
I believe that these experiments are significant in two respects. Firstly, because they would show a new natural source of climate change. And secondly, because it would change the understanding of anthropogenic climate change. We are well informed about greenhouse gases. But we know too little about aerosols. Also airborne particles that pass through our industry in the atmosphere.


You have a cooling effect with certainty. But we have no idea how big this effect is. It might be small, but also very large. Maybe it is so large that it compensates for the effect of additional CO2 in the atmosphere. We do not know.

About these ads

102 thoughts on “Update on the CLOUD experiment at CERN

  1. An experiment? Why didn’t they just create a model, run the model, then present the output as facts?

    Anybody know? Anybody? Bueller? Ferris Bueller?

  2. I have to give them credit for saying “We do not know.” when it would have been so easy to say “More research is needed.” – GrantSpeak for “Send more money.”

  3. tadchem do you expect scientists to do research without money? Or maybe you just prefer no scientific research?

  4. As I have long suspected, “climate science” doesn’t really even know the sign of the human effect, if any, ie whether positive or negative, heating or cooling, net.

    Would be amusing if “black carbon”, aka “soot”, turns out to be a cooling agent, serving as a CCN.

    “Consensus, settled science” is indeed clueless, but worse, willfully so. Climatology isn’t even out of its diapers (nappies) yet. That doesn’t stop the pompous buffoons from proclaiming certitude.

  5. These are serious researchers. Not the “Science is settled” or “Create a model and present the results as truth” kind of guys.

  6. They are very careful and conservative when it comes to experiments and analysis that may undermine AGW.

  7. “You have a cooling effect with certainty. But we have no idea how big this effect is. It might be small, but also very large. Maybe it is so large that it compensates for the effect of additional CO2 in the atmosphere. We do not know.”

    “We do not know.” Hurrah!

  8. I am right now in Canada on my way to Alaska–it is very cold and rainy–as it has been in Alaska for the last few summers. This “report” is one way to jump ship–they have to be able to explain why the weather is not cooperating and this would be a good way, “You have a cooling effect with certainty. But we have no idea how big this effect is. It might be small, but also very large.”

    What do you bet that the “cooling effect” turns out to be large?

    Will the skeptics get any credit? For sanity in science?

  9. MikeToo says:
    May 29, 2013 at 8:24 am

    They are very careful and conservative when it comes to experiments and analysis that may undermine AGW.

    Indeed they are and …..

    HR says:
    May 29, 2013 at 8:10 am

    tadchem do you expect scientists to do research without money? Or maybe you just prefer no scientific research?

    That is why they are cautious. Say the incorrect thing or sound enthusiastic about the wrong area and funding might suddenly become difficult.

  10. green!

    They really are living in the dark ages this CERN bunch. everybody know that climate models predict everything and anything…at least that’s how it seems.

  11. “You can’t depend on your eyes when your imagination is out of focus”
    –Mark Twain.

  12. CERN can’t run without funding, but Watts, McKitrick & McIntyre have done good science with little or no funding.

    Mann has done execrable “science” with obscene levels of funding.

  13. An increase of nucleation by a factor of ten is in the right direction for Svensmark but they refuse to tell us the rest of the story. Instead they are stonewalling about the “results under review” and babble about cooling by factory smoke. Recall that Muller gave us full details of the papers they had submitted before these were even peer reviewed. The results that CERN is holding back are said to be “very interesting.” I bet there is a struggle going on to stop reporting politically incorrect results and the workers are being warned about consequences if they don’t knuckle under and say what they are told to say. If, as, and when these results are released we will know how these negotiations went. Unless we can get info from someone on the inside that we can trust I am inclined to be skeptical about anything they release from now on.

  14. Some people may be interested in the lecture that Jasper Kirkby gave in 2011 which explains how cosmic rays could be a cause of climate change.

  15. Arno Arrak says:
    May 29, 2013 at 8:45 am
    ———————————-

    SOP now seems to be to publish a paper the obvious implication of which is to slaughter sacred cows, then add a nonsensical but obligatory obeisance at the end stating the need for urgent “climate action”,or at least more funding of computer modeling.

    That’s probably the best that can be hoped for. Worst case is suppression & punishment, public humiliation & banishment to academic Siberia.

  16. Never mind cosmic rays. I think they are just coincidentally correlated with cloudiness changes.

    Better to check the relationship between Jetstream zonality and meridionality, the effect of that on the length of the lines of air mass mixing around the globe and then in turn the effect on global cloudiness and albedo.

  17. Jasper Kirkby (head of the CLOUD experiment) states at the end “we do not know.” Honesty in a climate related field of science is sooo long overdue. I respect the man for that and wish him and his organization the best in their endeavors in real science!

  18. Free men will be guilty until proven innocent in one world governance; the truth will come out sooner or later and hopefully someday science will be able to rebound. Politicians and movements who supported all this blunder and pillage in the name of saving the plant through corruption I hope will never recover in my lifetime.

  19. http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=975f250d-ca5d-4f40-b687-a1672ed1f684

    Jasper Kirkby is a superb scientist, but he has been a lousy politician. In 1998, anticipating he’d be leading a path-breaking experiment into the sun’s role in global warming, he made the mistake of stating that the sun and cosmic rays “will probably be able to account for somewhere between a half and the whole of the increase in the Earth’s temperature that we have seen in the last century.” Global warming, he theorized, may be part of a natural cycle in the Earth’s temperature.

    Dr. Kirkby was immediately condemned by climate scientists for minimizing the role of human beings in global warming. Stories in the media disparaged Dr. Kirkby by citing scientists who feared oil-industry lobbyists would use his statements to discredit the greenhouse effect. And the funding approval for Dr. Kirkby’s path-breaking experiment — seemingly a sure thing when he first announced his proposal– was put on ice.

  20. Stephen Wilde says:
    May 29, 2013 at 8:56 am

    Never mind cosmic rays. I think they are just coincidentally correlated with cloudiness changes.

    That’s not what the geologic record shows. It shows a strong correlation–that’s what got Svenmark interested in the concept in the first place.

  21. One is put in mind of the performers on the old TV variety shows of days of yore who would attempt to spin, no pun, several plates at once atop a thin rod. This will work well as long as the number of rods is limited to the number the performer is able to monitor and to keep the plates remaining on. If, in the middle of his act, the performer is now given more rods and plates to keep spinning, more than he is able to handle, the performer will come to grief rather quickly and will be fortunate indeed to walk away with any plates intact. Likewise with the AGW debate; when one has the temerity to question whether ALL the conceivable variables have been taken into account, and what would introduction of a new one do to models, and how would this new variable interact with those already considered and how might it change how those variables interact with each other, one is given the usual The Science-Is-Settled hokum– “if those things were important we would have included them,” but what if you couldn’t have appreciated their importance before your research began? Whole lotta question-beggin’ goin’ on ’round here. After a while, you have to give up the theory of the celestial spheres, no matter how intuitively “correct” it might seem, when you find that, if you introduce the possibility of ellipses, your calculations make sense, without having to resort to use of retrograde loops (themselves perfectly circular- like the argument for.celestial spheres itself).

  22. “I believe that these experiments are significant in two respects. Firstly, because they would show a new yet another natural source of climate change variability.”

    There … fixed.

  23. Stephen Wilde says:
    May 29, 2013 at 8:56 am

    Never mind cosmic rays. I think they are just coincidentally correlated with cloudiness changes.

    Better to check the relationship between Jetstream zonality and meridionality, the effect of that on the length of the lines of air mass mixing around the globe and then in turn the effect on global cloudiness and albedo.

    The meridonality of the jetstreams does seem to be related to cooling – and we are seeing in northern Europe the same weather that was seen at the beginning of the Great Famine of 1315 – 1321 with continual rains and almost no crops as the Earth cooled out of the Medieval Warm Period. There is also no doubt that when the jetstreams have large Rossby waves that the amount of cloud in the weather systems of the Ferrel cells must be larger as the length of the jetstreams is increased. However, that does not mean that the Svensmark ideas are invalid; as, by increasing cloudiness generally and especially in the tropics the amount of energy in the system is reduced leading to reduction in Hadley cell convection allowing the Ferrel cells to move equatorward. The energy in the earth’s atmosphere is mainly in the tropics; changes at the poles do not have the energy to affect the jetstreams

  24. I’d model it. You can make up whatever the #$^k you want and if anyone disagrees with your “data”, then you just call them a denier…

  25. It’s heartening to see scientists admittedly not knowing the answer, yet continuing to seek the truth.

    I am wiser than this man,
    for neither of us appears to know
    anything great or good;
    but he fancies he knows something,
    although he knows nothing;
    whereas I, as I do not know anything,
    so I do not fancy I do.
    –Socrates

  26. “…the production of condensation nuclei for cloud droplets, namely those arising from gases: The technical term is “gas-to-particle conversion”. They make up about half of condensation nuclei in the atmosphere. The remaining germs come from soot and dust… the cosmic rays enhance the formation of condensation nuclei from gases by a factor of ten. But that alone is not enough to significantly affect the formation of clouds.
    ______________________
    I find these statements both compelling and disheartening. On the one hand, I anxiously await discovery of what is significant in cloud formation, and on the other hand, one could make a case that this release has some appearance of kowtowing before the master, lest he shoot the messenger.

    listening to: “Tiptoe Through The Tulips” by Tiny Tim

  27. Clarifying my post immediately precedent this: I aim no barbs at the scientists at CERN, but my own distrust of what has passed recently for science has influenced the way I view all modern science.

  28. …they are stonewalling about the “results under review” and babble about cooling by factory smoke.

    Kirkby’s statement about cooling effects being certain but of uncertain magnitude is not in reference to factory smoke (soot). The interview is not entirely clear, but that statement has to be about the effects of GCR (the subject of his research). The “also” about “airborne particles that pass through our industry in the atmosphere” is a side note.

    This is Kirkby’s main point. Already established production of condensation nuclei via sulfuric acid and ammonia will certainly create some cooling, but other production routes (particularly involving organic aerosols) could cause much more cooling.

    Organic aerosols are largely NATURAL in origin. There was a recent WUWT post on one of these aerosols–isoprene–created by trees:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/25/those-dirty-trees-why-hasnt-the-epa-called-for-trees-to-be-regulated/

  29. Ian W said

    “The energy in the earth’s atmosphere is mainly in the tropics; changes at the poles do not have the energy to affect the jetstreams”

    That applies only to the troposphere.

    The top down effect is more a matter of the energy in the stratosphere because a warming stratosphere will lower the tropopause and a colder stratosphere will raise it.

    Solar changes appear to have a greater effect above the poles and thereby influence the vertical and horizontal parameters of the polar vortices.

    The gradient of tropopause height between equator and poles changes and the jets with the climate zones can then slide to and fro latitudinally.

    As regards Svensmark I think the scale of any effect from cosmic rays is likely to be far smaller than changes in condensation nuclei from other causes and likely to have much less effect than changes in the length of the lines of air mass mixing.

    It is the mixing of air masses with different characteristics that is the main cause of cloud formation.

    There are lots of condensation nuclei above deserts but unless another air mass encroaches there will be little cloud.

    The condensation nuclei above the equator get washed out quickly but there are still deep convective clouds permanently along the ITCZ.

    So I think that the Svensmark effect even if valid is likely insignificant and unnecessary.

  30. The results are currently under review in a journal. Unfortunately, I can not say more about it.

    We do not know.

    Translation: Send more money!

    And as a German, I’m sure the’ll obtain it. Just like all the wasted funds for i.e. the Potsdam Institute directly into the pockets of AGW zealot Stefan Rahmstorf.

  31. You have a cooling effect with certainty. But we have no idea how big this effect is. It might be small, but also very large. Maybe it is so large that it compensates for the effect of additional CO2 in the atmosphere. We do not know.

    Holy cow! That large? Wait, what effect of additional C02 has there been, really? Not the theoretical one, mind you but the actual effect, including negative feedbacks.
    My guess is that the cooling effect is much, much larger, by at least an order of magnitude.

  32. Rocky Road said:

    “That’s not what the geologic record shows. It shows a strong correlation–that’s what got Svenmark interested in the concept in the first place.”

    I know and I accept the correlation.

    It is just that solar variations affect both the quantity of cosmic rays and the behaviour of the atmospheric circulation but in my view it is the latter which causes cloudiness variations and not the former.

    I think the correlation between sun and cosmic rays is primarily coincidental and not causative as regards global cloudiness though there could be some cosmic ray effect.

  33. Bet they do know but the results are locked up in a chest deposited in vast warehouse next to the ark of the covenant.

  34. I am encouraged by those magic words.
    About time.
    My sense is the CERN scientists are mostly honest people but based on the funding fiasco, which prevented their research for years, I suspect the administration probably needs to stand before a wall.

  35. Bruce Cobb what you say is illogical. The global temp has risen over the past 2 centuries, there is no metric I know that says otherwise, therefore cooling effects can not have been larger by any amount never mind a magnitude. Try not to let your hostility to climate science take you into the realm of fantasy.

  36. @HR, perhaps I wasn’t clear: I was referring to the cooling effect of cosmic rays and cloud formation being (possibly) an order of magnitude greater than the actual warming effect of the additional C02.

  37. Bruce Cobb says:
    May 29, 2013 at 10:57 am

    Holy cow! That large? Wait, what effect of additional C02 has there been, really? Not the theoretical one, mind you but the actual effect, including negative feedbacks.
    My guess is that the cooling effect is much, much larger, by at least an order of magnitude.

    Might want to consider that some more. If as the luke-warmist view has it minor amounts of CO2 have minor effects, then GCR may have minor contrary effects adequate to cancel that of a minor constituent like CO2. The important point made is that there is an effect that supports cloud formation, thus increasing the planetary albedo, and therefore cooling. More to the point, without accounting for effects of clouds and extraplanetary causal agents that influence cloud formation, then any estimate of just how much effect an increase of CO2 has is likely to be in error, and the direction of the error could be problematic as well. Interestingly one potentially influential agent on cloud formation may be bacteria that apparently survive quite handily at altitudes that would kill an exposed human. See here for instance:

    http://www.nature.com/news/high-flying-bacteria-spark-interest-in-possible-climate-effects-1.12310

  38. Bruce Cobb,

    If GCR do indeed cool significantly due to their effect on clouds, then part of the reason the predicted CO2 effect has not occurred is probably due to the effect of GCR. The next step is to find what properties of the sun will correlate best with this effect as TSI and sunspots apparently don’t correlate that well.

  39. I think that some of the comment here is a tad unfair. As I understand it the CLOUD experiment was set up to test Svensmark’s hypothesis that cosmic rays triggered cloud formation. The results confirm that under controlled conditions the hypothesis is correct. The press release says an much. The CERN scientists involved quite rightly suggested that other material may also be involved — soot, sulphate particles etc. Now it might be that collectively CERN feels uncomfortable with this result, maybe for political reasons but at least the experiment has been done and Svensmark’s hypothesis validated. Be thankful for small mercies!

    Tony Berry

  40. And secondly, because it would change the understanding of anthropogenic climate change. We are well informed about greenhouse gases. But we know too little about aerosols. Also airborne particles that pass through our industry in the atmosphere.

    This is an extremely important point. It does not make sense that CO2 is of such standalone importance, but the myriad other chemicals being put into the atmosphere aren’t. Some of these may even have cooling effects in a similar way to how volcanic emissions have cooling effects. (Which isn’t to say I want a bunch of pollutants pumped into the air: volcanic emissions are not so easy on the lungs!)

    You have a cooling effect with certainty. But we have no idea how big this effect is. It might be small, but also very large. Maybe it is so large that it compensates for the effect of additional CO2 in the atmosphere. We do not know.

    1. I appreciate the scientific honesty. I have been a big booster in Svensmark’s hypothesis, and it’s good to see the team are approaching it scientifically, taking evidence on board. As I just posted on another thread, scientific conclusions come down to probabilities, and Svensmark is being reasonable about this.

    2. This is important work. It does warrant more study.

  41. Jasper Kirkby is a scientist, not a “climate scientist” – which means he is waiting for the review process before he goes public and even then he isn’t going to say more than his results show. He has had a long fight just to get his studies done at CERN, despite lots of supporting evidence from the smaller, simpler studies done by Svensmark.

    I think people here need to cast their minds back to how the first results from this experiment were, essentially, undermined by the director at CERN before they were even published. As soon as there was even some evidence that GCR could cause particle nucleation, the director sent a note round warning the scientists not to go public and not to “over-interpret” the results. I have forgotten if these were the actual words used, but they were appalling in light of what “climate scientists” have been getting away with for years.

    I personally give Kirkby a lot of respect for the courage he has shown by just keeping on with this line of research when he could easily have rolled over years ago. We need to appreciate that this is how science used to move forward before it became “The Science” and – more specifically – “science by press release”. Give the guy a break.

  42. This is Kirkby’s main point. Already established production of condensation nuclei via sulfuric acid and ammonia will certainly create some cooling, but other production routes (particularly involving organic aerosols) could cause much more cooling.

    Organic aerosols are largely NATURAL in origin. There was a recent WUWT post on one of these aerosols–isoprene–created by trees:

    That was my thought as well.

    Plants manipulating the climate is a bit out there for some people, but I am sure it happens. In particular both grasses and trees do it, in their competition for space.

    Floragenic Climate Change

  43. [Note: At the end of all this foundation setting is a genuine question that I really hope (even if it is ridiculously simpleminded to you) someone will answer.]

    “… there must be other gases or vapors that enhance this process. Presumably organic substances. *** You have a cooling effect with certainty. … It might be … very large. Maybe it is so large that it compensates for the effect of additional CO2 in the atmosphere.”

    1) CERN scientists have assumed that adding CO2 to the atmosphere warms it.

    This has never been proven. The CERN scientists may tell us (later, not now) that they do not believe human emitted CO2 has a significant impact on atmospheric warming. But, it they believe that human emitted CO2 is a negligible amount of global CO2, why mention “additional CO2″ at all?

    2) Pro-Anthropogenic-Climate-Control liars are furiously attempting to find a way to preserve their human-emitted CO2 (thus, control over human activity) lie. Two magic tricks they have tried are:

    (1) volcanoes:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/02/aerosols-from-moderate-volcanos-now-blamed-for-global-warming-hiatus/

    The CERN scientists appear to reject that explanation (“We first looked at sulfuric acid and ammonia. … that alone is not enough to significantly affect the formation of clouds.”).

    and

    (2) organic [that is, carbon based] vapors:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/06/another-global-cooling-mechansim-found-a-case-of-the-vapors/

    “they would show a new natural source of climate change.” [But, could climate liars argue with any likelihood of success (at duping the public) that the human sources for that natural source actually control the climate?]

    Given the above, especially the assertion by CERN that CO2 is a significant cause of global warming, I wonder whether CERN leadership (IF CERN is controlled by pro-AGW political administrators) or, if not CERN, the IPCC Gang (and all their media stooges, e.g., “Nature,”) will mischaracterize the scientists’ work and the general public will be told essentially:

    “Human CO2 caused global warming, but, now, we have discovered that it was worse than we thought. Past a certain level, CO2 will cause catastrophic cloud cover that will plunge the planet into GLOBAL COOLING. Or, The Old Ice Age Crisis Rides Again — but, this time, humans can stop it (not just adapt to it) by using windmills and driving Flintstone-mobiles (a.k.a. peddle cars).”

    Yes, I realize that would be patent nonsense — but, that is the Cult of Climatology’s modus operandi.

    QUERY
    Help! All you fine scientists — am I WAY off the mark — waaaay too cynical, here?? I hope so. If you would care to educate basic-science-only people like me (there must be enough to make answering worthwhile!), please tell me why it is highly unlikely the CERN scientists’ findings will end up promoting a pro-Anthropogenic Climate Change (cooling, this time) lie?

    Of one thing I am certain: THE WONDERFUL SCIENTISTS OF WUWT WILL SOUNDLY REFUTE ANY LIES! GO, WUWT!!!

    Thanks again for all the great teaching I’ve already received here.

    Janice

    P.S. It took me quite awhile to write the above, so I will read all the new (to me) posts above to see if my question has already been answered.

  44. “Organic aerosols are largely NATURAL in origin.” [Phillip Bradley, 4:11PM]

    It appears you have answered my question (if, indeed, the CERN organic substance turns out to be a tree isoprene or the like substance). Well, I just won’t worry about how the IPCC Gang mischaracterizes CERN’s findings. I’ll keep reading WUWT for true SCIENCE.

  45. Inefficient combustion of plant materials can produce fairly large amounts of organic carbon.

    From wikipedia

    Pyrolysis of burning material, especially incomplete combustion or smoldering without adequate oxygen supply, also results in production of a large amount of hydrocarbons, both aliphatic (methane, ethane, ethylene, acetylene) and aromatic (benzene and its derivates, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons; e.g. benzo[a]pyrene, studied as a carcinogen, or retene), terpenes. Heterocyclic compounds may be also present.

  46. This 2008 paper “Cosmic Rays and Climate” by Jasper Kirkby may be of interest, though many here will I am sure have seen it already.

    http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0804/0804.1938v1.pdf

    Stephen Wilde – You say “Never mind cosmic rays. I think they are just coincidentally correlated with cloudiness changes” and “.. I think that the Svensmark effect even if valid is likely insignificant and unnecessary“. Forbush Decreases provide an opportunity to conduct real-world experiments. It has been established that there is a link between cosmic rays and clouds ..

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009GL038429/abstract

    .. and that temperature is affected ..

    http://www.astrophys-space-sci-trans.net/7/315/2011/astra-7-315-2011.html

    .. though not perhaps exactly as might have been expected.

    My take on this is that cosmic rays are part of the climate mix, and although the atmospheric circulations you concentrate on may have a much larger effect over short time scales (eg. decadal), nevertheless cosmic rays may well be important over longer time scales. So I would not yet agree with your “insignificant and unnecessary”.

  47. Janice Moore, you say “please tell me why it is highly unlikely the CERN scientists’ findings will end up promoting a pro-Anthropogenic Climate Change (cooling, this time) lie?“. The answer is – Jasper Kirkby. He is a real scientist doing real experiments. He has had to contend with ferocious opposition that successfully blocked his funding for many years, and he has had to contend with senior management at CERN which appears to have buckled under pressure. But he has managed to keep going, and any results that he publishes will be genuine. You may be interested in his paper that I linked to in my previous post – the point being that everything in that paper was deliberately ignored by the IPCC.

  48. Thank you, so much, Mr. Jonas, for taking the time to address my concerns. What a fine man, Jasper Kirkby is! Based on what I’ve read of him so far, he, like Dr. Vincent Gray (and MANY others) is a true science HERO.

  49. Jimbo says:
    May 29, 2013 at 10:42 am
    “We do not know.
    I can’t remember the last time a CAGW scientist said that.”
    ————————————————————————
    No matter, Winston Smith, archivist of the Central Climate Committee can remember it for you. In recently re-mastered more accurate recordings you can definitely hear CAGW scientists say “we do not know.” Its rather faint, but it is there on the recording. Right between “Doomed” and “Doooomed!”

  50. Look my dear friends & Cohorts in Skepticism… get this right: CERN will not announce a mechanism that is not man made. Check it out: “Man Made” = “Continued Funding.” Q.E.D.!

    My sense is that there is a monumental struggle going on over the experimental set up, the results & the interpretation of the results. Look, we’re dealing with Leftist, Marxist, Moral Nihilists, OWS’ers & just plane old kooks… we’re not going to hear climate & weather can’t be controlled by more tax dollars. Q.E.D. again!

  51. Thanks, Mr. Jonas, for the link to Dr. Kirkby’s 2008 paper. I read a good deal of it. He wrote so clearly that even I could understand what he was saying. Great source of the basics underlying the CLOUD experiment.

    I was a bit dismayed, that Kirkby on page one said this: “Internal forcing agents (those arising within Earth’s climate system) include … anthropogenic greenhouse gases… .”

    Sigh. I suppose he HAD to put that assumption of a significant human influence in on page one to create a good impression with certain key people.

    The key is: he is an honest man. Therefore, we can trust his reported results (if the reporting also is honest, i.e., not distorted by others — and he isn’t blackmailed (even the most courageous and honest of us is vulnerable!).

    Hurrah for TRUTH!

  52. Janice Moore – CO2 might turn out to have some effect, just nothing like as much as the IPCC make out.

  53. “””Aquarian says:
    May 29, 2013 at 8:29 am
    On a related note:
    Kitaba, Ikuko, et al. 2013 Midlatitude cooling caused by geomagnetic field minimum during polarity reversal. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110, 1215-1220.
    http://www.pnas.org/content/110/4/1215.full“””

    Thanks for the link..add this to my geomagnetic stamp collection. What could cause such a drop in Earths geomagnetic field? Perhaps a something has a damper on it in combination with lower? solar activity levels over consec utive cycles?

    Which I had more time for this, but in my new life there is country drive, daily commute..saw my first bobcat.

  54. Janice, if you haven’t already, I recommend Willis Eschenbach’s posts on climate governors.

    The concept in a nutshell (and in my words) is the climate is governed by water/cloud based processes that keep temperatures stable. Thus forcings are irrelevant to climate change (at least on century timescales). What causes climate change is factors that affect the governors, and both aerosols and GCRs do.

    The Forcings Theory is is the current climate paradigm, and no scientist without strong evidence is going to dispute it. That’s how science works. As Kuhn documented in the Structure of Scientific Revolutions.

    regards

  55. Mr. Jonas,

    Thank you for reminding me that CO2 per se has some effect on climate.

    While total global CO2 DOES have some effect on earth’s climate (I do believe that), however, there is no evidence at all that the relatively small amount of HUMAN emitted CO2 influences the climate to any meaningful degree of significance (thus, my disappointment with Dr. Kirkby’s assuming it had any worth mentioning in his paper).

    Janice

  56. Thanks, Mr. Bradley, for directing me to Mr. Eschenbach’s excellent research. I always enjoy reading his posts and have learned a lot from his fine work. I completely agree with Eschenbach’s conclusions.

    I guess you’re telling me that I’m mistaken in thinking that the CERN report of Dr. Kirkby’s CLOUD experiment might end up promoting human-caused climate change (based on the assumption of meaningful significance of human emitted CO2 which was stated by Dr. Kirkby (possibly under pressure) to be a real forcing). That’s good to know.

    So, we agree! I agree with Eschenbach’s conclusions and I do not think human CO2 has a significantly meaningful impact any global climate.

  57. “… saw my first bobcat.” [Carla]

    Cool! Be sure to put screens on all your house windows (or shut them at night) or you will see BATS up close, too! (just a little advice from a country gal to a former city gal (I’m assuming))

    Hope you are enjoying your new home (as well as the journey to and from).

    Janice

  58. We could really be in trouble after CO2 actually starts to decrease later this century.

  59. “””Aquarian says:
    May 29, 2013 at 8:29 am
    On a related note:
    Kitaba, Ikuko, et al. 2013 Midlatitude cooling caused by geomagnetic field minimum during polarity reversal. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110, 1215-1220.
    http://www.pnas.org/content/110/4/1215.full“”

    From page 1
    “””The geomagnetic field is a major factor controlling CR flux over longer time scales (10), and geomagnetic reversals are always accompanied by large decreases in field strength, which cause a large increase in CR flux. “””

    My GCR dyslexia sees this backwards.

    As the Interstellar background changes, so do the levels of GCR flux trapped around Interstellar Magnetic Fields that the solar system encounters on its journey. As the levels change so do solar activity levels dampened solar polar magnetic fields and more GCR into the planetary system. More GCR around Earth and damping of its magnetic field and solar magnetic connection. Lowering earth magnetic field.

    We have higher levels of cosmic radiation trapped around this planet in the radiation belts due to current lower levels of solar magnetic activity. We recently had an all time “space age,” high of cosmic rays, was it 2008? 2009 and we have a slowing down in the magnetic pole wandering.

    Maybe there is more energy connected with these GCR than we see..

  60. I guess you’re telling me that I’m mistaken in thinking that the CERN report of Dr. Kirkby’s CLOUD experiment might end up promoting human-caused climate change (based on the assumption of meaningful significance of human emitted CO2 which was stated by Dr. Kirkby (possibly under pressure) to be a real forcing).

    He is just working within the current paradigm, Whether his results turn out to be a nail in the coffin of that paradigm is yet to be seen.

    I understand your concern that a new cooling forcing could be used to increase the CO2 sensitivity.

    But from my perspective there has been so little research on cloud seeding and so little is known, that the modellers have been able to put pretty much any values they like into the models. So, more data is good. Interesting discoveries, even better, as that will spur more research.

  61. “Ice nucleating strains of P. syringae possess a gene that encodes a protein in their outer membrane that binds water molecules in an ordered arrangement, providing a very efficient nucleating template that enhances ice crystal formation,” says Christner.
    The role of bacteria in weather events

  62. “””Aquarian says:
    May 29, 2013 at 8:29 am
    On a related note:
    Kitaba, Ikuko, et al. 2013 Midlatitude cooling caused by geomagnetic field minimum during polarity reversal. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110, 1215-1220.

    http://www.pnas.org/content/110/4/1215.full“””

    Did you see this line, taken from the above article.

    “”” The use of high-latitude ice core data as a test of the CR effect on climate (12) may not be ideal. “””
    Is this implying an uneven distribution of GCR into the Earth system?

  63. Amateur observations. In the early 1950s I worked on a cattle station in far south western Queensland, Australia. From October-November on throughout the long summer months cumulus – maybe stratocumulus clouds would gather, occasionally producing a very brief shower, more often lightening (called dry storms) strikes which sometimes initiated bush fires. This is a very dry region which would be desert were it not for the occasional floods which transformed the landscape into a highly nutritious pasture. Cheers from sunny Sydney.

  64. And CHEERS TO YOU, too, Mr. Thomas — from the rainy, cold, beautiful, Pacific Northwest (U.S.A.) #[:)] where clouds are our specialty, LOL.

    Speaking of clouds and differing climate zones, my girlfriend brought her children who were raised near Longview, Texas up to visit her folks in Washington State one summer. Do you know what one of those kids’ favorite things up here was? Clouds! They just couldn’t get over the wonder of watching all the big, puffy, white (or gray and white), magnificent, cumulous clouds that were perfectly harmless. “Whenever we see clouds like that in Texas,” my friend said, “it means a scary thunderstorm is on the way.”

    Warm regards (at least!),

    Janice

  65. Carla says:
    May 29, 2013 at 7:35 pm
    “”” The use of high-latitude ice core data as a test of the CR effect on climate (12) may not be ideal. “”” Is this implying an uneven distribution of GCR into the Earth system?>/i>
    It is because the amount of radionuclides found at high latitudes are strongly controlled by climate [the 10Be is generated elsewhere and brought to the poles by atmospheric circulation].

  66. Carla says:
    May 29, 2013 at 7:35 pm
    “”” The use of high-latitude ice core data as a test of the CR effect on climate (12) may not be ideal. “”” Is this implying an uneven distribution of GCR into the Earth system?
    It is because the amount of radionuclides found at high latitudes is strongly controlled by climate [the 10Be is generated elsewhere and brought to the poles by atmospheric circulation].

  67. Since I’m very sleep deprived, I’ll forego reading all the posts preceding. Here’s my WAG:
    Charges are enhanced by cosmic ray interactions with everything in the atmosphere. The gases are small and when charged either attract and neutralize each other, or repel each other. Either way, there is no charge concentration. However, enhancing charges on a microscopic solid will potentially create multiple charges confined in a small area that can neither be attracted to each other nor repelled. Thus, charged-enhanced solids might more effectively nucleate droplets than charged gases. The electric fields will reach farther before effectively being screened by ions or 1/r^2 attenuation.

  68. The so called GCR is a misnomer for me. We(Earth) are constantly bombarded by nuclei in many forms, salts, gases, elements, particulate. They rain down on us 24/7 and have been for billions of years, entering our ionosphere and going through atmospheric chemical transformation. One only has to look at carbon 14, 13 etc. or H2O build up(always has been) on earth to know that that residue is formed from interaction with our sun. Be it building up our atmosphere and creating more high pressure(warmth) when the sun is active or dropping/lowering our atmosphere when it is inactive, thus more (so called)GCR’s enter the earth system and cause more cloud formation that MAY cool, but still heat up good with a high pressure cell even with a inactive sun.
    I hypothesize that CO2, O2, etc., most gasses(minerals) around us doesn’t come from plants, animals or rocks… but from atmospheric interconnection with that star next to us and maybe a bit from the GCR’s.
    Just have to ask yourself, if there was life in the oceans but not on land till some algae made our oxygen atmosphere, where did the oxygen come from to make the oceans?

  69. Lance of BC says:
    May 30, 2013 at 3:33 am
    The so called GCR is a misnomer for me. We(Earth) are constantly bombarded by nuclei in many forms, salts, gases, elements, particulate. They rain down on us 24/7 and have been for billions of years, entering our ionosphere and going through atmospheric chemical transformation. One only has to look at carbon 14, 13 etc. or H2O build up(always has been) on earth to know that that residue is formed from interaction with our sun.
    Those things do not come from the Sun, but from Space far from the Sun. In particular the GCRs that come from the Galaxy, created in Supernovae and accelerated by encounters with shock waves in the interstellar medium.

  70. lsvalgaard says:

    May 30, 2013 at 4:53 am

    Lance of BC says:
    May 30, 2013 at 3:33 am
    “”The so called GCR is a misnomer for me. We(Earth) are constantly bombarded by nuclei in many forms, salts, gases, elements, particulate. They rain down on us 24/7 and have been for billions of years, entering our ionosphere and going through atmospheric chemical transformation. One only has to look at carbon 14, 13 etc. or H2O build up(always has been) on earth to know that that residue is formed from interaction with our sun.””
    “Those things do not come from the Sun, but from Space far from the Sun. In particular the GCRs that come from the Galaxy, created in Supernovae and accelerated by encounters with shock waves in the interstellar medium.”

    He did not say they “came from the sun”, but that their “residue
    is formed from interaction with our sun”. A much different statement.

  71. These experiments on tiny drivers actually has a silver lining. We know that the Sun has a tiny cyclic forcing. It is possible that cosmic rays also have a tiny cyclic forcing. The tiny bit of increase in CO2, which is also likely cyclic, in the overall ppm of “stuff” in the atmosphere compares well with other “tiny” forcings. They are all tiny whiskers on mice compared to the chaotic forcings of water and atmospheric elephants that circle the globe.

  72. Jim G says:
    May 30, 2013 at 5:58 am
    He did not say they “came from the sun”, but that their “residue
    is formed from interaction with our sun”. A much different statement.

    I agree that his statement is very muddled, but it is clear from “The so called GCR is a misnomer for me” and “(so called)GCR’s” and “where did the oxygen come from to make the oceans?” that he does not believe the stuff comes from the Galaxy, but rather from the Sun. But perhaps Lance could clarify what he meant.

  73. Janice Moore says:
    May 29, 2013 at 6:19 pm
    ….
    I guess you’re telling me that I’m mistaken in thinking that the CERN report of Dr. Kirkby’s CLOUD experiment might end up promoting human-caused climate change (based on the assumption of meaningful significance of human emitted CO2 which was stated by Dr. Kirkby (possibly under pressure) to be a real forcing). ….

    Janice, there is no sound reason to ignore physical facts that are elements of a physical system. There’s no empirical question that CO2 does – very momentarily – interrupt the passage of LWIR from the atmosphere to space, which could lead to some level of increased warmth. Also, there’s no grounds for thinking that CO2 from human sources doesn’t behave like natural CO2.

    The sound and fury in the climate debate, at least between warmists and luke-warmists, has to do with magical – not empirically measured – properties that are imputed to CO2 by the climate models employed by by the authors of previous IPCC reports, and which make even the miniscule increase generated by human sources immensely more powerful than logic says they can possibly be.

    That said, it is worth noting that getting an analysis report out the door and accepted is occasionally accompanied by the authors being subjected to severe arm twisting to include various phrases that clients, critics, peer reviewers and bloggers would like to see, whether they are germane to the paper or not. There is for instance no reason to even mention CO2 in a study that looks at the effects of high energy particles on cloud formation unless those particles also affect CO2 in some manner.

  74. Lance of BC says:
    May 30, 2013 at 3:33 am

    The so called GCR is a misnomer for me. We(Earth) are constantly bombarded by nuclei in many forms, salts, gases, elements, particulate. …

    GCRs are entirely different beasts from “salts, gases, elements, ….” etc. Entirely. The latter do not arrive with relativistic speeds for instance, nor are they “radiation” in any sense of the word, where as the “R” in GCR stands for “Ray.”

  75. Duster says:
    May 30, 2013 at 9:52 am
    nor are they “radiation” in any sense of the word, where as the “R” in GCR stands for “Ray.”
    The ‘Ray’ is a misnomer [kept for historical reasons]. Cosmic Rays are not ‘rays’ but particles.

  76. Is there a primary driver that causes different short term and longer term changes in the earth’s climate? We do not know. I do not know. That said, I am glad that the fixation on CO2 is beginning to wane. Other possibilities hopefully can now be honestly evaluated employing true science. But the truth may be that lots of things have varying influences and none really matter at all. Earth may have an eternal/internal design to maintain an equilibrium much like Willis Eschenbach suggested in an earlier post with regards to the thermostat hypothesis Sorry I’m to lazy to find and link to the several posts by Willis but newcomers to this site should read..

    An open mind is a terrible thing to waste. A corrupt one is a terrible thing to feed.

  77. lsvalgaard says:

    May 30, 2013 at 8:31 am

    Jim G says:
    May 30, 2013 at 5:58 am
    “He did not say they “came from the sun”, but that their “residue
    is formed from interaction with our sun”. A much different statement.”

    lsvalgaard says:
    “I agree that his statement is very muddled,”

    Nor did I say that his statement is “very muddled”. It seems that you are only in agreement with yourself and twisting the words of others.

  78. Jim G says:
    May 30, 2013 at 12:56 pm
    It seems that you are only in agreement with yourself and twisting the words of others.
    I do not seek agreement with anybody, rather just pointing out the wrongness of the supposition.

  79. (OT) Leif – I am interested in your statement “Cosmic Rays are not ‘rays’ but particles.“. Are they really just particles, or is it their particle-like behaviour which is seen. I’m mindful that light, for example, is seen to have both particle-like and wave-like behaviour. (I know nothing of quantum physics, so if you reply please keep it simple!).

  80. Mike Jonas says:
    May 30, 2013 at 2:29 pm
    (OT) Leif – I am interested in your statement “Cosmic Rays are not ‘rays’ but particles.“. Are they really just particles
    They are protons [mostly] with a mattering of heavier [mostly Helium] atomic nuclei, thus just regular particles [not light rays]. The difference is that particles have mass, rays do not.

  81. “But we know too little about aerosols.”

    This being the case, one experiment will not mean they know ENOUGH about aerosols. Therefore, no matter the outcome, whatever conclusions are drawn will be premature.

    At the same time, if the results falsify what is claimed by either side, that is a big deal.

    Steve Garcia

  82. lsvalgaard says:

    May 29, 2013 at 9:56 pm

    Carla says:
    May 29, 2013 at 7:35 pm
    “”” The use of high-latitude ice core data as a test of the CR effect on climate (12) may not be ideal. “”” Is this implying an uneven distribution of GCR into the Earth system?
    It is because the amount of radionuclides found at high latitudes is strongly controlled by climate [the 10Be is generated elsewhere and brought to the poles by atmospheric circulation].

    Thank you Dr. Svalgaard.

    I do have a question. I don’t know if this is even considered, when talking about the size of the heliosphere expansions and contractions.
    Do we observe more intense solar activity, (CME’s Flares) propagating upwind or downwind out of the heliosphere?
    If while the Voyagers 1+2 are headed upwind out of the heliosphere bubble and the bubble begins shrinking due to lowered solar activity wouldn’t knew interaction regions be formed at the new boundaries and a new population of solar cosmic rays be generated back inwards? Wouldn’t the Parker Spiral structure be all broken up and such?

  83. Carla says:
    May 30, 2013 at 4:50 pm
    Do we observe more intense solar activity, (CME’s Flares) propagating upwind or downwind out of the heliosphere?
    Solar activity does not know about what happens at the boundary of the heliosphere because the solar wind is supersonic.

    a new population of solar cosmic rays be generated back inwards? Wouldn’t the Parker Spiral structure be all broken up and such?
    Same reason as above: the wind is supersonic so the solar cosmic rays and the Parker spiral in the inner solar system are not affected. There is population of low-energy ‘anomalous cosmic rays’ that is slightly affected, but that is not a major change.

  84. Thank you Dr. Svalgaard for responding to my post, and my comment could come across muddled. But muddled I am or more to the point, if we have so much confidence(somewhat) in a theory of GCR( particles) and carbon dating using a constant state of 14, why would logic not dictate that the star that born us would be ejecting energetic particles seeding/building our atmosphere and leaving residual elements raining down and mixing into our atmosphere like carbon 14.
    What could those particles be comprised of?

    89% of the nuclei being hydrogen,10% helium, 1% heavier elements like carbon, oxygen, magnesium, silicon, and iron.

    Hmm, what is the sun made of?

    72 % hydrogen, 26% helium and trace oxygen, carbon, neon, nitrogen, magnesium, iron and silicon.

    http://www.space.com/17170-what-is-the-sun-made-of.html

    Where is that nuclei coming from?

    California Institute of Technology

    “The term “cosmic rays” usually refers to galactic cosmic rays, which originate in sources outside the solar system, distributed throughout our Milky Way galaxy. However, this term has also come to include other classes of energetic particles in space, including nuclei and electrons accelerated in association with energetic events on the Sun (called solar energetic particles), and particles accelerated in interplanetary space”

    http://www.srl.caltech.edu/personnel/dick/cos_encyc.html

    “Cosmic rays are deflected by the magnetic fields in interstellar space, they are also affected by the interplanetary magnetic field embedded in the solar wind (the plasma of ions and electrons blowing from the solar corona at about 400 km/sec), and therefore have difficulty reaching the inner solar system”

    So yeah, I think the sun is a major contributor to the gasses/aerosols/cfc’s/co2/oxygen in our atmosphere AND mineral build ups, we are born from the sun. ;^)

    PS. Your knowledge and understanding of our solar system is far beyond mine. Thank you.
    But I’ve had trouble deciphering your cryptic comments on this site for years. Please tell us were we went wrong without the arrogance.

    With all respect,

    Lance of BC

  85. lsvalgaard says:
    May 30, 2013 at 7:41 pm

    Voyagers got it covered Dr. S. Solar wind in Voyager 1 location hit zero, but location becomes some super magnetic corridor. Magnetic field angle abrubtly changes from 90 to 270 degrees.
    Is that like putting a scoop on the hood? Oh yes, and something about a heliocliff.

    Recent Voyager 1 Data Indicate that on August 25, 2012 at a Distance of 121.7 AU
    From the Sun, Sudden and Unprecedented Intensity Changes were Observed in
    Anomalous and Galactic Cosmic Rays
    W.R. Webber1 and F.B. McDonald2
    ©2013 American Geophysical Union.

    1. Introduction
    The passage of the Voyagers 1 and 2 spacecraft through the outer heliosphere
    (heliosheath) has revealed a region quite unlike the inner heliosphere inside the heliospheric
    termination shock (HTS). The radial solar wind speed slows down from ~400 km/s to ~130
    km/s (Richardson, et al., 2008) and later at about 20 AU beyond the HTS may decrease to
    very low values (Krimigis, et al., 2011). The anomalous and galactic cosmic ray (ACR and
    GCR) intensities hardly changed at the HTS contrary to theoretical expectations (Stone, et al.,
    2005). The magnetic field shows many distinct structures or features associated with the
    HTS and the heliosheath region beyond (Burlaga and Ness, 2010). One of the largest of these
    structures was encountered by V1 at 2009.7 when the spacecraft was ~17 AU beyond the
    HTS crossing distance of 94 AU. At this time the field direction suddenly changed from 90°
    to 270° possibly indicating a sector crossing. Also at this time the galactic cosmic ray
    electron intensity increased by an unprecedented 30% and the radial intensity gradients of
    these electrons and higher energy nuclei decreased by over a factor of two (Webber, et al.,
    2012). Sudden intensity increases of electrons and nuclei again occurred about 1.5 years later
    at a distance of ~116.5 AU or 22.5 AU beyond the HTS crossing distance. More recently a
    new series of changes have been observed starting at about 2012.0 in both GCR and ACR. In
    particular at about 2012.35 at ~120.5 AU from the Sun, large increases of both GCR nuclei
    and electrons were observed with little corresponding changes of ACR. In fact, throughout
    many of these unusual GCR intensity changes in the outer heliosphere, the ACR H, He and O
    nuclei from ~1-50 MeV hardly changed at all and any changes in ACR and GCR were not
    always correlated.
    The ACR represent the dominant energetic population in the heliosheath above ~1
    MeV with intensities ~102-103 times those observed in the heliosphere inside the HTS. These
    ACR particles are accelerated somewhere in the heliosheath (several mechanisms are
    possible) and remain quasi trapped there, leaking into the inner heliosphere where they are
    only weakly observed at the Earth. At the outer boundary of the heliosheath these particles
    may also leak out into the interstellar region.
    On August 25th when V1 was at 121.7 AU from the Sun the intensity of the ACR
    component began to decrease rapidly. Within a few days the intensity of this dominant
    energetic heliosheath component above 1-2 MeV decreased by more than 90-95% reaching
    intensity levels not seen at V1 since it was well inside the HTS. At the same time a sudden increase of a factor of ~2 occurred in lower energy (6-100 MeV) electrons and ~30-50% for
    the higher energy nuclei above 100 MeV. This simultaneous reduction of ACR intensities at
    lower energies and the abrupt increase in GCR intensities at higher energies has suddenly
    revealed one of the holy grails of GCR studies, the actual local interstellar spectra (LIS) of
    the GCR nuclei from H to Fe above ~10-20 MeV and possibly even to lower energies. For
    the multi-dimensional CRS instrument used here (Stone, et al., 1977), the intrinsic
    backgrounds are so low that the observed reduction of ACR is at least a factor ~300-500
    making the low energy GCR measurements possible.
    This large decrease of ACR was preceded by 2 precursor temporary decreases starting
    on July 28th and August 14th. Thus V1 may have crossed a boundary, which itself was very
    sharp, at least 5 times during this time period.
    It is this transition into a new region and some of its implications that we wish to
    summarize in this paper. Further details of these remarkable events will be presented in
    subsequent articles.

  86. Lance of BC says:

    May 31, 2013 at 12:05 am

    Thank you for the cosmic ray review. You may find your real space mother in the article above about recent discoveries of Voyager 1. Accretion to a solar system occurs at differing levels for differing stars for differing locations.

    That magnetic highway Voyager 1 discovered last year, may hold some of the mystery to “magnetic reconnection,” region.
    NASA Voyager 1 Encounters New Region in Deep Space

    http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?release=2012-381#

    December 03, 2012
    ..Since December 2004, when Voyager 1 crossed a point in space called the termination shock, the spacecraft has been exploring the heliosphere’s outer layer, called the heliosheath. In this region, the stream of charged particles from the sun, known as the solar wind, abruptly slowed down from supersonic speeds and became turbulent. Voyager 1’s environment was consistent for about five and a half years. The spacecraft then detected that the outward speed of the solar wind slowed to zero.

    The intensity of the magnetic field also began to increase at that time.

    Voyager data from two onboard instruments that measure charged particles showed the spacecraft first entered this magnetic highway region on July 28, 2012. The region ebbed away and flowed toward Voyager 1 several times. The spacecraft entered the region again Aug. 25 and the environment has been stable since.

    “If we were judging by the charged particle data alone, I would have thought we were outside the heliosphere,” said Stamatios Krimigis, principal investigator of the low-energy charged particle instrument, based at the Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory, Laurel, Md. “But we need to look at what all the instruments are telling us and only time will tell whether our interpretations about this frontier are correct.”

    Spacecraft data revealed the magnetic field became stronger each time Voyager entered the highway region; however, the direction of the magnetic field lines did not change.

    “We are in a magnetic region unlike any we’ve been in before — about 10 times more intense than before the termination shock — but the magnetic field data show no indication we’re in interstellar space,” said Leonard Burlaga, a Voyager magnetometer team member based at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md. “The magnetic field data turned out to be the key to pinpointing when we crossed the termination shock. And we expect these data will tell us when we first reach interstellar space.”..

  87. Lance of BC says:

    May 30, 2013 at 3:33 am

    The so called GCR is a misnomer for me. We(Earth) are constantly bombarded by nuclei in many forms, salts, gases, elements, particulate. They rain down on us 24/7 and have been for billions of years…if there was life in the oceans but not on land till some algae made our oxygen atmosphere, where did the oxygen come from to make the oceans?

    For some GCR nuclides, the resulting Beryllium-10 isotope proxy highly correlates to glaciation events. See 10be references here and here. The latter also includes evidence of interstellar halides as an ozone-depleting agent.

    In answer to your question, Green cyanobacteria took almost a blllion years to create our oxygen atmosphere.

  88. Sun …… Ocean…….Clouds …….take a look at pictures of the Earth from space ……. !!!!!
    “How inappropriate to call this planet “Earth,” when it is clearly “Ocean.”
    ― Arthur C. Clarke

  89. I didn’t read this post the first time around. So this is why the neutron monitor and the surface sst and 0 to 100m, go hand in hand in a graph. The sst varies a bit, but the ocean does have it’s own dynamics.

Comments are closed.