You’ve probably all heard of Svensmark and the Galactic Cosmic Ray (GCR) to cloud cover modulation theory by now. Lot’s of warmists say it is “discredited”. However, CERN in Switzerland isn’t following that thinking, and after getting some encouraging results in the CLOUD06 experiment, they have funded a much larger and more comprehensive CLOUD09 experiment. I figure if it is “discredited”, a bunch of smart guys and gals like CERN wouldn’t be ramping up the investigation. There’s also word now of a new correlation:
I get so many tips now it is hard to choose, but this one is a gem. If you look at nothing else this month, please take the time to download the slide show from CERN’s Jasper Kirkby at the end of this article.
He does a superb job of tying it all together. I found Kirkby’s slide show quite interesting, and I’ve grabbed some slides for our WUWT readers. He proposes a GCR to cloud droplet mechanism, which to me, makes sense meteorologically. He also touches on the possibility that the Inter-Tropical Convergence Zone (ITCZ) may have been shifted due to GCR modulation during the LIA/Maunder Minimum. This ties in with Willis Eschenbach’s theories of the ITCZ being a “thermostatic mechanism” for the planet with some amplification effects. – Anthony
Norm Potter writes in Tips and Notes for WUWT with this-
The end is near for the warmists, I suspect. This month, Jasper Kirkby of CERN explained the Centre’s CLOUD experiment, which is moving forward:
“The current understanding of climate change in the industrial age is that it is predominantly caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gases, with relatively small natural contributions due to solar irradiance and volcanoes. However, palaeoclimatic reconstructions show that the climate has frequently varied on 100-year time scales during the Holocene (last 10 kyr) by amounts comparable to the present warming – and yet the mechanism or mechanisms are not understood. Some of these reconstructions show clear associations with solar variability, which is recorded in the light radio-isotope archives that measure past variations of cosmic ray intensity. However, despite the increasing evidence of its importance, solar-climate variability is likely to remain controversial until a physical mechanism is established.
“Estimated changes of solar irradiance on these time scales appear to be too small to account for the climate observations. This raises the question of whether cosmic rays may directly affect the climate, providing an effective indirect solar forcing mechanism. Indeed recent satellite observations – although disputed – suggest that cosmic rays may affect clouds. This talk presents an overview of the palaeoclimatic evidence for solar/cosmic ray forcing of the climate, and reviews the possible physical mechanisms. These will be investigated in the CLOUD experiment which begins to take data at the CERN PS later this year.”
I found this side on page 29 to be plausible from a meteorological standpoint:
Here is a slide showing the ITCZ shift he’s proposing:
And here is the data and some conjectures, obviously more data is needed. However what is seen so far certainly seems far from “discredited” as some warmists say.
In the conclusions of his slide show, Kirkby outlines the state of knowledge and areas of investigation:
• Climate has continually varied in the past, and the causes are not well understood – especially on the 100 year timescalerelevant for today’s climate change
• Strong evidence for solar-climate variability, but no established mechanism. A cosmic ray influence on clouds is a leading candidate
• CLOUD at CERN aims to study and quantify the cosmic raycloud mechanism in a controlled laboratory experiment
• The question of whether – and to what extent – the climate is influenced by solar/cosmic ray variability remains central to our understanding of anthropogenic climate change
More info, see: http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1181073/ – the CERN Colloquium
Download Kirkby’s Slide show (Large 7.8 MB PDF, be patient)
http://indico.cern.ch/getFile.py/access?resId=0&materialId=slides&confId=52576
Backup Copy on WUWT server: Kirkby_CERN_slideshow09
Shed a tear for Henry Waxman who passed out and was hospitalised today…may the saviour of the world be healed quickly.
Leif Svalgaard (14:22:28) :
Additionally Leif, Be10 can be created in situ in silica-rich rocks/sediments from not only extra-solar GCRs, but rays from our own sun.
So many variables….
Robinson (15:34:54) :
I think when political considerations come into play however, it’s difficult to stay neutral.
Difficult perhaps for a layman, but not for a scientist [except at such times where she/he chooses to be a layman, e.g. in the voting booth]. I don’t hear [perhaps I’m sheltered] scientists say: “for political reasons I think the moon is made of green cheese”, or “for political reasons I think the Sun’s effective temperature is 5780C”.
Jakers (12:51:03) :
The word “probably” does not equate with “proclaiming the results before the experiment even started”. But thanks for proving my point so promptly!
Aron 15:43:58,
Did he pass out due to global warming?
Mr. Kaos (15:20:22) :
Strangely, on the basis of this throw away comment by Leif Svalgaard some here seem to now accept AGW has some merit
Yes, it was a throw away comment, but the authors themselves in their conclusion say that the recent rise is attributable to CO2. In fact they have it both ways: half the Sun and half CO2. It is for that reason that I don’t see how the paper can spell ‘the end is near for Warmists’. It looks like there is something there for everybody, which in my book often simply means ‘not much for anybody’.
Regarding various comments beginning with:
“If I didn’t know any better, I would say that the red curve since 1900 is significantly above the GCR curves thus clearly indicating that fossil fuels [or man’s activities] are responsible for the extra warming…”
The red curve and the GCR curves are in entirely different units. Which ever is “above” or “below” the other is entirely a function of the y-axis scales and intercepts chosen by the graphic artist.
Nor can one “subtract” the red curve from the other curves or vice versa. They are entirely different units. That would be like subtracting apples from oranges.
Come on, people. You are all smarter than that.
Questions of timing and/or trends are a different matter. Those could be evaluated if the data were accurate (a big “if”). But let’s not fall into arithmetic traps. Let’s at least use some algebra.
George
A bit of background: I’m not that young (mid 30s) and have been a physicist for 12 years. My undergrad was physics with astrophysics; my PhD is in Material Science (thin film ferroelectrics) and for 8+ years I have for the most part been building and developing plasma thrusters for satellites. I have one flying at the moment.
The process proposed initially to seed clouds is more complex than a more controlled cloud chamber (which is prepared to have a medium at the point of condensation such that a small energetic perturbation creates the mist) The seeding process must have a net production rate of ions, able to withstand things like scattering loss and recombination after the cosmic ray event, and the atmosphere is not always supercooled and saturated. Much like plasmas there is an intrinsic loss rate and as such there will be threshold intensity for stable ionisation leading to cloud formation. Even before a cloud forms I suspect a much higher intensity of events appears to needed to create ions than in a conventional cloud chamber. The CLOUD experiment should deal with this or at least set up possible stable scenarios i.e. cosmic ray intensity needed for sulphate formation (as above) in a typical atmosphere. But it is not a single-event-producing-a-molecule-type-process. There are two many steps before ions coalesce to form molecules without there being substantial losses rather than how vapour condenses out in a controlled cloud chamber. So a good thing, as I have read, is that they are trying to represent the atmosphere and GCR as best possible. Still I will watch how they are going to extrapolate a credible and repeatable process of large-scale cloud formation from exotic particles and gamma rays passing through a typical terran atmosphere at realistic temperatures and pressures.
If it works, it works but I don’t have a lot of hope for it being a ‘silver bullet’ to properly kill the CO2 werewolf as it were. I think that lies in understanding the causes for things like El Niño
@Robert
Waxman passed out from the fatigue of compiling a certain massive document on behalf of lobbyists
That’s why I made an effort to distinguish between the facts and a hypothesis that sets out to explain the facts. But there’s also some institutional inertia when political considerations come into play, that may direct Scientific effort in certain directions or discourage research in certain other directions. It would be disingenuous for you to deny this (is there anyone in Theoretical Physics not currently working on String Theory?).
It may be that in your particular area (Solar Physics, I believe) that such considerations don’t come into play, apart from the obvious annual horse-trading over budgets, but that doesn’t mean they are absent from certain other areas of Science. We do have Activist Scientists these days, as you well know.
Simply beautiful….
Leif Svalgaard (16:02:33) : You may indeed be sheltered. From:
http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/230_TakingGr.pdf
““The size of the recently observed global warming, over a few decades, is
significantly greater than the natural variations in long simulations with
climate models (if carbon dioxide is kept at pre-industrial levels). Only if the
human input of greenhouse gases is included does the simulated climate agree
with what has been recently observed. Measurements prior to the modern
instrumented record are probably insuficiently frequent and detailed to say
whether such a global warming over a few decades has occurred before.
However in any case, the real issue is whether human activity is causing the
current warming because, if so, then we are able to do something about it.”
Yes, that’s correct, Anthropogenic causality of warming is defended, in part, by the need for “policy relevance”. 🙄
Mike D. (16:07:41) :
The red curve and the GCR curves are in entirely different units. Which ever is “above” or “below” the other is entirely a function of the y-axis scales and intercepts chosen by the graphic artist.
This is a common problem in such comparisons and has a common solution: one ‘scales’ one graph to match the variation in the other graph. The scale factor is the unit conversion. Since the curves [whatever their physical merit is] match for the majority of the time [from 1250 to 1850] that interval essentially fixes the scale factor and NOW it makes sense to talk about ‘above’ and ‘below’. Which simply means that the scale factor for the 1st part of the curve is not the same as for the last little bit. It is this discrepancy that caused the authors to conclude that the difference was anthropogenic [or at least, not due to the Sun, and, as you know, in such a case ‘it is man, what else can it be’]
Aron (16:36:18) :
I wish Waxman had passed out after burying himself with massive piles of scientific papers. I wish they all had done so. It would do them good.
timetochooseagain (17:06:19) :
http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/230_TakingGr.pdf
“[…] because, if so, then we are able to do something about it.”
Yes, that’s correct, Anthropogenic causality of warming is defended, in part, by the need for “policy relevance”.
Nowhere did I see anything about “policy relevance”… so why your link?
Leif Svalgaard (17:09:39) : It’s reassuring that you phrase the argument this way:
“or at least, not due to the Sun, and, as you know, in such a case ‘it is man, what else can it be'”
At least someone seems to get that this is the ludicrous tendency.
Leif Svalgaard (17:32:29) : See the section “Defense of Anthropogenic Causality”-the relevant point is that the defender in question insists that “if so, then we are able to do something about it.”
“do something about”=policy
“able”=can “do something” and thus relevant to policy.
OT: Don’t remember seeing this on here
http://climateresearchnews.com/2009/07/new-paper-evidence-for-solar-forcing-in-variability-of-temperatures-and-pressures-in-europe/
Daily temperature and pressure series from 55 European meteorological stations covering the 20th century are analyzed. The overall temperature mean displays a sharp minimum near 1940 and a step-like jump near 1987. We evaluate the evolution of disturbances of these series using mean squared inter-annual variations and “lifetimes”. The decadal to secular evolutions of solar activity and temperature disturbances display similar signatures over the 20th century. Because of heterogeneity of the climate system response to solar forcing, regional and seasonal approaches are key to successful identification of these signatures. Most of the solar response is governed by the winter months, as best seen near the Atlantic Ocean. Intensities of disturbances vary by factors in excess of 2, underlining a role for the Sun as a significant forcing factor of European atmospheric variations. We speculate about the possible origin of these solar signatures. The last figure of the paper exemplifies its main results.
I would agree with Leif, that this local study doesn’t really support the headline.
firstly, it’s local, secondly, before 1850, the almost perfect correlation of temperatures to the sun is rather suspect, later the sun appears to still drive half of the climate, the rest then should be by land use. local heat islands, greenhouse gases etc. – however, still much less than the warmists say.
The bigger experiment is underway. We have a very quiet sun. Using sunspotless days as a proxy for solar magnetic activity, we are similar to the sequence observed in 1911-1913. The temperature record of 1911-1913 is that the temperature decreased over that period. The MSU data shows a decrease for the past 2 years. If GCR has merit, the great scientist in the sky is running the experiment that will prove or disprove it. We have CO2 going up, we have cosmic ray counts going up. Despite the AMO peak, we should observe additional rapid cooling if GCR beats out CO2. The CERN data will be nice to understand the depth and nature of the process. In the meantime, we can look at the temperatures and cosmic ray flux in real time, right here, right now. My bet is on GCR by 20 lengths.
Manfred (18:13:55) : Unless “etc.” includes unknown or poorly understood non solar natural effects…that’s a fallacy.
Leif,
I think you have a valid point in saying both the 14C and the 10Be records are influenced by climate so there is a certain amount of circular reasoning possible. But I still believe Svensmark is doing the right thing by performing a physical experiment. There are probably a few other possible solar forcing mechanisms other than the GCR theory that could be investigated while waiting for the results from CLOUD. Too much of climate science seems to be trying to rule influences in or out on the basis of questionable reconstructions from incomplete proxy records.
I did get some insights from watching the scientists who opposed the idea of the experiment being conducted in the Cloud Mystery video. One scientist seemed to be objecting not because he was a AGW advocate, but because the experiment could upset the accepted knowledge in his own field relating to cloud nucleation.
One thing I can be sure of is that if a mechanism is established for solar forcing over and above 0.1% TSI variation, there will be a greatly increased interest in the mechanism behind solar cycles.
I just looked again at the chart, and realized that the point when petroleum started being used as fuel, after the 1940s, happens to be when the Siberian temperature’s climb leveled off suddenly. The temp didn’t suddenly start increasing there and then.
“Yes, it was a throw away comment, but the authors themselves in their conclusion say that the recent rise is attributable to CO2. In fact they have it both ways: half the Sun and half CO2. It is for that reason that I don’t see how the paper can spell ‘the end is near for Warmists’. It looks like there is something there for everybody, which in my book often simply means ‘not much for anybody’.”
Or perhaps saying, “half CO2” ensures the completion of further experiments.
timetochooseagain (17:33:32) :
“or at least, not due to the Sun, and, as you know, in such a case ‘it is man, what else can it be’”
At least someone seems to get that this is the ludicrous tendency.
It is equally ludicrous if you substitute ‘man’ with ‘sun’.
timetochooseagain (17:36:22) :
“do something about”=policy
“able”=can “do something” and thus relevant to policy.
Although English is not my mother tongue, I cannot share your interpretation. It doesn’t compute. All it says is that if we can cause something, we can ameliorate it too. Very sensible, and not political at all. The politics comes in if we make judgments about whether what we did is good or bad and if we ‘should’ be doing something about it. IMHO warm is better than cold and if we can do something to keep warm, let’s do it. This is a value judgment and a political statement. Whether we can do it within cost is another matter, so we are down to a cost-benefit analysis, and that may become political because there are also other pressing needs and the priorities are political.