From Nature blog: Sunny days for CLOUD experiment
An experiment designed to investigate the link between solar activity and the climate has its first results in the bag. At the American Geophysical Union meeting in San Francisco today, Joachim Curtius presented data from the first runs of the CLOUD (‘cosmics leaving outdoor droplets’) experiment at CERN – the European particle physics lab outside of Geneva.
The experiment has a long and bumpy history. The idea is to test the theory that cosmic rays spur the formation of particles in the air that nucleate clouds, in turn making skies cloudier and the planet cooler. Researchers have noted a dearth of sunspots (which is linked to more cosmic rays) during the ‘little ice age’ of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, and a peak in sunspots (linked to a drop in cosmic rays) during the late 1980s, when global cloudiness dropped by about 3% (see Nature‘s feature on the project). No one knows how big this effect might be, and the idea that it might account for a big chunk of the warming over the last century is highly controversial.
CLOUD uses a particle beam from CERN as a stand-in for cosmic rays, and fires them through an ultra-clean steel chamber filled with select atmospheric gases, to see if and how particles that could nucleate clouds are formed. Project head Jasper Kirkby proposed the experiment back in 1998. But it had a hard time getting off the ground – perhaps in part because Kirkby received bad press for emphasizing the importance of cosmic rays to climate change (see this story from the National Post). CLOUD finally got going in 2006, and they started work with the full kit in November 2009 (here’s a CERN video update about that).
The results haven’t yet been published, so Curtius declined to discuss the details. But the important thing is that the project is working – they have seen sulphuric acid and water combine to make particles when blasted by the CERN beam, for example, in a way that matches predictions of the most recent models. 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.
============================================================
Dr. Roy Spencer has mentioned that it doesn’t take much in the way of cloud cover changes to add up to the “global warming signal” that has been observed. He writes in The Great Global Warming Blunder:
The most obvious way for warming to be caused naturally is for small, natural fluctuations in the circulation patterns of the atmosphere and ocean to result in a 1% or 2% decrease in global cloud cover. Clouds are the Earth’s sunshade, and if cloud cover changes for any reason, you have global warming — or global cooling.
This graph certainly lends credence to the theory:
Here’s a longer record of cosmic rays:
See also this WUWT story:
Something to be thankful for! At last: Cosmic rays linked to rapid mid-latitude cloud changes
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
When Suzuki quoted Svensmark in “CBC The Nature of Things”… it means the wind is about to turn…
What? An actual physical testing of a hypothesis? What the heck is science coming to? /sarc
Very interesting! Although probably not the only influence on clouds, it shows that most climate models underestimate solar changes by only taking into account the influence of direct solar radiation…
Any idea what caused the 1998 sharp drop in low cloud cover (influence of the 1998 El Niño?)?
“they have seen sulphuric acid and water combine to make particles when blasted by the CERN beam, for example, in a way that matches predictions of the most recent models. ”
This is so unpredictable result.
It’s the sun, stu——, I mean, my fellow scientists.
When I think back to the blasting I used to get, back around 2007, when I so much as suggested the sun had any influence on warming and/or cooling periods on earth, it amazes me. I wonder if those folk will ever get around to eating crow, or their hats, or whether they will simply fade away quietly, and hope no one remembers how amazingly rude they once were.
This is most exciting from several aspects. Greatly so since it is the application of experimental science in an attempt to calibrate the numerical and other types of models. We have empirical measurements of many factors but as yet lack the understanding of how they interact with each other. I guess us science junkies will just have to sit on our hands and hold for results. Three years is not all that long just think about Voyageur.
Just like science should be, slow and cautious in the face of political anxiety. Very unlike those claiming to have written the last word on precisely what is warming the planet.
I would like to see Svensmark and Kirby jointly recieve a Nobel Prize one day in the not too distant future.
Ok I see a strong correlation between cosmic rays and cloud cover. But what about temperature? The year 1998 had high cloud cover, but that was a warm year. Cloud cover has diminished since then and so has the earth’s temperature. That seems to imply that clouds have a net warming effect.
It’s certainly true that clouds can block sunlight and that produces cooling. But it’s also true that clouds can act like radiation shields, absorbing radiant energy leaving earth and reradiating part of it back to earth. That produces warming. So which effect dominates?
David S says:
December 16, 2010 at 8:32 am
…So which effect dominates?
That depends greatly (as I understand it) on the type and altitude of clouds that exist. It’s safe to say, however, that climate models that do not properly simulate clouds cannot be trusted as anything other than a software exercise.
I don’t think the fact of the effects is an issue. As with more CO2 the issue is quantification of the effect in relation to other factors.
For the time being I prefer the alternative explanation of latitudinally shifting jets and their associated cloud bands allowing more or less energy into the oceans depending on the level of solar activity working via the polar vortex, the size intensity and position of the polar high pressure cells and the surface spread of the polar air masses (subject to oceanic modulation though).
I honestly think the cloud / temperature / sun link is obvious and direct.
Lets look at Night vs Daytime weather.
Often the cloud cover is reduced at night and temperatures fall away rapidly and, that cover increases during the day.
You only have to wake up early on a clear sunny morning and by 10 am clouds are forming, and the temperatures increase throughout the day.
At night the clouds cover reduces and the temperatures fall back.
But since when has observation and empirical evidence have to do with climate science.
@tallbloke
Nobel Prize? What have they done to deserve that ignominy?!!
😉
This falls under the category — tease!!!
I’ve been watching for CLOUD results since I read ‘The Chilling Stars’. Now I have to wait 2-3 more years??
@ur momisugly Caleb says:
December 16, 2010 at 8:15 am
It’s the sun, stu——, I mean, my fellow scientists.
When I think back to the blasting I used to get, back around 2007, when I so much as suggested the sun had any influence on warming and/or cooling periods on earth, it amazes me. I wonder if those folk will ever get around to eating crow, or their hats, or whether they will simply fade away quietly, and hope no one remembers how amazingly rude they once were.
=================
What they will most likely do is act like they believed this to be the case all along and hope no one remembers the past. It seems to work well for many politicians.
I’m guessing there are two or three levels of abstraction here (possibly more): solar changes causing cloud condensation nuclei concentration changes, causing cloud changes, which cause ocean heat content changes, which cause atmospheric temperature changes. There would be various lags and feedbacks associated with each, so it probably isn’t a simple case of finding the phase correlation between any two of the variables and thinking you’ve got to the fact of the matter.
The 50-year record of cosmic rays certainly has a remarkably close correlation with the 11-year sunspot cycle (inverted, of course), in terms of period, though amplitude correlation isn’t very exact (using Wolf sunspot numbers). One interesting feature is the extended trough in the cosmic ray graph in the early 2000’s – perhaps this relates to the double peak in the sunspot numbers which was separated by about 2 years (when the first peak was North dominant and the second peak South dominant).
James says:
December 16, 2010 at 8:41 am
This is not what’s being studied. The atmosphere can become extremely supersaturated with water vapor if there are no condensation nuclei to start cloud formation. The posited effect is on low maritime clouds, not clouds over land as you describe.
Essentially (from memory, I’ve likely missed a step or two – read “The Chilling Stars”) is consmic rays hit upper atmosphere, produce shower of muons, muons ionize H2SO4 gas in lower atmosphere (source is DMS released from ocean by decaying algae being converted to SO2 by sunlight and reacting with H2O and O2) H2SO4 clumps together and H2O joins it to make cloud condensation nuclei.
Hmm, I may have indeed screwed that up badly. Tough – it’s time for lunch. I’m sure dozens of readers will correct the mistakes!
David S says:
December 16, 2010 at 8:32 am
So which effect dominates?
================================================
David, NASA says cooling.
“Understanding cloud effects requires a detailed knowledge of how clouds absorb and reflect incoming shortwave solar energy, as well as how they absorb and re-emit outgoing longwave energy. For example, low, thick clouds primarily reflect incoming solar energy back to space causing cooling. Thin, high clouds, however, primarily trap outgoing longwave energy and produce warming. To date, satellite studies have found that clouds have an overall net cooling effect on the Earth.”
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/langley/news/factsheets/CERES.html
2 to 3 years ? It may be the sign that the results undermine the AGW theory.
If they had been pro AGW, all the media in the world would have written about them by now.
Please don’t forget Jasper kirkby’s original presentation here at the Cern site :
http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1181073/
A must watch !!!
remembers how amazingly rude they once were.
Dennis Nikols, P. Geol. says:
December 16, 2010 at 8:16 am
“This is most exciting from several aspects. Greatly so since it is the application of experimental science in an attempt to calibrate the numerical and other types of models. We have empirical measurements of many factors but as yet lack the understanding of how they interact with each other.”
Pardon me for being a purist, but I would like to see the word “hypothesis” in here somewhere. If this new work produces nothing more than data points to be “fitted” to climate models then I see no advance at all. I take it that the scientists have some hypotheses about interactions among cosmic rays and various constituents of he atmosphere and they are running experiments to test these hypotheses.
Forgive a slightly off topic question, but what studies have been done to look at stratospheric changes in H2O, CO2 concentrations resulting in the elimination of Concord and SR-71 flights in 2003 and 1999 respectively. Has the albeto of the high stratosphere declined with less exhaust from supersonic planes?
There has been much comment about purposely injecting SO2 into the Stratosphere for a cooling effect. But what about the side effect of what happened when we reduced the number of supersonic flights in the stratosphere over the past 15 years?
“Caleb says:
December 16, 2010 at 8:15 am
It’s the sun, stu——, I mean, my fellow scientists.
When I think back to the blasting I used to get, back around 2007, when I so much as suggested the sun had any influence on warming and/or cooling periods on earth, it amazes me. I wonder if those folk will ever get around to eating crow, or their hats, or whether they will simply fade away quietly, and hope no one remembers how amazingly rude they once were.”
Nah, they’ll claim that it is exactly what is predicted by global warming “science” and the models.
David S says:
December 16, 2010 at 8:32 am
“[…] so which effect dominates?”
It seems obvious to this untrained, uncredentialed observer that this is an incorrect approach when considering the function of clouds in the overall system. A better question is the determination of their role, overall, and how their properties interact with the other activities and conditions.
Bias admission – my skepticism peaks when someone advocates one item within an interdependent and complex system (particularly ones for which the advocate readily admits an ignorance of totality about) as being “key”, or “most important” – when due to the fact that it’s a holistic system, such a statement could equally, and as erroneously made, imho, about a variety of the components therein.
This approach is the biggest discrediting factor, for me, in the vehement claims of the import of CO2, particularly to the point of blatant disregard for other factors. And it does not require peeling too many layers from that particular onion to reveal the quite non-scientific motivators and agendas behind it.