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.
From WUWT topic, “”Voyager1 – so far out, there’s no solar wind anymore””
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/14/voyager1-so-far-out-theres-no-solar-wind-anymore/#comment-550583
Leif Svalgaard says:
December 16, 2010 at 6:55 pm
Carla says:
December 16, 2010 at 5:51 pm
The Frisch team is suggesting that 2 km/sec difference would create a substantial differnce in the pressure gradient.
I don’t think they really mean that. Show us.
~
Time-variability in the Interstellar Boundary Conditions
of the Heliosphere over the past 60,000 years:
Impact of the Solar Journey on the Galactic Cosmic Ray Flux
at Earth
Priscilla C. Frisch · Hans-Reinhard Mueller
21 Oct 2010
Received: date / Accepted: date
Abstract During the solar journey through galactic space, variations in the physical
properties of the surrounding interstellar material (ISM) modify the heliosphere and
modulate the flux of galactic cosmic rays (GCR) at the surface of the Earth, with
consequences for the cosmogenic radionuclides at Earth. The diverse ram pressures
and ionization levels of ISM possible in the low density solar environment generate
dramatically different possible heliosphere configurations, with a wide range of particle
fluxes of interstellar neutrals and their secondary products, as well as GCR arriving at
Earth. However, simple models of the distribution and densities of ISM in the downwind
direction give cloud transition timescales that can be directly compared with
cosmogenic radionuclide geologic records. Both the interstellar data and cosmogenic
radionuclide data are consistent with cloud transitions within the past 10,000 years
and 20,000–30,000 years ago, although the many assumptions about the ISM that are
made in arriving at these numbers indicate that the uncertainties are quite large.
1 Introduction
..The sensitivity of the heliosphere configuration to the total interstellar pressure, including
the dynamic ram pressure and magnetic pressure (Holzer 1989) indicate that the global
heliosphere is a weather vane for the circumheliospheric ISM (CISM). Sufficient data
on interstellar absorption lines are now available that the general characteristics of
the circumheliosphere ISM can be reconstructed for the past 100, 000 years (Section
2), providing a basis for evaluating the ISM-modified heliosphere (Section 3), and
comparing these historical variations with the geologic radio-isotope record (Section
4). Any scenario connecting features in the geomagnetic record with interstellar cloud
encounters will necessarily include assumptions about the ISM, as well as an incomplete
understanding of galactic cosmic ray (GCR) modulation for variable heliosphere
configurations. Our conclusions below linking cloud transitions to discontinuities in the
geologic radioisotope record are subject to these uncertainties..
2.1 Dynamics, Structure, and Interstellar Magnetic Field in contemporary ISM
..The CLIC (Cluster of Local Interstellar Clouds) is a decelerating flow of ISM. ISM kinematics towards nearby stars show the galactic environment of the Sun changes rapidly. From upwind to downwind, interstellar velocities in the solar inertial system (”heliocentric”, HC) are –28.4 km s−1
towards 36 Oph, 26.3 km s−1 in the inner heliosphere, and 23.4 km s−1 towards χ1
Ori. If all other cloud parameters are the same, there is a 50% difference in the ram
pressures of these clouds, which alone leads to a significant distortion of the heliosphere.
Using VHC for nearby clouds in Table 1, variations in the interstellar ram pressure on
the heliosphere may be a factor of 4.2 over the past 105 years..
I do think that they are trying to say that Leif.
Now I will try to finish reading this one and keep a pencil handy, “I brought my pencil.” Van Halen.
Anthony, here is an up to date neutron count graph:
http://neutronm.bartol.udel.edu/~pyle/modplotth.gif
REPLY: Got a raw data source for that? – Anthony
Just wanted to follow up on a previous comment about the potential for liquid fuel production from biosynthetic organisms.
Just a few months ago this patent was issued for a genetically modified cyanobacteria that produces liquid fuel (certain alkanes) directly from sunlight, water, and CO2.
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=joule.ASNM.&OS=AN/joule&RS=AN/joule
This patent was filed in April 2010 and was granted in September 2010 which is in my experience (I participated in the generation of 300 granted patents) is lightning fast approval which usually means it was recognized as important to US interests.
The company who owns it is headquartered in Boston (a hotbed for biosynthetic R&D):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joule_Unlimited
Interestingly they built a pilot plant this year with $30M in private funding which the company claims will be producing 20,000 gallons of biofuel per acre in 2011. The interesting part for me is that pilot plant happens to be in my neighborhood (about 10 miles away) on a 5-acre tract in the city of Leander, TX. I live in the Leander school district. The plant is in close proximity to the Leander wastewater processing plant and it uses gray water from that plant for its process. The location was chosen because of its proximity to very nutrient rich water and 248 days per year of clear sky subtropical sunlight. Treatment plant wastewater is high in phosphorus which is bad for dumping into lakes and rivers because it encourages cynabacteria blooms that can choke fish and cause other problems. It’s ideal if you’re actually wanting to grow blue-green algae.
Joule goes on to claim that their process can supply the US with ALL its transportation fuel from an area the size of the Texas panhandle. Cool stuff.
Bart Verheggen says:
December 18, 2010 at 2:44 am
The last graph of this post is pretty strong evidence that cosmic rays can not have been a major culprit in having caused the recent global warming of the past 3-4 decades, since they show no sign of a trend.
Maybe. Maybe not. The peaks appear wider than the valleys, so maybe if you integrate it, you will see an average increase in slope. And, should not the effect be cumulative? I’m just speculating, but mainly pointing out that surface impressions can be misleading.
vukcevic says:
December 18, 2010 at 6:52 am
Anthony, here is an up to date neutron count graph:
http://neutronm.bartol.udel.edu/~pyle/modplotth.gif
REPLY: Got a raw data source for that? – Anthony
~
http://neutronm.bartol.udel.edu/
Scroll down the left collumn, find real time cosmic ray stations. Links provide access to preliminary archived data, as well as..
Ooops sorry for the interuptzzzz
Why does the ‘low cloud cover’ (blue line) in the graph end in 2002? Do we have our own ‘hide the decline’?
Ferdinand Engelbeen asks : “Any idea what caused the 1998 sharp drop in low cloud cover (influence of the 1998 El Niño?)?“. No, but from memory didn’t the IPCC use something like that to to dismiss Svensmark’s theory in IPCC Report AR4?
This was the abstract from the presentation given at the AGU, there is a little bit more here than the Nature blog…
Aerosol nucleation measurements from the CLOUD experiment at CERN
Globally, a significant source of cloud condensation nuclei is thought to originate from the nucleation of trace sulphuric acid vapour (H2SO4). Despite an extensive research effort, questions remain about the nucleation mechanism and the influence of cosmic rays. Here we present the first results from the CLOUD experiment at CERN. We find that cosmic ray ionisation substantially increases the nucleation rate of sulphuric acid particles. For mid-tropospheric temperatures, typical atmospheric concentrations of H2SO4 and H2O are sufficient for nucleation to take place via the ion-induced binary mechanism. However, for boundary-layer temperatures, even in the presence of ions, the concentrations of H2SO4 required for nucleation are well above atmospheric values, indicating that additional compounds must be participating in the boundary layer. Our measurements of the growing sulphuric acid clusters reveal that they are stabilised by the stepwise accretion of nitrogen-containing molecules: ammonia, amines or urea. This N-stabilisation mechanism may help explain seemingly conflicting laboratory experiments and atmospheric observations. Our results constitute quantitative measurements of purely-neutral and ion-induced nucleation of sulphuric acid particles. Furthermore, in the CLOUD experiment, chemical composition of the growing clusters and the nucleation mechanism at the molecular level is revealed.
Sorry … but the graph shows the opposite of what the theory states. The graph shows when there is a negative decrease (ie. an increase) in cosmic rays then there is a decrease in cloud cover … unless I’m reading it wrong.
The theory states that an increase in cosmic rays (at a time of low solar activity) leads to an increase in cloud cover.
I suspect they just screwed up the axis of the graph, but honestly, if you ae trying to overturn a juggernaut like AGW you can’t make schoolboy errors on graphs.