Update on the CERN CLOUD experiment

WUWT reader Max_B tips us off to this article and video.

According to Nigel Calder’s Blog, CERN’s CLOUD experiment (testing Svensmarks’s cosmic-ray theory) shows a large enhancement of aerosol production and the results are due for release in 2 or 3 months’ time. There is a short Physics World interview with Jasper Kirkby which is worthwhile viewing and was published a couple of days ago…

Further down, we have some information from Bishop Hill liveblogging from the recent conference in Cambridge, UK where he makes notes on Q&A with Svensmark, plus a Josh livetoon.

From Physics World Head in a CLOUD:

In this special video report for physicsworld.com CLOUD project leader Jasper Kirkby explains what his team is trying to achieve with its experiment. “We’re trying to understand what the connection is between a cosmic ray going through the atmosphere and the creation of so-called aerosol seeds – the seed for a cloud droplet or an ice particle,” Kirkby explains.

The CLOUD experiment recreates these cloud-forming processes by directing the beamline at CERN’s proton synchrotron into a stainless-steel chamber containing very pure air and selected trace gases.

One of the aims of the experiment is to discover details of cloud formation that could feed back into climate models. “Everybody agrees that clouds have a huge effect on the climate. But the understanding of how big that effect is is really very poorly known,” says Kirkby.

Here’s the video, click image below to launch it.

Bishop Hill liveblogs from Cambridge about Q&A with Henrik Svensmark:

  • Solar effect appears to be large. If exclude solar or regime change, then it makes anthropogenic look much bigger. These effects are not well covered by climate models.
  • Can effect be seen in climate? Use ocean heat content. Forcings = volcanoes, gcr, anthropogenic and a regime change in 1977. Solar effect ~1Wm-2, compares well with Shaviv. If remove solar effect left with apparent regime change in 1977. This can be seen in eg tropospheric temps.
  • Coronal mass ejections – decrease in gcrs at earth – forbush decrease. Is there an atmospheric response? Liquid water in clouds over oceans fall after forbush decrease. Ditto in low clouds etc. Aerosols ditto
  • Always lots of nucleation centres in atmosphere. Is this right?
  • Use trace gases in atmosph concentrations. Change amount of ionisation. See if you get more aerosol particles. SKY experiment.
  • Correlation between low clouds and GCRs – but need mechanism. Ions?
  • Discussion of LIA and solar. Solar irradiance too small to explain Need amplification mechanism – clouds.
  • Get correlations between eg stalagmite 18O and solar variability
  • One particle entering atmosphere generates shower of particles – incl ions which change chemistry
  • CRs accelerated by solar events – supernovae.

Josh Livetoons it:

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
CRS, Dr.P.H.

Great, thanks for the update!
Kirkby gave an excellent presentation on the topic at CERN in 2009, titled “Evidence for pre-industrial solar-climate variability.” It can be viewed at this link:
http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1181073/
It’s long, but well worth watching to get some of the basics down. Interesting to learn that CERN may be validating Svensmark’s theory!

Philip T. Downman

Hope the orthodox publishers can’t delay publication very much. Ought not to be that easy with CERN-articles.
“Sun-deniers” will probably have a though time trying to ignore or explain away the results.

Gary Krause

Ridicule of Svensmark theory will undoubtedly increase in some camps, including some of the established commentinuim at this site. Being an outsider who has been open minded, I find Svensmark’s work the most exciting. Supernova actually create a mechanism that both cools the planet through cloud generation and has the potential clean us off the planet.

Ralph

>>“Sun-deniers” will probably have a though time trying to ignore
>>or explain away the results.
Not sure what is happening with the AGWers in the UK at the moment. We had the warmest April on record, and the BBC did not mention GW once. Have they learned their lesson? Will pigs fly?

pat

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

BENG

‘“Sun-deniers” will probably have a though time trying to ignore or explain away the results.’
I suspect the Main Stream Media will ignore it though – unless someone can really connect it up with the massive AGW expenditure versus Austerity – and put that in the context of repeatable experiments confirming that AGW is minimal.
If this experiment does indeed confirm Svensmark’s theory, then we may be in climatic trouble if we get continued low solar activity. The solar wind still seems to be low in the mean, despite an increase in sun specs. We’ve been preparing for warming at the very time we might have needed to be preparing for cooling.

Bruce

Absolutely fascinating that Svensmark may be vindicated. If so it is a serious blow to the CAGW hypothesis and a great stride towards a real scientific explanation of climate phenomena, including the role of the Sun.
How did they get it funded? You would think the peer-review pirates would gather at the gangway to keep any of this kind of knowledge off the ship at all costs. Possibly the importance to climate research was not obvious to them. I notice the list of scientists working on the project does not include any of the famous names of Climate Science.

A triumph for Henrik and Jasper and their teams!
Science at its best, perseverance at its best and a robust demonstration of how humankind’s knowledge of earth and space science will inexorably advance, thanks to the dedication of a committed few.
This is a tale of scientific endeavor that our kids and grandkids will read about, and learn from, many years from now…
Godt gået!

the results are due for release in 2 or 3 months’ time.
Would be welcome. I seem to have seen this ‘2 or 3 month’s time’ being claimed several times over the past several years…
REPLY: well maybe they are facing some hostility for publication and dirty tricks which is delaying publication…I know some people that has happened to – Anthony

Jimbo

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

Mac the Knife

This is very interesting! Let me see if I understand this issue correctly.
Jasper Kirby’s comments (video) on the CLOUD experiment provide preliminary confirmation that the flux of galactic cosmic rays impinging on earth’s atmosphere correlate with the rate of nucleation of water droplets that are the foundation of cloud formation in our atmosphere. More galactic cosmic rays (GCRs) striking the atmosphere causes more clouds in the atmosphere. More clouds means less solar radiation reaching the surface of earth, which leads to global cooling. Less GCRS striking the atmosphere means less cloud formation, more solar radiation reaching earth’s surface, and global warming.
Two known variables can affect the flux of GCRs striking the earths atmosphere:
1. Coronal Mass Ejections (CMEs) from our own sun that are roughly ‘aimed’ at earth in its orbit, when they happen. The magnetic fields associated with the CME plasma deflect ionized GCRs. If earth happens to be within the magnetic field of influence from a solar CME, earth’s atmosphere is hit by fewer GCRs, causing less cloud formation and allowing more solar radiation to reach earth’s surface. An active Sol means more CMEs, more time when the earth is ‘shielded’ from GCRs, fewer clouds in earth’s atmosphere, and a warming planet. For an inactive Sol, the converse is true and we have a cooling planet.
2. The proximity of our solar system to a super nova event Galactic cosmic rays (GCRs) are ionized subatomic particles (primarily protons) ejected from super novae at near light speeds. The closer our solar system is to a super nova event within our galaxy, the higher the flux of GCRs sleeting through our solar system and potentially striking earths atmosphere will be. Higher GCR flux correlates to more earthly clouds and a cooler earth. Lower GCR flux means fewer clouds and a warmer earth.
We have 2 variables or ‘thermostats’, one solar and one super nova galactic, adjusting earths temperature, and both are way beyond mankind’s control.
Have I grasped this correctly?
Do we know if the flux of galactic cosmic rays through our solar system has any effect on our solar activity? Stated another way, are GCRs and CMEs truly independent variables? It seems improbable that GCRs might influence old Sol’s production of CME’s…. but I guess that isn’t really any stranger than GCRs’ regulating cloud formation on our planet!

Leif Svalgaard says:
May 14, 2011 at 10:32 am
REPLY: well maybe they are facing some hostility for publication and dirty tricks which is delaying publication…I know some people that has happened to – Anthony
It is not clear if ‘release’ means submission or publication. If publication, then the paper would already be in press and have passed the dirty tricks. If submission [at which time a preprint is often available], then dirty tricks down the road wouldn’t matter. I’ll wager $100 that we’ll not see anything in 2-3 month’s time. For the record, I’ll like to lose this one.

DirkH

Leif Svalgaard says:
May 14, 2011 at 10:32 am
“the results are due for release in 2 or 3 months’ time.
Would be welcome. I seem to have seen this ’2 or 3 month’s time’ being claimed several times over the past several years…”
Leif, there are now at least two recent videos around where Kirkby announces this publicly. If he has made similar announcements in the past, i’m not aware of it, but one should assume that there are traces on the internet. So can you back up your claim with a link?

Claude Harvey

I think the enormous amount of scientific horsepower that has gone into this endeavor along with hard evidence produced in a world-class, controlled environment will make the impact of this one very much more significant than the assumptions and conjecture that normally dominate both sides of the AGW debate.

R. Gates

Very exciting and interesting stuff. The role of GCR’s in the modulation of cloud cover needs to be pinned down exactly for climate models to fully account for the role of the sun in an accurate way. The CLOUD experiment is going to be a huge help in this effort. In the end we could all hope for more more accurate numbers attached to causes of earth’s temperature fluctuations in the past century…especially during the recent periods when temperatures begin to diverge more broadly from solar activity.

I’ve been watching Dr. Svensmark’s work for about 8 years.
When one takes his own lab’s experiements, the Forebush decrease/cloud cover correllation, and then adds the CERN work, one will have to say: “What more do we need?”
I’m even a fan of the idea that “wobble” in and out of the galactic plane, might increase and decrease cosmic and account for periodic ice ages.
More on that later!
Max

Michael J

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

Ian W

Mac the Knife says:
May 14, 2011 at 10:48 am
This is very interesting! Let me see if I understand this issue correctly.

You missed one – the continual solar wind itself modulates the number of GCR reaching the atmosphere. So at times of low solar activity there are more GCR see:
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2009/01apr_deepsolarminimum/
“But is it supposed to be this quiet? In 2008, the sun set the following records:
A 50-year low in solar wind pressure: Measurements by the Ulysses spacecraft reveal a 20% drop in solar wind pressure since the mid-1990s—the lowest point since such measurements began in the 1960s. The solar wind helps keep galactic cosmic rays out of the inner solar system. With the solar wind flagging, more cosmic rays are permitted to enter, resulting in increased health hazards for astronauts. Weaker solar wind also means fewer geomagnetic storms and auroras on Earth.”

rbateman

I hope they take thier time and present thier findings in as solid and error-free manner as possible.
And why hasn’t the press been all over the warm April in the UK?
Piers Corbyn has them nursing thier last set of self-inflicted wounds.

keith at hastings uk

I seem to recall an Israeli geologist and an American astronomer (or perhaps vice versa), finding a 250 million year (or so) variation in climate (as deduced from rocks somehow) that correlated with Solar system passage through spiral arms of our galaxy and assumed increase in GCR. If the cloud experiments verify the seeding conjecture, we could have a major step forward in understanding really long cycle effects – and fewer straight line projections on the rising parts of sine waves in the data!

DirkH says:
May 14, 2011 at 10:50 am
Leif, there are now at least two recent videos around where Kirkby announces this publicly. If he has made similar announcements in the past, i’m not aware of it, but one should assume that there are traces on the internet. So can you back up your claim with a link?
Recent videos would not support this for obvious reasons. I only expressed my impression about this, as people have for years been claiming the CLOUD experiment as already showing the effect, rather than admitting that we have no idea, as the experiment had not been run yet. The prototype experiment in 2006 didn’t show anything, except that the chamber was dirty. On the surface of it, it would seem that there up to now has been no published positive result [and we still won’t know for another ‘2-3 months’]. WUWT had a discussion of this a while back: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/16/preliminary-results-for-the-cern-cloud-cosmic-ray-experiment/ but that seemed an example of ‘publication by press release’ which was not very satisfying.
As I said, I would very much like to see the outcome published, but fear it won’t be for some time to come. I’m willing to lose a bet on that.

I am convinced that Svensmark is right, but his theory cannot conjure up the Water Vapour that is needed for clouds to form.
Let’s not repeat, or duplicate the CAGW people’s mistake – which is, as far as I can see, a mysterious inability to accept that there is never just “one single thing” causing changes. (In AGW science CO2 is the all mighty one.)
Like right now we have low activity as far as “Sunspots” are concerned and more Cloud should form.
Fair enough, – But is there enough Water Vapour present to support such a cloud formation?
Or, once again, – is there more than just those two factors that have to marry up before anybody’s “GRAND PLAN” can come together?

Ian W says:
May 14, 2011 at 11:29 am
With the solar wind flagging, more cosmic rays are permitted to enter, resulting in increased health hazards for astronauts. Weaker solar wind also means fewer geomagnetic storms and auroras on Earth.
The modulation of the Galactic Cosmic Rays is only a few percent and does not significantly present a health hazard. The dangerous cosmic rays [which we today don’t call cosmic rays anymore, but ‘Solar Energetic Particles’] do not come from the Galaxy, but from the Sun. The question is if a less active sun means fewer solar storms [I don’t think so] or stronger and more dangerous ‘superstorms’ [among the fewer that occur]. There is some [weak] evidence that low to moderate solar activity actually allows storms to grow bigger and more dangerous.

Leif Svalgaard says:
May 14, 2011 at 12:20 pm
The question is if a less active sun means fewer solar storms [I don’t think so]</i<
Fat-fingered. I do think so.

Oh, by the way Paul O you say on May 14, 2011 at 10:32 am: “Godt gået! ”
– May I, – as I am interested in many things, inquire as to what that means? Is it a translation from another funny kind of language? – Or is it some kind of ancient form of greeting, – I am curious, please explain!

Engchamp

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

Paul Vaughan

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

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

Philip T. Downman

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

Fit_Nick

Unlike the Leopard…. the Sun will always change it’s spots..!
I travel a lot by air for my work and over the past few years i have seen a noticable difference in cloud cover… or seems that way?

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

Paul Vaughan

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

maksimovich

One of the troublesome properties of the climate problem, is that various actors tend to over emphasis certain externalities and omit that is well known, eg the effects say of GCR on the chemistry and dynamics of the middle atmosphere.
What needs to be ascertained are what are the natural variations?,what properties do they have? are they amenable to a deterministic description.
Influence of Galactic Cosmic Rays on atmospheric composition and dynamics
http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/11/4547/2011/acp-11-4547-2011.html

DirkH

Leif Svalgaard says:
May 14, 2011 at 11:52 am
“WUWT had a discussion of this a while back: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/16/preliminary-results-for-the-cern-cloud-cosmic-ray-experiment/ but that seemed an example of ‘publication by press release’ which was not very satisfying.”
From the linked text:
“The data should help the team to quantify how much of an impact the Sun is having on climate within 2-3 years, Curtius says – though there are a lot more pieces of the puzzle to fill in.”
And the post is from DEC 2010… the CLOUD team seems to be conservative with their estimates. YMMV.

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

Brian H

Bruce says:
May 14, 2011 at 10:20 am
Absolutely fascinating that Svensmark may be vindicated. If so it is a serious blow to the CAGW hypothesis and a great stride towards a real scientific explanation of climate phenomena, including the role of the Sun.
How did they get it funded?

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

Brian H

Claude Harvey says:
May 14, 2011 at 10:53 am
I think the enormous amount of scientific horsepower that has gone into this endeavor along with hard evidence produced in a world-class, controlled environment will make the impact of this one very much more significant than the assumptions and conjecture that normally dominate both sides of the AGW debate.

More significant, and unique. There are no other experimental bases for climate theory I’m aware of beyond the simplistic ancient ‘IR thru a glass container of CO2’ ones. And there’s no comparison in terms of relevance and validity.
I’ve never doubted Svensmark’s analysis, but it’s sure nice to see hard evidence.

RayG

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

Carla

Mac the Knife says:
May 14, 2011 at 10:48 am
~
That was pretty good Mac..but seems there is still the issue of ACR, Anomalous Cosmic Rays.
Time-variability in the Interstellar Boundary Conditions
of the Heliosphere: Effect of the Solar Journey on the
Galactic Cosmic Ray Flux at Earth
Priscilla C. Frisch · Hans-Reinhard Mueller
rev. 3 Feb. 2011
“””The interpretation of the geological record of cosmogenic isotopes relies on accurate
models of the cosmic ray spectra. One factor that is not included in
the interpretation of the geological record of cosmogenic isotopes is that the cosmic ray
spectrum incident on the Earth consists of two components that behave differently as
the Sun travels through space. Galactic cosmic rays dominate at high energies, > 500
MeV, and are subject to heliospheric modulation as the Sun travels through space.
However a second cosmic ray component at lower energies is formed inside of the
heliopause from interstellar neutrals that penetrate and are ionized inside of the heliosphere,
forming pickup ions. These are subsequently accelerated to form lower-energy
anomalous cosmic rays (ACRs) with a composition derived from neutral interstellar
atoms in the CISM (Fisk et al. 1974).
The local interstellar cosmic ray spectrum that
creates the geological radio-isotope record is thus composed of two components that
vary differently over time and space, the higher energy galactic cosmic rays (GCRs)
that are modulated by a variable heliosphere, and the ACRs that also depend on the
density and fractional ionization of the surrounding interstellar cloud.
In this paper we present the overall picture of the ISM characteristics that result
from the motion of the Sun and interstellar clouds through space. Observations of interstellar
absorption lines towards nearest stars show that spatial variations in velocity,
temperature, and ionization of the circumheliospheric ISM create temporal variations
in the heliosphere boundary conditions. These then cause temporal variations in the
spectrum and fluxes of cosmic rays at Earth. We also draw possible connections between
interstellar cloud transitions and the geological radio isotope record.”””
Time-variability in the Interstellar Boundary Conditions
of the Heliosphere: Effect of the Solar Journey on the
Galactic Cosmic Ray Flux at Earth
Priscilla C. Frisch · Hans-Reinhard Mueller
rev. 3 Feb. 2011
We have some “radiation belt” probing going on soon that should help in this area..Canadian ORBITAL and NASA Radiation Belt Storm Probes RBSP.
They find solar ACR at Earth’s magnetopause region also being produced there.
Leif and Vuks ..never mind..oh hell..
Little cloudlets (TASS Tiny Atomic Scale Structures) would take the heliosphere only a decade to pass, may encounter them every 100 years or so, quite dense too.
Mini drag*ons in the vicinity of a not so homogenous local bubble, open ended cavity.
You know the rain in our bubble, flows mainly from above the plane..

Carla

Mac the Knife says:
May 14, 2011 at 10:48 am
..Have I grasped this correctly?
Do we know if the flux of galactic cosmic rays through our solar system has any effect on our solar activity? Stated another way, are GCRs and CMEs truly independent variables? It seems improbable that GCRs might influence old Sol’s production of CME’s…. but I guess that isn’t really any stranger than GCRs’ regulating cloud formation on our planet!
~
More like the neutrals + solar wind charge exchange= accelerated particles back up wind. Or something like that..just increase or decrease the neutral density in the background. speed density temp direction …

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

Carla

Talk about measuring energetic particles..IBEX was back in the news.
Mysterious ‘Ribbon’ of Energy and Particles That Wrap Around Solar System’s Heliosphere Isolated
ScienceDaily (Mar. 31, 2011) —
..In a paper to be published in the April 10, 2011
..Notes Schwadron, an associate professor at UNH’s Institute for the Study of Earth, Oceans, and Space and department of physics, “Isolating and separating the ribbon from the IBEX maps was like pulling the drapes from our window to discover the landscape at the edge of the solar system.”
Of the singular images the IBEX mission has been able to achieve, lead scientist David McComas of the Southwest Research Institute (SwRI) says, “These maps are very rich scientifically and are critical in helping scientists understand how our space environment is controlled by the galactic medium. They provide the first images of our solar system’s boundaries, which control the access to potentially harmful galactic cosmic rays as well as all other matter from deep space.”
The most energetic galactic cosmic rays penetrate even the powerful magnetic fields closest to Earth and eventually collide and interact with Earth’s atmosphere. The direct or indirect effects of these cosmic rays on Earth system, including our biosphere, remain poorly understood and are often highly controversial.
The IBEX team is using the maps to learn how the heliosphere is shaped and what its physical properties are. This detailed information about our solar system’s boundaries will allow scientists to better understand how galactic cosmic rays evolve in our space environment, which in turn will provide fundamental information about the radiation environment on Earth and its implications on the evolution of life.
The IBEX scientists analyzed data from the mission’s first year of observations and, after developing an effective separation method, were able to isolate and resolve the unanticipated energetic ribbon feature. The ribbon appears to be wrapped like a belt on top of the globally distributed emissions of the broader sky, and by separating it from the background emissions scientists can now see what’s underneath the ribbon.
Says Schwadron, “There are many theories about how the ribbon is created, and we don’t understand exactly what we’re seeing but it seems to be telling us something about how the local galactic magnetic field interacts with the heliosphere.”
Additional evidence for that interaction was the discovery of a “tail” of emissions in the underlying boundary landscape, which is apparently deflected in the direction of the galactic magnetic field as the ribbon seems to indicate.
“This galactic magnetic field may be a missing key to understanding how the heliosphere protects the solar system from galactic cosmic rays,” says Schwadron.
Also seen in the maps is the expected feature of the “nose” of the heliosphere. The nose represents the direction in which the solar system moves through the local part of the galaxy nearest to our Sun and that Schwadron compares to the “bow wave in front of a ship, which shows us how our motion through the galaxy compresses and deflects the material of the local galactic medium around our heliosphere.”
The IBEX maps differ so radically from what was expected prior to the mission that the scientists have been struggling to untangle the vast amount of information the maps contain. The team notes that getting emissions from the nose of the heliosphere has been an important “lamp post” towards understanding how the global heliosphere is controlled by the interaction of the Sun with the local galactic medium.
Says McComas, “Prior to IBEX, most scientists believed that the global boundaries of our solar system were controlled mainly by the motion of our solar system through the galaxy and the solar wind, an extremely fast flow of electrically charged matter that flows out from the Sun. The IBEX maps reveal the galactic magnetic field is also a critical part of the Sun’s interaction with the galaxy..”
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/03/110331114935.htm
Check out the crew on Schwadron’s et al team Leif..and the wording in the above article should be making you crazy by now .. I mean all that hinting about ISM shaped heliospheres gotta be getting the hair standing up on the back of your head..heh..
SEPARATION OF THE INTERSTELLAR BOUNDARY EXPLORER RIBBON FROM GLOBALLY DISTRIBUTED ENERGETIC NEUTRAL ATOM FLUX
N. A. Schwadron et al. 2011 ApJ 731 56 doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/731/1/56
N. A. Schwadron1,2,14, F. Allegrini2,3, M. Bzowski4, E. R. Christian5, G. B. Crew6, M. Dayeh2, R. DeMajistre7, P. Frisch8, H. O. Funsten9, S. A. Fuselier10, K. Goodrich9, M. Gruntman11, P. Janzen12, H. Kucharek1, G. Livadiotis2, D. J. McComas2,3, E. Moebius1, C. Prested13, D. Reisenfeld12, M. Reno2, E. Roelof6, J. Siegel13 and R. Vanderspek5
http://iopscience.iop.org/0004-637X/731/1/56?fromSearchPage=true&v_showaffiliations=yes

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

Max_B

Paul Vaughan says:
May 14, 2011 at 12:47 pm
Nice to see a bit of example data from the November run of the CLOUD experiment in the video you’ve posted @ 45:07

Mac the Knife

Ian W says
May 14, 2011 at 11:29 am
“You missed one – the continual solar wind itself modulates the number of GCR reaching the atmosphere. ”
Thanks for refreshing my recollection! I get ‘hasty’, when I think I’m finally grasping the essence of a somewhat complex hypothesis! Solar and atmospheric physics are not my specialty. I’m an MS – Metallurgical Engineer by training, with 24 years of R&D and missile/aircraft program experience to buffer my ‘bullshit meter’ response to claimed correlations or causations. Add that to the prior experiences of an old farm boy, welder/mechanic, iron worker, and foundry rat, and you have the mix of education and experience that makes a 50 something American hard to con.
I eagerly await the published data from the CERN CLOUD experiments. I hope this isn’t just an ’empty tease’… Thanks for the ‘Come Back’, Ian! MtK

Julian in Wales

Surely any future IPCC report will be bound to include these finding in their deliberations? And if the effect CGR are as large and obvious as they say, the IPCC report will have to admit that cloud cover is largely regulated by influences other than changes to the trace Co2 levels?
Doesn’t that pretty much do for the present crop of AGW models?

Mac the Knife

Carla says:
May 14, 2011 at 7:11 pm
Mac the Knife says:
May 14, 2011 at 10:48 am
“That was pretty good Mac..but seems there is still the issue of ACR, Anomalous Cosmic Rays………
You know the rain in our bubble, flows mainly from above the plane..”
Way beyond LOL! Thanks for the belly laugh! You are clearly more knowledgeable on this topic than I am!
Can you tell me, what is the ratio or relative flux of Anomolous Cosmic Rays (ACRs) to Galactic Cosmic Rays (GCRs) reaching our upper atmosphere? Do ACRs have the same effects on water droplet formation and cloud cover as GCRs… or more or less effective? Given their lower energies, are they more easily deflected by the magnetic shielding effects of Coronal Mass Ejections?
Joseph Kirkby’s narrative seemed to indicate that the CERN CLOUD experiements were exploring the energetic ranges of simulated GCRs. What energy range are the ACRs in (MeV?, KeV?) and will the CLOUD experiments explore this range of ‘cloud seeding’ effects as well?
Thanks for your kindness, informative responses, and participation! MtK

John Ballam

Bian H said:
“There are no other experimental bases for climate theory I’m aware of beyond the simplistic ancient ‘IR thru a glass container of CO2′ ones. And there’s no comparison in terms of relevance and validity.”
There is experimental evidence that increased CO2 in the atmosphere comes from human activity and that it is causing warming. Go take a look at skepticalscience.com (and if you don’t like the messenger, follow the links to the primary sources). Here are a couple of examples.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-fingerprint-in-global-warming.html
“Confirmation that rising carbon dioxide levels are due to human activity comes from analysing the types of carbon found in the air. The carbon atom has several different isotopes (eg – different number of neutrons). Carbon 12 has 6 neutrons, carbon 13 has 7 neutrons. Plants have a lower C13/C12 ratio than in the atmosphere. If rising atmospheric CO2 comes fossil fuels, the C13/C12 should be falling. Indeed this is what is occuring (Ghosh 2003) and the trend correlates with the trend in global emissions.”
And:
http: //www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm
“Direct observations find that CO2 is rising sharply due to human activity. Satellite and surface measurements find less energy is escaping to space at CO2 absorption wavelengths. Ocean and surface temperature measurements find the planet continues to accumulate heat. This gives a line of empirical evidence that human CO2 emissions are causing global warming.”
Of course that doesn’t mean it will be catastrophic, but that’s another matter.
Any self-respecting skeptic should visit skepticalscience.com if only to find out what we’re up against.

Bengt A

Leif S (May 14 10:48 am)
Do you really think Kirkby would show us those interesting graphs (45 min into the video clip posted by Paul Vaughan May 14, 2011 at 12:47 pm) if their submission wasn’t about to be accepted? There probably are some minor issues about the CLOUD submission that prevents it from being published as of now. Hopefully they will get resolved soon.

John Marshall

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