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:
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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.
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”
So the Sun ought to save its spots for the day when Betelgeuse goes supernova. They might be needed then.
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.
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.”
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
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.
Ans: with great difficulty. It was about 7 yrs. late, with much scraping and scrounging and dodging necessary.
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.
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.
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..
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.
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
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 @ur momisugly 45:07
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
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?
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
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.
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.
Brilliant experiment. I feel sure that Svensmark’s theory will be vindicated.