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.
Paul Vaughan says:
May 15, 2011 at 11:12 am
“The LeMouel et al. paper you refer to is too flawed to be of any import […]“
You’re absolutely wrong about this.
We know you are enamored by that paper, but that does not make the paper any better.
you claim “Kirkby drew sharp attention to neither interannual nor semi-annual oscillations during his presentation. However advanced is his handle on particle physics, this leaves questions (quite serious ones) about his current abstract conceptualization of observed spatiotemporal patterns”. I don’t think Kirkby is interested so much in ‘abstract conceptualization’ [or is deficient there], but rather in what data the experiment produces, its quality, and possible sources of errors.
Leif Svalgaard is exercising appropriate skepticism, as we all should, at least until results are fully published and critiqued. We should never accept anything, just because we like conclusions that support our paradigm. There are plenty enough people doing that, with CO2 based AGW, already. GK
Lief says:
“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.”
I say:
Galactic cosmic rays (GCR) are accelerated in the blast waves of supernova remnants. So, Leif, how are the GCR being sourced from our sun? Is the energy of solar radiation equivalent to GCR? Here is a picture of the gamma ray all-sky survey, courtesy of Dr. Carl Fichtel and the EGRET Instrument Science Team: http://helios.gsfc.nasa.gov/gamma.html
“In 2009, cosmic ray intensities have increased 19 percent beyond anything we’ve seen in the past 50 years,” said Richard Mewaldt of Caltech. “The increase is significant, and it could mean we need to re-think how much radiation shielding astronauts take with them on deep-space missions.” Looks like a health problem and is very significant.
What is your motivation to focus of your comments on whether something is published today or tomorrow? The point of the research is easily obtained on the internet. Individuals who are truly interested in the science of GCR and the impact of cloud formation relative global climate as revealed by Svensmark will do their own discovery through whatever sources are available.
Paul, I am unsure what you are thinking when you say that temperature is not noisy. I refer to noisy data as just that. Might you be thinking I am including contaminated data? Even the most pristine unsmoothed temperature data set will be noisy. Weather, and weather pattern variation, is noisy. Add oceanic/atmospheric oscillations to that and the noise is nearly deafening. I am not referring to trends and smoothed data. These are statistical constructs.
I know what noisy data looks like. Our brains produce very noisy synaptic electrical signals that can be picked up with electrodes placed on the scalp. The brainwaves we see at the cortical level in the absence of auditory signals are a complicated set of waves that to the untrained eye, are very noisy indeed. Much the same way unsmoothed temperature data is noisy.
Contamination in temperature data comes from an uncontrolled sample drop-out, moves, and in-situ contamination impinging on an already noisy data set. That said, I don’t know of a single meterologist who would say that pristine unsmoothed temperature is not noisy.
Leif,
Le Mouel, Blanter, Shnirman, & Courtillot (2010) made a simple OBSERVATION.
There is no way to defeat that observation, short of vandalizing LOD data.
And in commentary we have more talk about temperatures in last 30 years 50 years 150 years like if they had the necessary accuracy…
Pamela Gray, there appears to have been a misunderstanding. Your initial comment was about ENSO-timescale (i.e. interannual); you will note “interannual” in my reply. I acknowledge that you do not have access to the complex analyses that lead me to assert confidently that interannual terrestrial oscillations are not independent of solar variations (e.g. interannual [not to be confused with decadal] rate of change of solar wind speed). I will be happy to share a simplified version of the findings if WUWT will oblige. I know there will be misunderstandings – serious ones. This does not matter. What matters is that any capable few investigators start working on the problem. There are more questions than answers and careful exploration is prerequisite to sensible abstraction. The mainstream has not conducted sufficiently careful data exploration (which should be confused with neither physics nor statistical inference in these multidisciplinary endeavors). Regards.
Nope. That’s observational, not experimental. I was referring to the much-touted “basic physics” that supposedly underlies the AGW hypothesis at the laboratory level.
As for the isotopic balances, that’s hardly experimental; it’s not even correct. Biogenic Carbon isotopes are the same whether from fossil fuels or present-day flora.
Re: G. Karst May 15, 2011 at 11:47 am
Kirkby CLEARLY & CONFIDENTLY announced SOME of his results at SFU recently. (See the video to which I linked above. You will see NO DOUBT.)
As for “scepticalscience”, my gag reflex tolerance level won’t allow me to give them clicks and views.
Yessir, Misser Paul. Don want no complicated stuff. Kain’t unnerstan it. I’s jes a country hic.
Pamela, complex (as in complex numbers); not complex as in complicated.
Gary Krause says:
May 15, 2011 at 11:53 am
Galactic cosmic rays (GCR) are accelerated in the blast waves of supernova remnants.
And come equally from all directions. Here is an image of the cosmic ray sky: http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/science/know_l1/cosmic_rays.html the uniform grey is the image.
So, Leif, how are the GCR being sourced from our sun?
They do not come from the Sun. the sun produces its own energetic particles which are not GCRs. The G stands for ‘Galactic’.
Is the energy of solar radiation equivalent to GCR?
No, solar radiation is millions of times stronger.
Here is a picture of the gamma ray all-sky survey
Gamma rays are not GCRs. The [misnamed] Cosmic Rays are not Rays at all, but particles.
“In 2009, cosmic ray intensities have increased 19 percent beyond anything we’ve seen in the past 50 years,” said Richard Mewaldt of Caltech. “The increase is significant, and it could mean we need to re-think how much radiation shielding astronauts take with them on deep-space missions.” Looks like a health problem and is very significant.
The 19% increase is misleading. It is seen in the lowest energy cosmic rays [that are not so dangerous] and is just compared with the previous solar minimum [if you actually look at his plot]. Here is the cosmic ray record for the past half-century:
http://www.leif.org/research/thule-cosmic-rays.png or here:
http://www.puk.ac.za/opencms/export/PUK/html/fakulteite/natuur/nm_data/data/SRU_Graph.jpg [check the red curve for Hermanus]
The point of the research is easily obtained on the internet. Individuals who are truly interested in the science of GCR and the impact of cloud formation relative global climate as revealed by Svensmark will do their own discovery through whatever sources are available.
The internet is the most unreliable source there is. 99% is pure junk. Truly interested people will find in that junk just what they want to believe.
Paul Vaughan says:
May 15, 2011 at 12:18 pm
Le Mouel, Blanter, Shnirman, & Courtillot (2010) made a simple OBSERVATION.
There is no way to defeat that observation, short of vandalizing LOD data.
no, they claim a correlation between OBSERVED LOD and vandalized cosmic ray data.
Paul Vaughan says:
May 15, 2011 at 12:59 pm
Kirkby CLEARLY & CONFIDENTLY announced SOME of his results at SFU recently. (See the video to which I linked above. You will see NO DOUBT.)
when people have NO DOUBT, don’t believe them.
GCR do not come equally from all directions, the data from IceCube, a neutrino detector in Antarctica, shows that GCR distribution is anisotropic.
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/45958
Gary Krause says:
May 15, 2011 at 11:53 am
“In 2009, cosmic ray intensities have increased 19 percent beyond anything we’ve seen in the past 50 years,” said Richard Mewaldt of Caltech. “The increase is significant, and it could mean we need to re-think how much radiation shielding astronauts take with them on deep-space missions.” Looks like a health problem and is very significant.
Here is Mewaldt’s ‘real view’ [i.e. not for public press release hype consumption]
http://meetings.aps.org/Meeting/DPP06/Event/52074
Abstract: GM1.00001 : Solar Energetic Particles — A Radiation Hazard to Humans and Hardware in Space
R.A. Mewaldt
“During large solar energetic particle (SEP) events the intensity of greater than 30 MeV protons in nearby interplanetary space can increase by a million times over the steady intensity of galactic cosmic rays, creating a radiation hazard to both humans and hardware in space.”
Perhaps it is now clear that 19% increase in galactic cosmic rays is not so significant when compared to the million times increase during a SEP.
“There are problems with the cosmic-ray hypothesis. One is that although there was a clear correlation between global temperatures and the intensity of cosmic rays reaching the Earth’s surface (as measured by neutron counters) prior to 1970,
( http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET&10Be-2.htm )
that correlation has broken down over the last 40 years” (since satellite measurements became available).
GCR data records pre 1970 are just a ‘shadow’, full details on line sometime in June.
vukcevic says:
May 15, 2011 at 2:12 pm
GCR do not come equally from all directions, the data from IceCube, a neutrino detector in Antarctica, shows that GCR distribution is anisotropic.
The anisotropy is so minuscule that it for all practical purposes does not exist. It takes the extreme IceCube detector to find it [after a century of scientists looking for it]. So, your post is highly misleading. There are also other [very small] anisotropies that are equally inconsequential, e.g. the siderial day anisotropy. A proper sense of proportion would help you here.
Leif Svalgaard May 15, 2011 at 1:26 pm
regarding Le Mouel, Blanter, Shnirman, & Courtillot (2010):
“no, they claim a correlation between OBSERVED LOD and vandalized cosmic ray data.”
The correlation observed is NOT with LOD. You continue to either misrepresent &/or misunderstand their observation. Absolutely unacceptable Leif; the community needs more from you.
Leif Svalgaard says:
May 15, 2011 at 1:35 pm
“when people have NO DOUBT, don’t believe them.”
Do YOU have doubt in your own proclamations Leif?
Non-vandalized neutron count rate data:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/vaughn_lod_fig1a.png
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/vaughn_lod_fig1b.png
Anthony, my last name is Vaughan (not Vaughn – no offense taken, no need to correct past slips).
Leif, have you ever plotted rate of change solar rotation? Noticed anything?…
Paul Vaughan says:
May 15, 2011 at 2:52 pm
The correlation observed is NOT with LOD. You continue to either misrepresent &/or misunderstand their observation. Absolutely unacceptable Leif; the community needs more from you.
They said: ““The main part of the semi-annual variation in lod is due to the variation in mean zonal winds”. So with the size of the semiannual wave in LOD. It should have been clear to an astute observer [like yourself] that OBSERVED LOD was but a shorthand for the more cumbersome phrase.
Paul Vaughan says:
May 15, 2011 at 3:02 pm
Do YOU have doubt in your own proclamations Leif?
Most of what I say is [well-founded] speculation on my part and is always laced with suitable doubt.
Non-vandalized neutron count rate data
So, you acknowledge that theirs was manipulated. Yours does not show nearly as good a correlation and certainly not good enough to single the cosmic rays out from several other confounding factors [sunspot, magnetic field, etc]
Leif, have you ever plotted rate of change solar rotation? Noticed anything?…
We don’t know solar rotation well enough to plot the rate of change to any meaningful accuracy. Many people over the decades have plotted such things, nothing significant has emerged. I am somewhat of an expert on solar rotation. Here are some of the very noisy data: http://www.leif.org/research/ast10867.pdf
Solar rotation is not a well-defined quantity to begin with [even if we had perfect data]. Rotation where? surface? what latitudes? at depth? rotation of plasma? of magnetic fields? corona? solar wind? All of these are different and vary differently.
Paul Vaughan says:
May 15, 2011 at 2:52 pm
The correlation observed is NOT with LOD.
On your plot you use the notation LOD’, but that is a misrepresentation, because it would mean that if we integrate the curve we should get LOD+[arbitrary]constant, and we don’t. It is also not the variance [which has an equally precise definition as any textbook on analysis can tell you]. But it i possible that you don’t mean either the derivative or the variance, but have just invented your own symbol [LOD’] for the amplitude of a cyclic variation with a period of 1/2 year. So, stop the nitpicking on terminology.
****
Vince Causey says:
May 15, 2011 at 10:14 am
I believe what is being proposed are ice epochs which have come and gone over time scales of hundreds of millions of years, rather than the periodicity of the glacial/interglacial cycles within an existing ice epoch, which as you point out, follows the Milankovitch changes. This corresponds to the roughly 250 my cycle of the solar orbit around the galaxy.
****
OK, but isn’t the argument that passing into the plane exposes the earth to increased cosmic rays (and more cloudiness) due to the proximity of closer CR sources (like supernova remnants)? We’re in an ice-age right now, and we’re not (relatively speaking) in the galactic plane. The similar argument for ice-ages caused by passing thru galactic spiral arms can also be questioned — we’re out of an arm now, but experiencing an ice-age.
Leif, I am aware of what the “G” is. Recall your post that cosmic energy does not come from anywhere except the sun… “do not come from the Galaxy, but from the Sun.”
I have seen the grey image, which conflicts with the link to the image I provided.
Actually, the internet is an excellent source of information. That is how we have this discussion. By your measure, why bother with any website that provides good intellectual information. Not sure what 99% you are reading. And if you are correct about the internet, why are you posting comments (which by the way I appreciate)?
In fact, the following are some great websites from which we can learn from each other…they look familiar:
Appinsys
Bishop Hill
Carlin Economics
Climate Audit
Climate Conversation – NZ
Climate Sanity
Climate Skeptic
Climate Views
CO2 Science
Digging in the Clay
Ecotretas
Haunting the library
ICECAP
Jennifer Marohasy
Jo Nova
NC Watch
Niche Modeling – David Stockwell
Small Dead Animals
Solar Cycle 24 Board
Surfacestations Gallery
Surfacestations Main
Tallbloke’s Talkshop
The Air Vent
The Chiefio – E.M. Smith
The Daily Bayonet
The Reference Frame
Tom Nelson
Warren Meyer
Warwick Hughes
William Briggs
World Climate Report
And these are just tip of the “ice berg.” Electronic media is instant. Paper journals are antique dinosaurs that we see plagued with complaint. Just as we and you suggest with publishing. The cure, is using the internet to get past the garbage I read in journals.
Leif, at 99% pure junk, you have no compulsion to use the internet to back up your statements. What you say?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/16/preliminary-results-for-the-cern-cloud-cosmic-ray-experiment/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/16/preliminary-results-for-the-cern-cloud-cosmic-ray-experiment/
http://www.leif.org/EOS/JA074i016p04157.pdf
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2009/01apr_deepsolarminimum/
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/science/know_l1/cosmic_rays.html
http://www.leif.org/research/thule-cosmic-rays.png
http://www.puk.ac.za/opencms/export/PUK/html/fakulteite/natuur/nm_data/data/SRU_Graph.jpg
http://meetings.aps.org/Meeting/DPP06/Event/52074
http://www.leif.org/research/ast10867.pdf