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:
Gary Krause says:
May 15, 2011 at 7:17 pm
I have seen the grey image, which conflicts with the link to the image I provided.
You are confusing Cosmic Rays [that are not rays, but particles] with Gamma Rays are indeed rays [electromagnetic radiation, i.e. light].
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)?
Try to google ‘evolution is wrong’, you’ll get about 78,800,000 results. More than 99% of those are junk. Now, if only 1% is NOT junk, that still leaves millions of pages with good information. The problem is to know which is which.
Could not see in the cooments above a link to Jasper Kirby’s 2008 article http://aps.arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0804/0804.1938v1.pdf . I think he likes to do things properly so there is little criticism.
As you well-know Leif, I have carefully HIGHLIGHTED the confounding (perhaps much to the irritation of GCR fans). [ http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/23/confirmation-of-solar-forcing-of-the-semi-annual-variation-of-length-of-day/ “Cautionary Notes: 1) Sensible interpretation of the preceding data exploration requires awareness of the confounding of numerous solar variables.” ] Issues such as confounding & paradox are ALWAYS FOREMOST in the minds of careful data explorers. I understand your concerns that others will misinterpret summaries. I went through the whole OMNI2 database — there’s no better match btw, but I don’t claim that this “proves” anything – I just explore.
As for this “correlation with LOD” or “correlation with LOD’ ” business (or however one wants to frame & label it): The issue I was raising wasn’t that [another misunderstanding] but rather that it’s actually the decadal amplitude of the semi-annual wave. You and I both know that, so we’re just consuming time playing for the audience here.
I agree that solar rotation is interesting. More on this another day.
Paul Vaughan:
“Kirkby CLEARLY & CONFIDENTLY announced SOME of his results at SFU recently. (See the video to which I linked above. You will see NO DOUBT.)”
Yes, very exciting, very interesting, very convincing presentation… however… what does this have to do with healthy skeptical argument?? At this early stage, it is even more important to examine all counter arguments before forming opinion regarding conclusions. But gosh-darn, it IS high on the goosebump scale. I look forward to reading ALL arguments, when the paper is published and Kirkby’s confidence/data is community tested. GK
Gary Krause says:
May 15, 2011 at 7:17 pm
By your measure, why bother with any website that provides good intellectual information.
Even the august WUWT website sports comments that link to websites with pure nonsense, pushed as if they were Gospel Truth or Nobel Prize Stuff. It is only because the regular visitors have learned to sift the wheat from the chaff that such links do no real harm. However, for casual visitors they must be an absolute turn-off giving skeptical views a bad odor.
Paul Vaughan says:
May 15, 2011 at 9:40 pm
The issue I was raising wasn’t that [another misunderstanding] but rather that it’s actually the decadal amplitude of the semi-annual wave. You and I both know that, so we’re just consuming time playing for the audience here.
I don’t have any interest in playing for the audience. You were the one that kept on shouting UNACCEPTABLE. But, enough of that. You see, misunderstandings come from cryptic, vague ‘hints’ [that you are so fond of giving] rather than the black-and-white, stark statements that I’m used to, and are not deliberate.
Re: G. Karst May 15, 2011 at 9:45 pm
My comments were about Kirkby’s projection.
Remedial Math:
1% of 78 million = <1 million, not "millions".
It is stated
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.
in http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/14/update-on-the-cern-cloud-experiment/#comment-660970
The above statement appear to contradict the IceCube researchers’ paper entitled:
Large Scale Cosmic Ray Anisotropy With IceCube
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0907/0907.0498v2.pdf
It is often case that scientists (here and elsewhere, possibly including IceCube’s ones) give a spin according to the agenda pursued.
Most of us (certainly myself) are not in position to judge what is in this case
inconsequential or large scale anisotropy
and who is correct in the matter.
“You pays your money and you takes your choice”.
Brian H says:
May 15, 2011 at 11:04 pm
1% of 78 million = <1 million, not "millions".
1% of internet in general.
vukcevic says:
May 15, 2011 at 11:16 pm
The above statement appear to contradict the IceCube researchers’ paper entitled:
Large Scale Cosmic Ray Anisotropy With IceCube […]
Most of us (certainly myself) are not in position to judge what is in this case
inconsequential or large scale anisotropy and who is correct in the matter.
That is why you should listen to and not try to contradict someone who can judge, or perhaps just read the paper you refer to [says anisotropy is 0.0006].
“You pays your money and you takes your choice”.
No, if you are unsure or you don’t understand, you can ask.
The essential point is that the typical energy for the IceCube cosmic rays detections are 10,000 times larger than the typical GCRs observed by our ordinary detectors. Such high energy particles are VERY rare and are less scattered by the turbulent galactic magnetic fields. Even in spite of that, the anisotropy is less than 1 in a 1000 so of no consequence for interactions with the Earth or the solar system. It is, on the other hand, very interesting for resolving the age-old problem of where the GCRs are coming from.
Science based on opinions gave us the AGW ‘soap serial’ narratives.
@Mtk..
Not that knowledgable bout the Solar cosmic rays/energetic particles, ACR anomalous cosmic rays, GCR galactic cosmic rays or IGCR Intergalactic cosmic rays.
GCR TeV and ACR MeV..population..good luck..lot of it there though..are they H or He or some other growing population..endless..
My question for this week, the distrubution role, that the Van Allen Cosmic Raydiation belts play..
What role do the ACRs have on the GCR within the belt..those and ICWs coupled with all that solar stuff..
Cosmic Rays hit spaceage high. Van Allen Cosmic Radiation Belts expand and Earth’s atmosphere lowers..
I guess the Canandian ORBITAL and NASA Radiation Belt Storm Probes RBSP, are late..
but better late than never..
Vuks I thought GCR/ACR entry was most often in the weaker areas of Earth’s magnetic field..maybe thats one of my clues this weeks lesson always subject to a rapid change..
Almost forgot Vuks..Is this something you might have interest..
Resonance zones for electron interaction with plasma waves in the Earth’s dipole magnetosphere. II. Evaluation for oblique chorus, hiss, electromagnetic ion cyclotron waves, and magnetosonic waves
Binbin Ni1 and Danny Summers2
Resonance zones in the Earth’s dipole magnetosphere are determined for electron cyclotron resonance with obliquely propagating very-low-frequency chorus, extremely-low-frequency hiss, electromagnetic ion cyclotron, and magnetosonic waves. The resonance zones, which are presented in (L,λ) space, where L is magnetic shell and λ is magnetic latitude, depend on the assumed particle density distributions inside and outside the plasmasphere, the specified wave bands, and the electron kinetic energy. This work is a companion paper of Ni and Summers [Phys. Plasmas 17, 042902 (2010)] , which considers strictly field-aligned wave propagation. Inclusion of the wave normal angle parameter adds an extra degree of freedom to the calculations, and emphasizes the need for global observational data on the wave spectral properties. Comparison of resonance zones with global wave distributions is a useful aid in the modeling of radiation belt electron dynamics. Resonance zones are also of potential use in the interpretation of observational data on particles and waves at given points in space.
http://pop.aip.org/resource/1/phpaen/v17/i4/p042903_s1?isAuthorized=no
Leif, thanks for the link again to that 69 Schatten & Wilcox paper. Pperhaps it is now time to read it.
Cosmic Rays hit spaceage high. Van Allen Cosmic Radiation Belts expand and Earth’s atmosphere lowers..
I guess the Canandian ORBITAL and NASA Radiation Belt Storm Probes RBSP, are late..
but better late than never..
Lief say: regarding websites: “The problem is to know which is which.” Would you suggest we have the same problem with all media?
Your point is true, however clear minded folks soon discover what is 99% junk… we would hope. 🙂
The CLOUD results just might make you worry a little bit about what may happen (or, may start happening) in 2012.
Forget all the hype about instantaneous cataclysm. Long term subtle main effects are what cause real pain.
Philip T. Downman says:
May 14, 2011 at 9:43 am
“Hope the orthodox publishers can’t delay publication very much. Ought not to be that easy with CERN-articles”
The CERN people can publish in either a physics journal or, even better yet, a chemistry journal, and totally avoid The Team. It won’t be cited in the IPCC 5AR either way though, so no need to worry about this influencing the concensus.
Carla says:
May 16, 2011 at 6:13 am
Cosmic Rays hit spaceage high.
They do that every solar minimum: http://www.puk.ac.za/opencms/export/PUK/html/fakulteite/natuur/nm_data/data/SRU_Graph.jpg
Mac the Knife says:
..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?..
~
Did some scouting Mtk..you should find this useful as I would think Stephen Wilde might also. Some extra links to follow of some animations you may find particularly or not interesting.
Meet the SAMPEX data.. Anyone know the current status on this mission?
..SAMPEX — major discoveries published in refereed journals
Anomalous Cosmic Rays
Discovery of the precise location of trapped anomalous cosmic rays in the magnetosphere.
Measurement of the elemental composition of trapped ACR, including C, N, 0, and Ne.
“Early” return of the anomalous cosmic ray component in the 1992 solar minimum period, well before the relativistic ions. LI>Discovery that trapped anomalous cosmic rays are the dominant component of high energy (>10 MeV/nuc) ions heavier than He in the magnetosphere.
Solar Energetic Particles
Determination of “normal” solar system isotopic abundances for Ne and Mg in the large solar particle events of October/November 1993.
Excesses (factor 4) of neutron rich isotopes of Ne and Mg in 3He-rich solar particle events.
Magnetospheric Physics
Discovery that magnetospheric electrons are globally accelerated in association with the impact of high speed solar wind streams.
Other
Demonstration that NASA can develop, test, and launch a successful scientific satellite within a period of three years.
SAMPEX–major discoveries reported at scientific meetings but not yet published in refereed journals
Anomalous Cosmic Rays
Determination that ACR nitrogen, oxygen, and neon are singly charged.
Determination that the upper limit of ACR O2+ is less than 10% of the total ACR oxygen, thus limiting acceleration time scales in the heliosphere.
Discovery that the interplanetary spectrum of anomalous oxygen extends to at least 100 MeV/nucleon, implying that the ACR acceleration mechanism (termination shock?) accelerates particles to at least 1.6 GeV..
http://sunland.gsfc.nasa.gov/smex/sampex/mission/
SAMPEX – A Synoptic View of Earth’s Electron Radiation Belts: North Pole Energetic Fluxes from PET
http://www.nasaimages.org/luna/servlet/detail/NSVS~3~3~6843~106843:SAMPEX—A-Synoptic-View-of-Earth-s
SAMPEX – A Synoptic View of Earth’s Electron Radiation Belts: South Pole Energetic Fluxes from PET (1/1/1995)
http://www.archive.org/details/SVS-1387
Where was that shelf life of those ACR and the production of ..
I’m not so sure why anyone thinks it’s been an inordinate amount of time for CLOUD’s first results to be published. The CLOUD chamber arrived at CERN less than two years ago as can be seen in this post on Lubos Motl’s blog:
http://motls.blogspot.com/2009/06/cern-cloud-on-cloud-number-nine.html
Meanwhile, the results of another experiment (in which Svensmark has been involved), have been published:
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2011GL047036.shtml
It looks to me like things are moving along fine.
The Goethe Institue is a good source of news on the project.
http://www.uni-frankfurt.de/english/research/inter_projects/clouditn/News/index.html
According to the latest news entry, the paper that has been submitted to Nature was posted in early February 2011.
From following the progress of this project it is my impression that Kirkby is being quite understated about the results. Presumably this is to not over publicise speculative data and instead wait for experimental results and peer reviewed papers to back up the claims. This would be a sound strategy for such a sensitive subject.
Truly exciting research. Very interesting universe we live in. The irony is that the same ‘green’ folk who are living in the little CO2 box are also at least superficially aware of how ecosystems work yet choose not to see our planet as part of the solar system and impacted by it. It is almost classic doublethink.
Look forward to seeing the results.
In terms of religious potential, sun worship has CO2
IMHO seems to me the cosmic ray folks are fingering the wrong cosmic rays..
More on anomalous cosmic rays in the interplanetary and terrestrial spaces..
K. Scherer et al 2008 ApJ 680 L105 doi: 10.1086/589969
Are Anomalous Cosmic Rays the Main Contribution to the Low-Energy Galactic Cosmic Ray Spectrum?
FREE ISSUE
Abstract
“”While the high-energy part of the Galactic cosmic ray spectrum is well observed, its nature at energies below about 1 GeV nucleon-1 is still not known well. Recent in situ measurements made with the Voyager 1 spacecraft in the heliosheath between the solar wind termination shock and the heliopause have added further constraints on the local interstellar spectrum of Galactic cosmic rays at low energies. We show here that they also suggest how the low-energy proton part is formed locally in the heliosphere and globally in the Galaxy. The measured flux of anomalous cosmic rays in the heliosheath is unexpectedly high compared to expectations before Voyager 1 reached the shock, which might be a temporal effect or due to an additional acceleration beyond the termination shock. Combining this finding with recent model results for astrospheres immersed in different interstellar environments shows that the astrospheric anomalous cosmic ray fluxes of solar-type stars can be a hundred times higher than thought earlier and, consequently, their total contribution to the lower end of the interstellar spectrum can be significant.””
http://iopscience.iop.org/1538-4357/680/2/L105
And Leif.. this statement is just for you..
“””Combining this finding with recent model results for astrospheres immersed in different interstellar environments shows that the astrospheric anomalous cosmic ray fluxes of solar-type stars can be a hundred times higher than thought earlier and, consequently, their total contribution to the lower end of the interstellar spectrum can be significant.”””
Carla says:
May 17, 2011 at 5:48 am
IMHO seems to me the cosmic ray folks are fingering the wrong cosmic rays.. […]
“Combining this finding with recent model results for astrospheres immersed in different interstellar environments shows that the astrospheric anomalous cosmic ray fluxes of solar-type stars can be a hundred times higher than thought earlier and, consequently, their total contribution to the lower end of the interstellar spectrum can be significant.”
In spite of that, the ACRs are of low energy [i.e, have almost no effect] and are very rare [about 1000 times less common than ordinary GCRs near the Earth].
I’m of the opinion that dust particles and sea spray form the lion’s share of particles that water vapor is want to attach to. In fact, I’m surprised it doesn’t rain inside my house, but that is another topic, altogether domestic.
Dust is such a powerful attractant that I have witnessed it rain after a dust storm when nary a cloud can be seen in the sky. Cosmic particles can’t hold a candle to that.
So let me cycle back to the domestic link. As a person adept at making lemonade out of lemons, I choose to believe that the dust in my house serves a very valuable role: cloud formation.
GN Mode/”
wantwont to attach to” /GN ModeAnd about 80% of household dust is floating skin flakes. So that contribution is very personal!
Oops, omitted ref above: