Update on the CLOUD experiment at CERN

One is put in mind of the performers on the old TV variety shows of days of yore who would attempt to spin, no pun, several plates at once atop a thin rod. This will work well as long as the number of rods is limited to the number the performer is able to monitor and to keep the plates remaining on. If, in the middle of his act, the performer is now given more rods and plates to keep spinning, more than he is able to handle, the performer will come to grief rather quickly and will be fortunate indeed to walk away with any plates intact. Likewise with the AGW debate; when one has the temerity to question whether ALL the conceivable variables have been taken into account, and what would introduction of a new one do to models, and how would this new variable interact with those already considered and how might it change how those variables interact with each other, one is given the usual The Science-Is-Settled hokum– “if those things were important we would have included them,” but what if you couldn’t have appreciated their importance before your research began? Whole lotta question-beggin’ goin’ on ’round here. After a while, you have to give up the theory of the celestial spheres, no matter how intuitively “correct” it might seem, when you find that, if you introduce the possibility of ellipses, your calculations make sense, without having to resort to use of retrograde loops (themselves perfectly circular- like the argument for.celestial spheres itself).

Stephen Wilde says:
May 29, 2013 at 8:56 am
Never mind cosmic rays. I think they are just coincidentally correlated with cloudiness changes.
Better to check the relationship between Jetstream zonality and meridionality, the effect of that on the length of the lines of air mass mixing around the globe and then in turn the effect on global cloudiness and albedo.

The meridonality of the jetstreams does seem to be related to cooling – and we are seeing in northern Europe the same weather that was seen at the beginning of the Great Famine of 1315 – 1321 with continual rains and almost no crops as the Earth cooled out of the Medieval Warm Period. There is also no doubt that when the jetstreams have large Rossby waves that the amount of cloud in the weather systems of the Ferrel cells must be larger as the length of the jetstreams is increased. However, that does not mean that the Svensmark ideas are invalid; as, by increasing cloudiness generally and especially in the tropics the amount of energy in the system is reduced leading to reduction in Hadley cell convection allowing the Ferrel cells to move equatorward. The energy in the earth’s atmosphere is mainly in the tropics; changes at the poles do not have the energy to affect the jetstreams

It’s heartening to see scientists admittedly not knowing the answer, yet continuing to seek the truth.
I am wiser than this man,
for neither of us appears to know
anything great or good;
but he fancies he knows something,
although he knows nothing;
whereas I, as I do not know anything,
so I do not fancy I do.
–Socrates

Clarifying my post immediately precedent this: I aim no barbs at the scientists at CERN, but my own distrust of what has passed recently for science has influenced the way I view all modern science.

We do not know.

I can’;t remember the last time a CAGW scientist said that.

Rocky Road said:
“That’s not what the geologic record shows. It shows a strong correlation–that’s what got Svenmark interested in the concept in the first place.”
I know and I accept the correlation.
It is just that solar variations affect both the quantity of cosmic rays and the behaviour of the atmospheric circulation but in my view it is the latter which causes cloudiness variations and not the former.
I think the correlation between sun and cosmic rays is primarily coincidental and not causative as regards global cloudiness though there could be some cosmic ray effect.

I am encouraged by those magic words.
About time.
My sense is the CERN scientists are mostly honest people but based on the funding fiasco, which prevented their research for years, I suspect the administration probably needs to stand before a wall.

More here:
CERN’s Jasper Kirkby On The Newest Unpublished Results Of CLOUD: “The Results Are Very Interesting”
http://notrickszone.com/2013/05/19/cerns-jasper-kirkby-on-the-newest-unpublished-results-of-cloud-the-results-are-very-interesting/

Bruce Cobb says:
May 29, 2013 at 10:57 am
…
Holy cow! That large? Wait, what effect of additional C02 has there been, really? Not the theoretical one, mind you but the actual effect, including negative feedbacks.
My guess is that the cooling effect is much, much larger, by at least an order of magnitude.
Might want to consider that some more. If as the luke-warmist view has it minor amounts of CO2 have minor effects, then GCR may have minor contrary effects adequate to cancel that of a minor constituent like CO2. The important point made is that there is an effect that supports cloud formation, thus increasing the planetary albedo, and therefore cooling. More to the point, without accounting for effects of clouds and extraplanetary causal agents that influence cloud formation, then any estimate of just how much effect an increase of CO2 has is likely to be in error, and the direction of the error could be problematic as well. Interestingly one potentially influential agent on cloud formation may be bacteria that apparently survive quite handily at altitudes that would kill an exposed human. See here for instance:
http://www.nature.com/news/high-flying-bacteria-spark-interest-in-possible-climate-effects-1.12310

I think that some of the comment here is a tad unfair. As I understand it the CLOUD experiment was set up to test Svensmark’s hypothesis that cosmic rays triggered cloud formation. The results confirm that under controlled conditions the hypothesis is correct. The press release says an much. The CERN scientists involved quite rightly suggested that other material may also be involved — soot, sulphate particles etc. Now it might be that collectively CERN feels uncomfortable with this result, maybe for political reasons but at least the experiment has been done and Svensmark’s hypothesis validated. Be thankful for small mercies!
Tony Berry

And secondly, because it would change the understanding of anthropogenic climate change. We are well informed about greenhouse gases. But we know too little about aerosols. Also airborne particles that pass through our industry in the atmosphere.

This is an extremely important point. It does not make sense that CO2 is of such standalone importance, but the myriad other chemicals being put into the atmosphere aren’t. Some of these may even have cooling effects in a similar way to how volcanic emissions have cooling effects. (Which isn’t to say I want a bunch of pollutants pumped into the air: volcanic emissions are not so easy on the lungs!)

You have a cooling effect with certainty. But we have no idea how big this effect is. It might be small, but also very large. Maybe it is so large that it compensates for the effect of additional CO2 in the atmosphere. We do not know.

1. I appreciate the scientific honesty. I have been a big booster in Svensmark’s hypothesis, and it’s good to see the team are approaching it scientifically, taking evidence on board. As I just posted on another thread, scientific conclusions come down to probabilities, and Svensmark is being reasonable about this.
2. This is important work. It does warrant more study.