Rik Gheysens says: in Tips and Notes
The latest results of the CLOUD experiment in CERN are published: http://science.orf.at/stories/1717291/. It’s a German article with the following statements of Jasper Kirkby (head of the CLOUD experiment):
At the present time we can not say whether cosmic rays affect the climate. What we have investigated so far, is the production of condensation nuclei for cloud droplets, namely those arising from gases: The technical term is “gas-to-particle conversion”. They make up about half of condensation nuclei in the atmosphere. The remaining germs come from soot and dust.
Which gases are involved in this process?
We first looked at sulfuric acid and ammonia. The results of the first tests were: the cosmic rays enhance the formation of condensation nuclei from gases by a factor of ten. But that alone is not enough to significantly affect the formation of clouds. According to our previous experiments, there must be other gases or vapors that enhance this process. Presumably organic substances.
Which substances?
The results are currently under review in a journal. Unfortunately, I can not say more about it. Only this: The results are very interesting. During the year some results will be published.
Suppose you demonstrate that cosmic rays affect the formation of clouds actually at a greater extent. What would that mean?
I believe that these experiments are significant in two respects. Firstly, because they would show a new natural source of climate change. 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.
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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Indeed.
This is Kirkby’s main point. Already established production of condensation nuclei via sulfuric acid and ammonia will certainly create some cooling, but other production routes (particularly involving organic aerosols) could cause much more cooling.
Organic aerosols are largely NATURAL in origin. There was a recent WUWT post on one of these aerosols–isoprene–created by trees:
That was my thought as well.
Plants manipulating the climate is a bit out there for some people, but I am sure it happens. In particular both grasses and trees do it, in their competition for space.
Floragenic Climate Change
[Note: At the end of all this foundation setting is a genuine question that I really hope (even if it is ridiculously simpleminded to you) someone will answer.]
“… there must be other gases or vapors that enhance this process. Presumably organic substances. *** You have a cooling effect with certainty. … It might be … very large. Maybe it is so large that it compensates for the effect of additional CO2 in the atmosphere.”
1) CERN scientists have assumed that adding CO2 to the atmosphere warms it.
This has never been proven. The CERN scientists may tell us (later, not now) that they do not believe human emitted CO2 has a significant impact on atmospheric warming. But, it they believe that human emitted CO2 is a negligible amount of global CO2, why mention “additional CO2” at all?
2) Pro-Anthropogenic-Climate-Control liars are furiously attempting to find a way to preserve their human-emitted CO2 (thus, control over human activity) lie. Two magic tricks they have tried are:
(1) volcanoes:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/02/aerosols-from-moderate-volcanos-now-blamed-for-global-warming-hiatus/
and
(2) organic [that is, carbon based] vapors:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/06/another-global-cooling-mechansim-found-a-case-of-the-vapors/
Given the above, especially the assertion by CERN that CO2 is a significant cause of global warming, I wonder whether CERN leadership (IF CERN is controlled by pro-AGW political administrators) or, if not CERN, the IPCC Gang (and all their media stooges, e.g., “Nature,”) will mischaracterize the scientists’ work and the general public will be told essentially:
Yes, I realize that would be patent nonsense — but, that is the Cult of Climatology’s modus operandi.
QUERY
Help! All you fine scientists — am I WAY off the mark — waaaay too cynical, here?? I hope so. If you would care to educate basic-science-only people like me (there must be enough to make answering worthwhile!), please tell me why it is highly unlikely the CERN scientists’ findings will end up promoting a pro-Anthropogenic Climate Change (cooling, this time) lie?
Of one thing I am certain: THE WONDERFUL SCIENTISTS OF WUWT WILL SOUNDLY REFUTE ANY LIES! GO, WUWT!!!
Thanks again for all the great teaching I’ve already received here.
Janice
P.S. It took me quite awhile to write the above, so I will read all the new (to me) posts above to see if my question has already been answered.
“Organic aerosols are largely NATURAL in origin.” [Phillip Bradley, 4:11PM]
It appears you have answered my question (if, indeed, the CERN organic substance turns out to be a tree isoprene or the like substance). Well, I just won’t worry about how the IPCC Gang mischaracterizes CERN’s findings. I’ll keep reading WUWT for true SCIENCE.
Inefficient combustion of plant materials can produce fairly large amounts of organic carbon.
From wikipedia
Pyrolysis of burning material, especially incomplete combustion or smoldering without adequate oxygen supply, also results in production of a large amount of hydrocarbons, both aliphatic (methane, ethane, ethylene, acetylene) and aromatic (benzene and its derivates, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons; e.g. benzo[a]pyrene, studied as a carcinogen, or retene), terpenes. Heterocyclic compounds may be also present.
This 2008 paper “Cosmic Rays and Climate” by Jasper Kirkby may be of interest, though many here will I am sure have seen it already.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0804/0804.1938v1.pdf
Stephen Wilde – You say “Never mind cosmic rays. I think they are just coincidentally correlated with cloudiness changes” and “.. I think that the Svensmark effect even if valid is likely insignificant and unnecessary“. Forbush Decreases provide an opportunity to conduct real-world experiments. It has been established that there is a link between cosmic rays and clouds ..
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009GL038429/abstract
.. and that temperature is affected ..
http://www.astrophys-space-sci-trans.net/7/315/2011/astra-7-315-2011.html
.. though not perhaps exactly as might have been expected.
My take on this is that cosmic rays are part of the climate mix, and although the atmospheric circulations you concentrate on may have a much larger effect over short time scales (eg. decadal), nevertheless cosmic rays may well be important over longer time scales. So I would not yet agree with your “insignificant and unnecessary”.
Janice Moore, you say “please tell me why it is highly unlikely the CERN scientists’ findings will end up promoting a pro-Anthropogenic Climate Change (cooling, this time) lie?“. The answer is – Jasper Kirkby. He is a real scientist doing real experiments. He has had to contend with ferocious opposition that successfully blocked his funding for many years, and he has had to contend with senior management at CERN which appears to have buckled under pressure. But he has managed to keep going, and any results that he publishes will be genuine. You may be interested in his paper that I linked to in my previous post – the point being that everything in that paper was deliberately ignored by the IPCC.
Thank you, so much, Mr. Jonas, for taking the time to address my concerns. What a fine man, Jasper Kirkby is! Based on what I’ve read of him so far, he, like Dr. Vincent Gray (and MANY others) is a true science HERO.
There is good evidence that reductions in smoke were partly and perhaps largely the cause of the late 20th century warming. And were also partly the cause of the early 20th century warming.
I discuss some of it here,
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2011/11/4/australian-temperatures.html
A discovery that GCRs enhance this effect would be very interesting.
Jimbo says:
May 29, 2013 at 10:42 am
“We do not know.
I can’t remember the last time a CAGW scientist said that.”
————————————————————————
No matter, Winston Smith, archivist of the Central Climate Committee can remember it for you. In recently re-mastered more accurate recordings you can definitely hear CAGW scientists say “we do not know.” Its rather faint, but it is there on the recording. Right between “Doomed” and “Doooomed!”
Look my dear friends & Cohorts in Skepticism… get this right: CERN will not announce a mechanism that is not man made. Check it out: “Man Made” = “Continued Funding.” Q.E.D.!
My sense is that there is a monumental struggle going on over the experimental set up, the results & the interpretation of the results. Look, we’re dealing with Leftist, Marxist, Moral Nihilists, OWS’ers & just plane old kooks… we’re not going to hear climate & weather can’t be controlled by more tax dollars. Q.E.D. again!
Thanks, Mr. Jonas, for the link to Dr. Kirkby’s 2008 paper. I read a good deal of it. He wrote so clearly that even I could understand what he was saying. Great source of the basics underlying the CLOUD experiment.
I was a bit dismayed, that Kirkby on page one said this: “Internal forcing agents (those arising within Earth’s climate system) include … anthropogenic greenhouse gases… .”
Sigh. I suppose he HAD to put that assumption of a significant human influence in on page one to create a good impression with certain key people.
The key is: he is an honest man. Therefore, we can trust his reported results (if the reporting also is honest, i.e., not distorted by others — and he isn’t blackmailed (even the most courageous and honest of us is vulnerable!).
Hurrah for TRUTH!
Janice Moore – CO2 might turn out to have some effect, just nothing like as much as the IPCC make out.
“””Aquarian says:
May 29, 2013 at 8:29 am
On a related note:
Kitaba, Ikuko, et al. 2013 Midlatitude cooling caused by geomagnetic field minimum during polarity reversal. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110, 1215-1220.
http://www.pnas.org/content/110/4/1215.full“””
Thanks for the link..add this to my geomagnetic stamp collection. What could cause such a drop in Earths geomagnetic field? Perhaps a something has a damper on it in combination with lower? solar activity levels over consec utive cycles?
Which I had more time for this, but in my new life there is country drive, daily commute..saw my first bobcat.
Janice, if you haven’t already, I recommend Willis Eschenbach’s posts on climate governors.
The concept in a nutshell (and in my words) is the climate is governed by water/cloud based processes that keep temperatures stable. Thus forcings are irrelevant to climate change (at least on century timescales). What causes climate change is factors that affect the governors, and both aerosols and GCRs do.
The Forcings Theory is is the current climate paradigm, and no scientist without strong evidence is going to dispute it. That’s how science works. As Kuhn documented in the Structure of Scientific Revolutions.
regards
Mr. Jonas,
Thank you for reminding me that CO2 per se has some effect on climate.
While total global CO2 DOES have some effect on earth’s climate (I do believe that), however, there is no evidence at all that the relatively small amount of HUMAN emitted CO2 influences the climate to any meaningful degree of significance (thus, my disappointment with Dr. Kirkby’s assuming it had any worth mentioning in his paper).
Janice
Thanks, Mr. Bradley, for directing me to Mr. Eschenbach’s excellent research. I always enjoy reading his posts and have learned a lot from his fine work. I completely agree with Eschenbach’s conclusions.
I guess you’re telling me that I’m mistaken in thinking that the CERN report of Dr. Kirkby’s CLOUD experiment might end up promoting human-caused climate change (based on the assumption of meaningful significance of human emitted CO2 which was stated by Dr. Kirkby (possibly under pressure) to be a real forcing). That’s good to know.
So, we agree! I agree with Eschenbach’s conclusions and I do not think human CO2 has a significantly meaningful impact any global climate.
“… saw my first bobcat.” [Carla]
Cool! Be sure to put screens on all your house windows (or shut them at night) or you will see BATS up close, too! (just a little advice from a country gal to a former city gal (I’m assuming))
Hope you are enjoying your new home (as well as the journey to and from).
Janice
We could really be in trouble after CO2 actually starts to decrease later this century.
“””Aquarian says:
May 29, 2013 at 8:29 am
On a related note:
Kitaba, Ikuko, et al. 2013 Midlatitude cooling caused by geomagnetic field minimum during polarity reversal. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110, 1215-1220.
http://www.pnas.org/content/110/4/1215.full“””
From page 1
“””The geomagnetic field is a major factor controlling CR flux over longer time scales (10), and geomagnetic reversals are always accompanied by large decreases in field strength, which cause a large increase in CR flux. “””
My GCR dyslexia sees this backwards.
As the Interstellar background changes, so do the levels of GCR flux trapped around Interstellar Magnetic Fields that the solar system encounters on its journey. As the levels change so do solar activity levels dampened solar polar magnetic fields and more GCR into the planetary system. More GCR around Earth and damping of its magnetic field and solar magnetic connection. Lowering earth magnetic field.
We have higher levels of cosmic radiation trapped around this planet in the radiation belts due to current lower levels of solar magnetic activity. We recently had an all time “space age,” high of cosmic rays, was it 2008? 2009 and we have a slowing down in the magnetic pole wandering.
Maybe there is more energy connected with these GCR than we see..
continued..
Which may have some dampening affect on the global electric circuit.
I guess you’re telling me that I’m mistaken in thinking that the CERN report of Dr. Kirkby’s CLOUD experiment might end up promoting human-caused climate change (based on the assumption of meaningful significance of human emitted CO2 which was stated by Dr. Kirkby (possibly under pressure) to be a real forcing).
He is just working within the current paradigm, Whether his results turn out to be a nail in the coffin of that paradigm is yet to be seen.
I understand your concern that a new cooling forcing could be used to increase the CO2 sensitivity.
But from my perspective there has been so little research on cloud seeding and so little is known, that the modellers have been able to put pretty much any values they like into the models. So, more data is good. Interesting discoveries, even better, as that will spur more research.
“Ice nucleating strains of P. syringae possess a gene that encodes a protein in their outer membrane that binds water molecules in an ordered arrangement, providing a very efficient nucleating template that enhances ice crystal formation,” says Christner.
The role of bacteria in weather events
“””Aquarian says:
May 29, 2013 at 8:29 am
On a related note:
Kitaba, Ikuko, et al. 2013 Midlatitude cooling caused by geomagnetic field minimum during polarity reversal. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110, 1215-1220.
http://www.pnas.org/content/110/4/1215.full“””
Did you see this line, taken from the above article.
“”” The use of high-latitude ice core data as a test of the CR effect on climate (12) may not be ideal. “””
Is this implying an uneven distribution of GCR into the Earth system?
Amateur observations. In the early 1950s I worked on a cattle station in far south western Queensland, Australia. From October-November on throughout the long summer months cumulus – maybe stratocumulus clouds would gather, occasionally producing a very brief shower, more often lightening (called dry storms) strikes which sometimes initiated bush fires. This is a very dry region which would be desert were it not for the occasional floods which transformed the landscape into a highly nutritious pasture. Cheers from sunny Sydney.