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.
And CHEERS TO YOU, too, Mr. Thomas — from the rainy, cold, beautiful, Pacific Northwest (U.S.A.) #[:)] where clouds are our specialty, LOL.
Speaking of clouds and differing climate zones, my girlfriend brought her children who were raised near Longview, Texas up to visit her folks in Washington State one summer. Do you know what one of those kids’ favorite things up here was? Clouds! They just couldn’t get over the wonder of watching all the big, puffy, white (or gray and white), magnificent, cumulous clouds that were perfectly harmless. “Whenever we see clouds like that in Texas,” my friend said, “it means a scary thunderstorm is on the way.”
Warm regards (at least!),
Janice
Carla says:
May 29, 2013 at 7:35 pm
“”” 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?>/i>
It is because the amount of radionuclides found at high latitudes are strongly controlled by climate [the 10Be is generated elsewhere and brought to the poles by atmospheric circulation].
Carla says:
May 29, 2013 at 7:35 pm
“”” 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?
It is because the amount of radionuclides found at high latitudes is strongly controlled by climate [the 10Be is generated elsewhere and brought to the poles by atmospheric circulation].
Since I’m very sleep deprived, I’ll forego reading all the posts preceding. Here’s my WAG:
Charges are enhanced by cosmic ray interactions with everything in the atmosphere. The gases are small and when charged either attract and neutralize each other, or repel each other. Either way, there is no charge concentration. However, enhancing charges on a microscopic solid will potentially create multiple charges confined in a small area that can neither be attracted to each other nor repelled. Thus, charged-enhanced solids might more effectively nucleate droplets than charged gases. The electric fields will reach farther before effectively being screened by ions or 1/r^2 attenuation.
The so called GCR is a misnomer for me. We(Earth) are constantly bombarded by nuclei in many forms, salts, gases, elements, particulate. They rain down on us 24/7 and have been for billions of years, entering our ionosphere and going through atmospheric chemical transformation. One only has to look at carbon 14, 13 etc. or H2O build up(always has been) on earth to know that that residue is formed from interaction with our sun. Be it building up our atmosphere and creating more high pressure(warmth) when the sun is active or dropping/lowering our atmosphere when it is inactive, thus more (so called)GCR’s enter the earth system and cause more cloud formation that MAY cool, but still heat up good with a high pressure cell even with a inactive sun.
I hypothesize that CO2, O2, etc., most gasses(minerals) around us doesn’t come from plants, animals or rocks… but from atmospheric interconnection with that star next to us and maybe a bit from the GCR’s.
Just have to ask yourself, if there was life in the oceans but not on land till some algae made our oxygen atmosphere, where did the oxygen come from to make the oceans?
Lance of BC says:
May 30, 2013 at 3:33 am
The so called GCR is a misnomer for me. We(Earth) are constantly bombarded by nuclei in many forms, salts, gases, elements, particulate. They rain down on us 24/7 and have been for billions of years, entering our ionosphere and going through atmospheric chemical transformation. One only has to look at carbon 14, 13 etc. or H2O build up(always has been) on earth to know that that residue is formed from interaction with our sun.
Those things do not come from the Sun, but from Space far from the Sun. In particular the GCRs that come from the Galaxy, created in Supernovae and accelerated by encounters with shock waves in the interstellar medium.
lsvalgaard says:
May 30, 2013 at 4:53 am
Lance of BC says:
May 30, 2013 at 3:33 am
“”The so called GCR is a misnomer for me. We(Earth) are constantly bombarded by nuclei in many forms, salts, gases, elements, particulate. They rain down on us 24/7 and have been for billions of years, entering our ionosphere and going through atmospheric chemical transformation. One only has to look at carbon 14, 13 etc. or H2O build up(always has been) on earth to know that that residue is formed from interaction with our sun.””
“Those things do not come from the Sun, but from Space far from the Sun. In particular the GCRs that come from the Galaxy, created in Supernovae and accelerated by encounters with shock waves in the interstellar medium.”
He did not say they “came from the sun”, but that their “residue
is formed from interaction with our sun”. A much different statement.
These experiments on tiny drivers actually has a silver lining. We know that the Sun has a tiny cyclic forcing. It is possible that cosmic rays also have a tiny cyclic forcing. The tiny bit of increase in CO2, which is also likely cyclic, in the overall ppm of “stuff” in the atmosphere compares well with other “tiny” forcings. They are all tiny whiskers on mice compared to the chaotic forcings of water and atmospheric elephants that circle the globe.
Jim G says:
May 30, 2013 at 5:58 am
He did not say they “came from the sun”, but that their “residue
is formed from interaction with our sun”. A much different statement.
I agree that his statement is very muddled, but it is clear from “The so called GCR is a misnomer for me” and “(so called)GCR’s” and “where did the oxygen come from to make the oceans?” that he does not believe the stuff comes from the Galaxy, but rather from the Sun. But perhaps Lance could clarify what he meant.
Janice Moore says:
May 29, 2013 at 6:19 pm
….
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). ….
Janice, there is no sound reason to ignore physical facts that are elements of a physical system. There’s no empirical question that CO2 does – very momentarily – interrupt the passage of LWIR from the atmosphere to space, which could lead to some level of increased warmth. Also, there’s no grounds for thinking that CO2 from human sources doesn’t behave like natural CO2.
The sound and fury in the climate debate, at least between warmists and luke-warmists, has to do with magical – not empirically measured – properties that are imputed to CO2 by the climate models employed by by the authors of previous IPCC reports, and which make even the miniscule increase generated by human sources immensely more powerful than logic says they can possibly be.
That said, it is worth noting that getting an analysis report out the door and accepted is occasionally accompanied by the authors being subjected to severe arm twisting to include various phrases that clients, critics, peer reviewers and bloggers would like to see, whether they are germane to the paper or not. There is for instance no reason to even mention CO2 in a study that looks at the effects of high energy particles on cloud formation unless those particles also affect CO2 in some manner.
Lance of BC says:
May 30, 2013 at 3:33 am
The so called GCR is a misnomer for me. We(Earth) are constantly bombarded by nuclei in many forms, salts, gases, elements, particulate. …
GCRs are entirely different beasts from “salts, gases, elements, ….” etc. Entirely. The latter do not arrive with relativistic speeds for instance, nor are they “radiation” in any sense of the word, where as the “R” in GCR stands for “Ray.”
Duster says:
May 30, 2013 at 9:52 am
nor are they “radiation” in any sense of the word, where as the “R” in GCR stands for “Ray.”
The ‘Ray’ is a misnomer [kept for historical reasons]. Cosmic Rays are not ‘rays’ but particles.
Is there a primary driver that causes different short term and longer term changes in the earth’s climate? We do not know. I do not know. That said, I am glad that the fixation on CO2 is beginning to wane. Other possibilities hopefully can now be honestly evaluated employing true science. But the truth may be that lots of things have varying influences and none really matter at all. Earth may have an eternal/internal design to maintain an equilibrium much like Willis Eschenbach suggested in an earlier post with regards to the thermostat hypothesis Sorry I’m to lazy to find and link to the several posts by Willis but newcomers to this site should read..
An open mind is a terrible thing to waste. A corrupt one is a terrible thing to feed.
lsvalgaard says:
May 30, 2013 at 8:31 am
Jim G says:
May 30, 2013 at 5:58 am
“He did not say they “came from the sun”, but that their “residue
is formed from interaction with our sun”. A much different statement.”
lsvalgaard says:
“I agree that his statement is very muddled,”
Nor did I say that his statement is “very muddled”. It seems that you are only in agreement with yourself and twisting the words of others.
Jim G says:
May 30, 2013 at 12:56 pm
It seems that you are only in agreement with yourself and twisting the words of others.
I do not seek agreement with anybody, rather just pointing out the wrongness of the supposition.
(OT) Leif – I am interested in your statement “Cosmic Rays are not ‘rays’ but particles.“. Are they really just particles, or is it their particle-like behaviour which is seen. I’m mindful that light, for example, is seen to have both particle-like and wave-like behaviour. (I know nothing of quantum physics, so if you reply please keep it simple!).
Mike Jonas says:
May 30, 2013 at 2:29 pm
(OT) Leif – I am interested in your statement “Cosmic Rays are not ‘rays’ but particles.“. Are they really just particles
They are protons [mostly] with a mattering of heavier [mostly Helium] atomic nuclei, thus just regular particles [not light rays]. The difference is that particles have mass, rays do not.
Leif – Thx.
“But we know too little about aerosols.”
This being the case, one experiment will not mean they know ENOUGH about aerosols. Therefore, no matter the outcome, whatever conclusions are drawn will be premature.
At the same time, if the results falsify what is claimed by either side, that is a big deal.
Steve Garcia
lsvalgaard says:
May 29, 2013 at 9:56 pm
Carla says:
May 29, 2013 at 7:35 pm
“”” 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?
It is because the amount of radionuclides found at high latitudes is strongly controlled by climate [the 10Be is generated elsewhere and brought to the poles by atmospheric circulation].
Thank you Dr. Svalgaard.
I do have a question. I don’t know if this is even considered, when talking about the size of the heliosphere expansions and contractions.
Do we observe more intense solar activity, (CME’s Flares) propagating upwind or downwind out of the heliosphere?
If while the Voyagers 1+2 are headed upwind out of the heliosphere bubble and the bubble begins shrinking due to lowered solar activity wouldn’t knew interaction regions be formed at the new boundaries and a new population of solar cosmic rays be generated back inwards? Wouldn’t the Parker Spiral structure be all broken up and such?
Carla says:
May 30, 2013 at 4:50 pm
Do we observe more intense solar activity, (CME’s Flares) propagating upwind or downwind out of the heliosphere?
Solar activity does not know about what happens at the boundary of the heliosphere because the solar wind is supersonic.
a new population of solar cosmic rays be generated back inwards? Wouldn’t the Parker Spiral structure be all broken up and such?
Same reason as above: the wind is supersonic so the solar cosmic rays and the Parker spiral in the inner solar system are not affected. There is population of low-energy ‘anomalous cosmic rays’ that is slightly affected, but that is not a major change.
Thank you Dr. Svalgaard for responding to my post, and my comment could come across muddled. But muddled I am or more to the point, if we have so much confidence(somewhat) in a theory of GCR( particles) and carbon dating using a constant state of 14, why would logic not dictate that the star that born us would be ejecting energetic particles seeding/building our atmosphere and leaving residual elements raining down and mixing into our atmosphere like carbon 14.
What could those particles be comprised of?
89% of the nuclei being hydrogen,10% helium, 1% heavier elements like carbon, oxygen, magnesium, silicon, and iron.
Hmm, what is the sun made of?
72 % hydrogen, 26% helium and trace oxygen, carbon, neon, nitrogen, magnesium, iron and silicon.
http://www.space.com/17170-what-is-the-sun-made-of.html
Where is that nuclei coming from?
California Institute of Technology
“The term “cosmic rays” usually refers to galactic cosmic rays, which originate in sources outside the solar system, distributed throughout our Milky Way galaxy. However, this term has also come to include other classes of energetic particles in space, including nuclei and electrons accelerated in association with energetic events on the Sun (called solar energetic particles), and particles accelerated in interplanetary space”
http://www.srl.caltech.edu/personnel/dick/cos_encyc.html
“Cosmic rays are deflected by the magnetic fields in interstellar space, they are also affected by the interplanetary magnetic field embedded in the solar wind (the plasma of ions and electrons blowing from the solar corona at about 400 km/sec), and therefore have difficulty reaching the inner solar system”
So yeah, I think the sun is a major contributor to the gasses/aerosols/cfc’s/co2/oxygen in our atmosphere AND mineral build ups, we are born from the sun. ;^)
PS. Your knowledge and understanding of our solar system is far beyond mine. Thank you.
But I’ve had trouble deciphering your cryptic comments on this site for years. Please tell us were we went wrong without the arrogance.
With all respect,
Lance of BC
lsvalgaard says:
May 30, 2013 at 7:41 pm
Voyagers got it covered Dr. S. Solar wind in Voyager 1 location hit zero, but location becomes some super magnetic corridor. Magnetic field angle abrubtly changes from 90 to 270 degrees.
Is that like putting a scoop on the hood? Oh yes, and something about a heliocliff.
Recent Voyager 1 Data Indicate that on August 25, 2012 at a Distance of 121.7 AU
From the Sun, Sudden and Unprecedented Intensity Changes were Observed in
Anomalous and Galactic Cosmic Rays
W.R. Webber1 and F.B. McDonald2
©2013 American Geophysical Union.
1. Introduction
The passage of the Voyagers 1 and 2 spacecraft through the outer heliosphere
(heliosheath) has revealed a region quite unlike the inner heliosphere inside the heliospheric
termination shock (HTS). The radial solar wind speed slows down from ~400 km/s to ~130
km/s (Richardson, et al., 2008) and later at about 20 AU beyond the HTS may decrease to
very low values (Krimigis, et al., 2011). The anomalous and galactic cosmic ray (ACR and
GCR) intensities hardly changed at the HTS contrary to theoretical expectations (Stone, et al.,
2005). The magnetic field shows many distinct structures or features associated with the
HTS and the heliosheath region beyond (Burlaga and Ness, 2010). One of the largest of these
structures was encountered by V1 at 2009.7 when the spacecraft was ~17 AU beyond the
HTS crossing distance of 94 AU. At this time the field direction suddenly changed from 90°
to 270° possibly indicating a sector crossing. Also at this time the galactic cosmic ray
electron intensity increased by an unprecedented 30% and the radial intensity gradients of
these electrons and higher energy nuclei decreased by over a factor of two (Webber, et al.,
2012). Sudden intensity increases of electrons and nuclei again occurred about 1.5 years later
at a distance of ~116.5 AU or 22.5 AU beyond the HTS crossing distance. More recently a
new series of changes have been observed starting at about 2012.0 in both GCR and ACR. In
particular at about 2012.35 at ~120.5 AU from the Sun, large increases of both GCR nuclei
and electrons were observed with little corresponding changes of ACR. In fact, throughout
many of these unusual GCR intensity changes in the outer heliosphere, the ACR H, He and O
nuclei from ~1-50 MeV hardly changed at all and any changes in ACR and GCR were not
always correlated.
The ACR represent the dominant energetic population in the heliosheath above ~1
MeV with intensities ~102-103 times those observed in the heliosphere inside the HTS. These
ACR particles are accelerated somewhere in the heliosheath (several mechanisms are
possible) and remain quasi trapped there, leaking into the inner heliosphere where they are
only weakly observed at the Earth. At the outer boundary of the heliosheath these particles
may also leak out into the interstellar region.
On August 25th when V1 was at 121.7 AU from the Sun the intensity of the ACR
component began to decrease rapidly. Within a few days the intensity of this dominant
energetic heliosheath component above 1-2 MeV decreased by more than 90-95% reaching
intensity levels not seen at V1 since it was well inside the HTS. At the same time a sudden increase of a factor of ~2 occurred in lower energy (6-100 MeV) electrons and ~30-50% for
the higher energy nuclei above 100 MeV. This simultaneous reduction of ACR intensities at
lower energies and the abrupt increase in GCR intensities at higher energies has suddenly
revealed one of the holy grails of GCR studies, the actual local interstellar spectra (LIS) of
the GCR nuclei from H to Fe above ~10-20 MeV and possibly even to lower energies. For
the multi-dimensional CRS instrument used here (Stone, et al., 1977), the intrinsic
backgrounds are so low that the observed reduction of ACR is at least a factor ~300-500
making the low energy GCR measurements possible.
This large decrease of ACR was preceded by 2 precursor temporary decreases starting
on July 28th and August 14th. Thus V1 may have crossed a boundary, which itself was very
sharp, at least 5 times during this time period.
It is this transition into a new region and some of its implications that we wish to
summarize in this paper. Further details of these remarkable events will be presented in
subsequent articles.
Lance of BC says:
May 31, 2013 at 12:05 am
Thank you for the cosmic ray review. You may find your real space mother in the article above about recent discoveries of Voyager 1. Accretion to a solar system occurs at differing levels for differing stars for differing locations.
That magnetic highway Voyager 1 discovered last year, may hold some of the mystery to “magnetic reconnection,” region.
NASA Voyager 1 Encounters New Region in Deep Space
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?release=2012-381#
December 03, 2012
..Since December 2004, when Voyager 1 crossed a point in space called the termination shock, the spacecraft has been exploring the heliosphere’s outer layer, called the heliosheath. In this region, the stream of charged particles from the sun, known as the solar wind, abruptly slowed down from supersonic speeds and became turbulent. Voyager 1’s environment was consistent for about five and a half years. The spacecraft then detected that the outward speed of the solar wind slowed to zero.
The intensity of the magnetic field also began to increase at that time.
Voyager data from two onboard instruments that measure charged particles showed the spacecraft first entered this magnetic highway region on July 28, 2012. The region ebbed away and flowed toward Voyager 1 several times. The spacecraft entered the region again Aug. 25 and the environment has been stable since.
“If we were judging by the charged particle data alone, I would have thought we were outside the heliosphere,” said Stamatios Krimigis, principal investigator of the low-energy charged particle instrument, based at the Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory, Laurel, Md. “But we need to look at what all the instruments are telling us and only time will tell whether our interpretations about this frontier are correct.”
Spacecraft data revealed the magnetic field became stronger each time Voyager entered the highway region; however, the direction of the magnetic field lines did not change.
“We are in a magnetic region unlike any we’ve been in before — about 10 times more intense than before the termination shock — but the magnetic field data show no indication we’re in interstellar space,” said Leonard Burlaga, a Voyager magnetometer team member based at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md. “The magnetic field data turned out to be the key to pinpointing when we crossed the termination shock. And we expect these data will tell us when we first reach interstellar space.”..
Lance of BC says:
May 30, 2013 at 3:33 am
The so called GCR is a misnomer for me. We(Earth) are constantly bombarded by nuclei in many forms, salts, gases, elements, particulate. They rain down on us 24/7 and have been for billions of years…if there was life in the oceans but not on land till some algae made our oxygen atmosphere, where did the oxygen come from to make the oceans?
For some GCR nuclides, the resulting Beryllium-10 isotope proxy highly correlates to glaciation events. See 10be references here and here. The latter also includes evidence of interstellar halides as an ozone-depleting agent.
In answer to your question, Green cyanobacteria took almost a blllion years to create our oxygen atmosphere.