From CERN: CERN’s CLOUD experiment shines new light on climate change
Geneva, 6 October 2013. In a paper published today in the journal Nature, the CLOUD experiment at CERN1 reports a major advance towards solving a long-standing enigma in climate science: how do aerosols – tiny solid or liquid particles suspended in the air – form in the atmosphere, and which gases are responsible? This is a key question in understanding the climate, since aerosols cause a cooling effect by reflecting sunlight and by seeding cloud droplets.
The CLOUD researchers made two key discoveries. Firstly, they found that minute concentrations of amine vapours combine with sulphuric acid to form aerosol particles at rates similar to those observed in the atmosphere. Then, using a pion beam from the CERN Proton Synchrotron, they found that ionising radiation such as the cosmic radiation that bombards the atmosphere from space has negligible influence on the formation rates of these particular aerosols.
“Thanks to CERN’s expertise in materials, gas systems and ultra-high vacuum technologies,” said CLOUD spokesperson Jasper Kirkby, “we were able to build a chamber with unprecedented cleanliness, allowing us to simulate the atmosphere and introduce minute amounts of various atmospheric vapours under carefully controlled conditions – in this case amines and sulphuric acid.”
Amines are atmospheric vapours closely related to ammonia, and are emitted both from human activities such as animal husbandry, and from natural sources. Amines are responsible for odours emanating from the decomposition of organic matter that contains proteins. For example, the smell of rotten fish is due to trimethylamine. The CLOUD experiment’s unique ultra-clean chamber allowed the collaboration to demonstrate that the extremely low concentrations of amines typically found in the atmosphere – a few parts per trillion by volume – are sufficient to combine with sulphuric acid to form highly stable aerosol particles at high rates.
The measured sensitivity of aerosol formation to amines came as a surprise, and points to a potentially significant climate cooling mechanism. Moreover, since amine scrubbing is likely to become an important technology for capturing carbon dioxide emissions from fossil-fuelled [sic] power plants, this effect is likely to rise in future.
The CLOUD result adds another significant measurement in understanding the climate. But it does not rule out a role for cosmic radiation, nor does it offer a quick fix for global warming.
“This is the first time that atmospheric particle formation has been reproduced with complete knowledge of the participating molecules”, said Kirkby. “However our measurements leave open the possibility that the formation of aerosols in the atmosphere may also proceed with other vapours, for which the effect of cosmic rays may be different. This is an important step forward, but we still have a long way to go before we fully understand the processes of aerosol formation and their effects on clouds and climate.”
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Yes, this is going to prove to be one of the secondary effects associated with prolonged minimum solar conditions.
“Two steps forward, one step back.” That is genuine science. Svensmark and Kirkby just made contact with reality through a nice little falsification. Falsification is a normal part of scientific progress. Those who argue that falsification is not part of scientific methodology should recognize that they also argue that reality is not part of it.
I don’t know that Svensmark’s theory has been falsified. The researchers explicitly state “However our measurements leave open the possibility that the formation of aerosols in the atmosphere may also proceed with other vapours, for which the effect of cosmic rays may be different.” As I recall from Svenmark’s book, amines were not the particles he proposed too be involved with cosmic ray interaction.
This looks intriguing too
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/4/045001#.UlKoSpyGcV8.twitter
That amines, which are basic, would feel attracted to sulfuric acid seems hardly surprising, and that they don’t need any help from ionizing radiation for hitching up would be expected as well. This doesn’t strike me as a major discovery.
I read through the story quite rapidly. Somehow, I missed the part where they said that their experiment showed that GCRs impacting the atmosphere don’t form water droplets.
Well at least we can be happy that sulfuric acid amine downpours, won’t be getting any worse than they are now.
This non-scientist does not understand that statement. Would someone please help me understand how eliminating amines by scrubbing makes their hypothesized cooling effect “likely to rise.” Thanks!
***************
Note: the phrase “… a quick fix for global warming” in the above article implies that the conclusions of these folks are to be regarded with caution, for their thinking is clearly hampered by the unsupported conjecture that humans can do ANYTHING to change the climate of the earth. LAUGH — OUT — LOUD. As if.
Janice Moore says:
October 7, 2013 at 10:56 am
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/325/5948/1652.short
The process could increase the incidence of amines in the air, making CO2 scrubbing by this method a cooling double whammy.
Yeah, I’ll say! Atmospheric chemistry is remarkably complex, and I think they are taking a far too simplistic view of the dynamics of the process. The number and variety of manmade chemicals that persist in the atmosphere is staggering. Also, many energy inputs including UV are proven to alter these compounds in subtle, but powerful, ways.
Unfortunately, when you do a web search for “atmospheric pollutants,” you’ll get a ton of hits for carbon dioxide, GHG etc. Rubbish. Our ignorance on how the atmosphere actually works is staggering.
http://www.mdpi.com/journal/atmosphere/special_issues/POPs
“The CLOUD experiment’s unique ultra-clean chamber allowed the collaboration to demonstrate that the extremely low concentrations of amines typically found in the atmosphere – a few parts per trillion by volume – are sufficient to combine with sulphuric acid to form highly stable aerosol particles at high rates.”
so let me get this straight. C02 cannot have an effect because it is a tiny portion of the atmosphere. But amines from rottiing fish no less, that occur at even lower rates than C02, are the real driver.
Cadaverine is a foul-smelling diamine compound produced by protein hydrolysis during putrefaction of animal tissue
Putrescine, or tetramethylenediamine, is a foul-smelling, NH2(CH2)4NH2 (1,4-diaminobutane or butanediamine) that is related to cadaverine.
maybe, just maybe.
Derived from the decomposition of numerical models
one thing we do know is that even if cosmic rays could increase cloudiness in a lab chamber that in the wild they do not. That is, take the counts of cosmic rays in the wild. look for increases in cloudiness. You wont find it.
There are 110 pristine, WUWT approved, climate stations called CRN.
go look at the data on clouds from those stations.
compare that to cosmic ray counts.
Nothing.
So, even if you prove that clouds form one way in a chamber, that is not the claim that needs to be tested. the claim to test is simple: do clouds increase in the real atmosphere when you increase cosmic rays. Look at the data, that theory is busted.
REPLY: Mr. Mosher, the CRN stations don’t measure cloud cover, they have no instrument installed for this.
They measure:
Primarily Air temperature and rainfall – the two most important climate metrics. Some are equipped with soil temperature, some are equipped with solar radiation sensors. NONE are equipped with a ceilometer or full sky optics system for measuring cloud cover. Even the ones with solar radiation sensors can’t give you any useful info about cloud cover, since they can’t differentiate between smoke, haze, pollution etc and clouds.
Reference: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/crn/instrdoc.html#SENSORS
You really don’t have a clue as to what you are rambling on about related to CRN instrumentation.
Anthony
Granted my subatomic particle physics is a little weak, but pions are not high energy baryons, and should not reasonably be used as a proxy for such.
Much of the incoming ionizing radiation is high-energy protons and electrons from the solar wind.
Pions are a part of ‘cosmic’ radiation – from other more distant stars, and are also produced by the impacts of high-energy cosmic radiation with atomic nuclei in the atmosphere, along with MANY other secondary particles which also have charges – and are therefore also capable of ionizing atoms.
The whole exercise strikes me as a bit like using burning acorns as a stand-in for a forest fire.
Steven Mosher says:
October 7, 2013 at 11:07 am
I don’t think anyone claims that amines are the main driver of climatic fluctuations, as the IPCC so absurdly asserts for CO2. Few argue that CO2 cannot have an effect. It does, but most of its effect occurs in the first 100 or 200 ppm, with increasingly less effect at higher concentrations. IMO it might again become important at very high levels, on the order of 10%, but I don’t think that this has been conclusively demonstrated, merely hypothesized to explain for instance the melting of Snowball Earth.
The increase in CO2 from c. 300 to an alleged 400 ppm has been highly beneficial to humanity. Further gains up to several hundred ppm would likely be more so.
Steven Mosher says:
October 7, 2013 at 11:07 am
“so let me get this straight. C02 cannot have an effect because it is a tiny portion of the atmosphere. But amines from rottiing fish no less, that occur at even lower rates than C02, are the real driver.”
So let me get this straight. Do you want to imply that “C02 cannot have an effect because it is a tiny portion of the atmosphere.” has ever been the argument of more than a tiny irrelevant fringe portion of skeptics?
If that is so, I wish you a happy relationship with your strawman.
Steven Mosher says:
October 7, 2013 at 11:07 am
so let me get this straight. C02 cannot have an effect because it is a tiny portion of the atmosphere. But amines from rottiing fish no less, that occur at even lower rates than C02, are the real driver.
exactly
Some diamines react with CO2 to form carbamates.
CO2 reacts with ammonia to form the ammonium carbonate.
CO2 reacts with water to form carbonic acid.
As it turns. CO2 is not a NOBLE GAS
Steve Mosher said:
So, even if you prove that clouds form one way in a chamber, that is not the claim that needs to be tested. the claim to test is simple: do clouds increase in the real atmosphere when you increase cosmic rays. Look at the data, that theory is busted.
———————————————————–
Steve, the ISCCP cloud data and cosmic ray measurements from numerous sites around the world match well. Both are publicly available and I checked them myself. In fact, I believe it was this data that Svensmark used originally.
The ISCCP site is down right now due to the government shutdown. When it comes back up you can check it. Or, I think I may have the data squirreled away somewhere and could post it if you just dying to see it now rather than later.
Steven Mosher says:
October 7, 2013 at 11:13 am
The short-term effect or lack thereof of cosmic rays on cloud cover in nature as opposed to the lab has been discussed on this blog at some extent. IMO the jury is still out, with some researchers detecting an effect & others not.
However the evidence of longer term effects is IMO more compelling, although again different studies reach different conclusions. For instance, the effect was not found in a study looking at a phase of the last glaciation. However it did show up during interglacials:
http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/02/hints-of-cosmic-ray-climate-link-in-sediment-core-from-japan/
This should not IMO be a surprise, given the differing atmospheric conditions in mid-latitudes during glaciations & interglacials.
Steven, so you discount Shaviv’s findings that spiral arm passages in the past have led to ice ages? Just want to be clear about this.
P.S.
The trick is to look at mid-level clouds only, and to take the global average of clouds and compare it to cosmic rays hitting the Earth.
Svensmark’s theory *doesn’t* seem to work (at least that I can tell) when you compare global cosmic rays to regional mid-level cloud formations.
Steven Mosher says:
October 7, 2013 at 11:13 am
one thing we do know is that even if cosmic rays could increase cloudiness in a lab chamber that in the wild they do not. That is, take the counts of cosmic rays in the wild. look for increases in cloudiness. You wont find it.
————————————————————————————————————————–
I saw a nice write up on Lubos’ page of a simple study—It compared the daily high and low temperatures to cosmic rays, and found a greater range during periods of low cosmic rays. Clear skies mean higher highs, and lower lows. The range was greater after significant solar storms swept away the cosmic rays.
Having just returned from the AAAR annual conference in Portland OR, where the aerosol physicists and chemists are still working out the theory of nucleation bursts (presently the main theory is a ternary reaction involving sulfuric acid, ammonia, and water vapor), I can say that this CLOUD result, had it been released earlier, would have been topic #1 for many attendees. There is now a new reaction to consider, involving amines at incredibly low concentrations (80 ppq, or parts per quadrillion). Yet there are thousands of organic and inorganic constituents yet to be considered. As the authors point out, this just increases the uncertainty of the aerosol contribution to climate change:
“The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) considers
that the increased amount of aerosol in the atmosphere from human
activities constitutes the largest present uncertainty in climate radiative
forcing2 and projected climate change this century29. The results
reported here show that the uncertainty is even greater than previously
thought, because extremely low amine emissions—which have substantial
anthropogenic sources and have not hitherto been considered
by the IPCC—have a large influence on the nucleation of sulphuric
acid particles.”
Harold Ambler says:
Steven, so you discount Shaviv’s findings that spiral arm passages in the past have led to ice ages? Just want to be clear about this.
——————————————————————-
I know this wasn’t directed to me, but I wanted to jump in with my 2 cents.
After Shaviv originally presented his theory NASA found another spiral arm in the Milky Way. Shaviv went back and reexamined his data and said it matched this new discovery.
Sounds a bit fishy to me, but regardless, Shaviv’s theory rests on the interpretation of only a few meteorite fragments, and Shaviv himself has now interpreted those fragments in at least two different ways.
Note to Mosher, see my added comment above. You are 110% wrong about CRN stations.
THe amines emitted by decomposing proteins are of relatively low molecular weight, stinky gases. They react w/ SOx and CO2 vapor to form less acid or neutral, hygroscopic? salts.
The amines that are used to scrub CO2 from combustion gases are higher molecular weight liquids w/ low vapor pressure, and almost no smell. So the predicted OMG! problem with these compounds is unlikely.