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.”
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.
To paraphrase….
One thing we do know is that even if CO2 could increase the temperature in a lab chamber that in the wild it does not. That is take the concentration of CO2 in the wild, look for increases in temperature. You won’t find it.
Thank you, Milodon Harlani, for letting me know (at 11:04am) that it is not amines which are scrubbed, but which do the scrubbing.
@ur momisugly Fernando (re: 11:12am) — Decomposing climate models — LOL.
****************
Mr. Mosher, you, perhaps unintentionally, mischaracterize the position of (as Dirk put it) “fringe skeptics” such as I. It is the tiny proportion of human CO2 to which we point as evidence. First of all, as you said, total CO2 is a small ppm, BUT, the key is: human CO2 is FAR outweighed and can easily be completely overwhelmed by natural CO2.
Layman’s question
“we were able to build a chamber with unprecedented cleanliness, allowing us to simulate the atmosphere”
Is the atmosphere really that clean?
Harold Ambler says:
October 7, 2013 at 11:43 am
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.
Clear or not, Shaviv’s ‘finding’ is likely not correct:
http://www.leif.org/EOS/1303-7314-Cosmic-Rays-Climate-billion-yrs.pdf :
“The Galactic cosmic ray (GCR) intensity has been postulated by others to vary cyclically with a peak to valley ratio of ∼3:1, as the Solar System moves from the Spiral Arm to the Inter-Arm regions of the Galaxy. These intensities have been correlated with global temperatures and used to support the hypothesis of GCR induced climate change. In this paper we show that the model used to deduce such a large ratio of Arm to Interarm GCR intensity requires unlikely values of some of the GCR parameters, particularly the diffusion length in the interstellar medium, if as seems likely to be the case, the diffusion is homogeneous. Comparison is made with the existing gamma ray astronomy data and this also indicates that the ratio is not large. The variation in the intensity is probably of order 10 – 20% and should be no more than 30% as the Solar System moves between these two regions, unless the conventional parameters of the GCR are incorrect. In addition we show that the variation of the GCR intensity, as the trajectory of the Solar System oscillates about the Galactic Plane, is too small to account for the extinctions of species as has been postulated unless, again, conventional assumptions about the GCR parameters are not correct.”
Re: “…nor does it offer a quick fix for global warming.” (again)
Why even TRY to fix it?
WHAT IN THE WORLD IS WRONG WITH GLOBAL WARMING?!!
— as has been said over and over and over by many on WUWT — and the only answer given by the believers is
Lance Wallace says:
October 7, 2013 at 11:45 am
“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.”
———————————————————————————————————————
Can you comment for the audience less well versed in this subject matter why the CERN experiment chose to focus on amine vapors vs the ” thousands of organic and inorganic constituents yet to be considered”? It seems there must have been some logic to choosing this set of reactions first.
Thanks !
Fantastic!
Seems like Mosher whilst trying his very best to commit yet another mob style ‘drive by’ managed to shoot his own foot whilst leaning out of the window. More Bugsy Malone than Al Capone. Loving it. Well done Anthony.
jeremyp99 says:
October 7, 2013 at 12:23 pm
Layman’s question
“we were able to build a chamber with unprecedented cleanliness, allowing us to simulate the atmosphere”
Is the atmosphere really that clean?
———————————————————————-
You want the chamber to be clean so you can ensure the results you get come from the experiment rather than from some residue in the chamber walls.
But wait! Are we talking the fluffy clouds here? Or the stringy ones? I think maybe the fluffies cool things down and the stringies heat things up (or maybe the reverse). How tall is that cloud chamber anyway?
I thought Svensmark’s hypothesis related not to cosmic rays in general but specifically to muons, as these are the only cosmic particles which can penetrate through the atmosphere down to the cloud forming altitudes. My particle physics knowledge isn’t very good – does a pion beam tick the right box ?
Mosher, “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.”
You seem to be seriously confused. Trimethyamine is just one of many secondary amines and we are discussing participation in particle construction, not IR radiance.
Further to my comments about Mr. Mosher’s assertions that the CRN data disproves Svensmark, here is what I just sent him via email on the CRN instrumentation:
They have an IR temperature probe, looking at the ground for skin temperature. Precision Infrared Thermocouple Transducer Model IRTS-P and a pyranometer, a Kipp & Zonen Silicon Pyranometer SP Lite for measuring incoming solar radiation. This is for evapotranspiration and is a point sensor, not a sky grid sensor as would be needed for percentage of cloud cover.
Both of these give an indirect measurement of cloud cover. Insolation is affected by aerosols as you know, haze, smoke, fog, smog, etc all have varying effects on insolation. You can’t say at any given station what portion of insolation is affected by aerosol depth unless you also have an instrument for that measurement also.
Cloud cover is a percentage of sky and elevation. You need a specific instrument for this to separate it from other effects. Even just pointing a point source type pyranometer at the sky won’t give you what is needed.
You can’t interpolate accurate cloud cover from other insolation measurements, and determine if its low level, mid-level, or high level cloudiness from insolation. You need a ceilometer for that. Svensmark postulates changes at specific levels – low level cloudiness is what he says.
You can’t get there to prove or falsify Svensmark from the instruments of CRN because they don’t measure either percentage of sky or height of clouds.
Better to simply admit you goofed.
Janice Moore says:
October 7, 2013 at 12:21 pm
“fringe skeptics” such as I.
Don’t feel alone Janice there are at least two of us fringe skeptics.
Recently I read that the Mean global temp had dropped 1 degree centigrade since the year 2000. I also have an article from 2009 in which it said “A NASA probe found that cosmic ray intensities in 2009 had increased by almost 20 percent beyond anything seen in the past 50 years.” I also have an article in which it says:
“New Discovery: NASA Study Proves Carbon Dioxide Cools Atmosphere”
“A recent NASA report throws the space agency into conflict with its climatologists after new NASA measurements prove that carbon dioxide acts as a coolant in Earth’s atmosphere.”
My evaluation is that the Svensmark cosmic ray theory is the truth.
Each additional cosmic ray that gets through spawns billions of muons, the charged particle that is like an electron but a hundred times heavier, that catalyzes the gathering of water vapor into droplets.
One muon can even start the process in multiple spots, shooting on through to start it and then again, and the droplet gathering just continues in those locations.
When the heliosphere weakens due to reduced solar output, that increase of muons spawning from cosmic rays leverages the solar radiation drop even farther, even less solar radiation getting all the way to the surface of Earth, due to increased solar reflectivity, with whiter denser clouds at the 2000 to 3000 foot level. Cold climate coming at the times of solar quiet and CO2 levels increasing 800 YEARS AFTER entirely natural solar activity stimulated global warming are not just repeated coincidences. Henrik Svensmark is a modern day Copernicus and the man made global warming bunch are the Inquisition.
I have observed that zonal jet streams produce less clouds globally and meridional jets produce more clouds globally.
During the late 20th century warming period the jets were more zonal and cloudiness was less.
Now the jets are more meridional, cloudiness has increased and global warming has stopped and may soon decline.
I would appreciate an explanation as to how the Svensmark hypothesis switches the jets between zonality and meridionality.
Any takers?
DirkH says (October 7, 2013 at 11:20 am) that the following is a strawman argument as virtually no-one believes it: “CO2 cannot have an effect because it is a tiny portion of the atmosphere.”
To me that is unclear. The following would receive my approval: “CO2 is not proven to have a dominant effect and is unlikely to have such an effect because it is a tiny portion of the atmosphere.”
And, colloquially, there is not much difference.
dcfl51 says:
October 7, 2013 at 12:45 pm
I thought Svensmark’s hypothesis related not to cosmic rays in general but specifically to muons, as these are the only cosmic particles which can penetrate through the atmosphere down to the cloud forming altitudes. My particle physics knowledge isn’t very good – does a pion beam tick the right box ?
=================
DC, Muons are not ‘cosmic particles. They are the result of collisions of high energy cosmic rays with molecules in the upper atmosphere. One of the most pleasing parts of Svensmark’s theory to me is the fact that, technically, Muons don’t last long enough to travel from the upper atmosphere where they are created to the lower atmosphere where they interact, but, because of their near light speeds, relativism takes over and they do indeed last long enough to make the travel.
dcfl51 says:
October 7, 2013 at 12:45 pm
I thought Svensmark’s hypothesis related not to cosmic rays in general but specifically to muons, as these are the only cosmic particles which can penetrate through the atmosphere down to the cloud forming altitudes. My particle physics knowledge isn’t very good – does a pion beam tick the right box ?
——————————————
When The cosmic rays hit the atmosphere they produce a cascade of particles, including Pions.
https://www.windows2universe.org/physical_science/physics/atom_particle/cosmic_rays.html&edu=high
Mkelly and Janice More said:
mkelly says:
October 7, 2013 at 12:57 pm
Janice Moore says:
October 7, 2013 at 12:21 pm
“fringe skeptics” such as I.
Don’t feel alone Janice there are at least two of us fringe skeptics.
———————————————-
Please don’t self identify as “fringe” skeptics. We’re not fringe, we’re mainstream science people who understand that the alarmists aren’t actually practicing science. It is the alarmists who are out on the fringe screaming warnings issued by a few cult prophets who are making it up as they go. History will tell their tale in similar fashion as we now tell about the flat earth or earth centric universe people who at one time constituted the “consensus”. If you self identify as “fringe” you are playing in their sandbox under their rules. There is no point in putting yourself at a disadvantage to the ignorant.
Jeff L says:
October 7, 2013 at 12:29 pm
“Can you comment for the audience less well versed in this subject matter why the CERN experiment chose to focus on amine vapors vs the ” thousands of organic and inorganic constituents yet to be considered”? It seems there must have been some logic to choosing this set of reactions first.”
Very astute question. I probably should not have used the phrase “new reaction”, since this group, led by Markku Kulmala of Univ. Finland has been studying this reaction among others for some years. What is new is that the CLOUD results gave the first true experimental verification of the prediction, and showed the range of concentrations where the reaction works; it has not been previously possible to get such a clean chamber nearly free of atmospheric contaminants to test the calculations.
Stephen Wilde says:
October 7, 2013 at 1:00 pm
I have observed that zonal jet streams produce less clouds globally and meridional jets produce more clouds globally.
During the late 20th century warming period the jets were more zonal and cloudiness was less.
Now the jets are more meridional, cloudiness has increased and global warming has stopped and may soon decline.
I would appreciate an explanation as to how the Svensmark hypothesis switches the jets between zonality and meridionality.
Any takers?
————————————————————-
I think that Svensmark’s theory gives an answer to the global amount of mid-level clouds. At regional levels the theory is less accurate, from what I can tell.
To me this means there are factors in addition to cosmic rays driving cloud formation. These factors seem to have a measurable influence locally, but globally they cancel each other out.
It seems there is more to discover about cloud formation even if Svensmark’s theory is correct. Perhaps the jets you mention are one of these factors?
“””””……a says:
October 7, 2013 at 12:40 pm
jeremyp99 says:
October 7, 2013 at 12:23 pm
Layman’s question
“we were able to build a chamber with unprecedented cleanliness, allowing us to simulate the atmosphere”
Is the atmosphere really that clean?
———————————————————————-
You want the chamber to be clean so you can ensure the results you get come from the experiment rather than from some residue in the chamber walls…….”””””””
That’s very nice; now how do they keep the clean internal atmosphere away from the walls, since the walls aren’t present, in the real atmosphere; and water vapor freely condenses on any surface, where it wouldn’t condense just from the atmosphere. The lab scale experiment shows you what happens in a lab scale experiment with solid walls to nucleate “aerosols”..
Leon Elam says “Henrik Svensmark is a modern day Copernicus and the man made global warming bunch are the Inquisition.“. Note: The Inquisition won, or at least, they were winning for about 100 years. But back then there was no internet. The most important factor in dlimate science (NB. climate science, not climate) is the internet, as driven by people like Steve McIntyre and Anthony Watts.
Obviously the type of cloud cover is linked to atmospheric circulation and its intensity, hardly a point of expertise of Mr. Mosher.
The beauty of WUWT?
Had this been a paper casting doubt on an alarmist assumption or hypothesis, all the alarmist blogs and their commenters would have been united in condemning it, and its authors, with extreme prejudice (and deletions). That’s assuming, of course, that it was even mentioned at all!
Here, the site owner actively brings it to peoples’ attention and the vast majority of posters (with the exception of one or two who appear to be acting more and more like trolls) actually think about it and openly discuss how it may, or may not, affect the hypothesis.
I’ve commented before that I’m idealogically opposed to the political leanings of most of my fellow posters here but, when it comes to putting intellectual curiosity ahead of dogma, I’ve gotta say that you guys rock! 😀