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.
N2 …. Nitrogen.
A residual gas in the atmosphere of the beautiful blue ball.
780,000 ppm
CO2
The dominant gas in the atmosphere of the beautiful blue ball
400 ppm
========================
relâmpago = lightning
http://qnint.sbq.org.br/sbq_uploads/layers/imagem2834.png
milodonharlani says:
October 7, 2013 at 6:51 pm
Pat Frank says:
October 7, 2013 at 6:30 pm
No so far.
I know that eventually there may be errors in energy balances.
Admittedly …. material balances are much easier to be elaborated.
It is a great example of how true experimental studies should go, following the scientific method.:
Postulate a hypothesis, rigorously try to test it consequences, and when the data disagree with your hypothesis ( cosmic ray enhancement of aerosols) report the results impartially.
************
This series of photos in another site show how the solar wind impacts the upper atmosphere.
Bear with me.
We have had a funny year not as much as weather conditions but as far as plant and insects go. Twenty four pistachio trees gave only 1 ( one) pistachio. The quince , no quinces, the pear tree five pears, both trees had flowered beautifully. The olive trees very few olives. We had a practically insect free summer. No flies, very few ants, The cicadas, which come out of the ground in the summer and molt to their last phase, were OK The weather had been mild all through spring, no great storms or cold fronts or heat fronts.
Watching the weather reports one sees that the jet stream in the high atmosphere has changed, explaining our mild weather.
Then the swallows left early. Migrating birds are supposed to have magnetic field orientation detectors.
All these observations have made me think of how small changes in the magnetic fields could affect insects and therefore pollination, maybe the flowering time of pistachios( pistachios, male and female pollinate by the wind) , etc. What if small changes in magnetic fields could do this?
And the connecting point to this diversion from the main subject is that maybe it is not cosmic rays that seed the aerosols but tiny changes in the magnetic field due to the changes in the solar wind which enable their faster creation. Maybe the cross section increases strongly if the molecular spins are alined following stronger magnetic fields ,
Just a thought.
Another thing….clouds & the atmosphere are anything but sterile! Recent studies show that clouds can be rife with bacteria, some of which seem to contribute to nucleation: http://www.livescience.com/26533-loads-of-bacteria-hiding-out-in-storm-clouds.html
Janice Moore: “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.”
It also shows that they have forgone conclusions about a “global warming” that they think needs “fixing”.
If should be noted that this text seems to be CERN media relations dept.’s press release not directly from the research team.
This echoes the CERN director censuring the last report saying that what it reported had to be “politically correct”.
With that kind of bias at the top it seems unlikely they will be allowed to find any effect that substantiates Svensmark.
“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.”
Amine scrubbing, capturing carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fueled power plants, not ruling out a role for cosmic radiation nor a quick fix for Global Warming:
This is typical jargon for a AGW hit piece and has nothing to do with science. Capiche…
No quick fix for Global Warming…. Bwahahahahahahh
And you take this report serious? I don’t.
The “real driver” of what? Even Hawaiian Punch could not have developed a better mix of Apples and Oranges than that!
Steve, if you would re-read that quote you first quoted then for that crack you made to make any sense at all then you must acyually believe one of the two following strawmen …
(1) Skeptics are debating cosmic rays versus CO2 as “the real driver” of initiating cloud formation.
(2) Skeptics are debating cosmic rays versus CO2 as “the real driver” of heating the atmosphere.
Two completely different and practically opposite concepts, and your concatenation of them reeks of frustration and desperation. And just to rub it in further let me say that CO2 indeed heats the atmosphere ( or actually retains some heat TEMPORARILY through ping-ponging radiation ) but in the same sense and on the same scale that tossing a pebble in the ocean raises sea-level. This is why everyone is laughing at the alarmism while simultaneously yelling about billions of dollars wasted.
Great visual!
James Lovelock did the cloud seeding bit over 20 years ago showing that MSA is the nucleating agent. Historical MSA abundancies as measured in ice cores also matched with global climate.
Does any know Svenmark well enough to invite him to comment on this site concerning the CERN results?
“Amines are atmospheric vapours closely related to ammonia, and are emitted both from human activities such as animal husbandry, and from natural sources.”
Now see what you did shooting all those Buffalo…
Another major way humans have put lots of nitrates up in the air is through warfare. The “fog of war” is a real thing I used to observe in Vietnam after B-52 carpet bombing. German cities in WWII would put up tremendous volumes of flack up to 25,000 ft. In those days clouds really hindered bombing accuracy so the clever Huns being the world’s greatest chemists at the time may have been getting a double benefit.
Another little issue is the reality that over deep time galactic cosmic rays do not arrive at a steady rate. Every now and then we get a burst that can be many orders of magnitude more intense than the steady background rate. These bursts could be very detrimental to life that doesn’t reside at the bottom of an ocean or deep underground, but the bursts could also be quite unlike any atmospheric input we would think to stimulate. Climate being perhaps a delicate chaotic system such dramatic and very sudden anomalies may trigger sudden-onset ice ages.
Time to mount an all out observational effort to test the “rotting fish” theory. The US west coast fishermen are all in port due to the government shutdown. Any measurable decrease in aerosols? Any chance of seafood for Thanksgiving or Christmas? These are important questions.
milodonharlani, thanks for the correction. Manufacture of monoethanolamine goes through ammonia. As it’s a more elaborate molecule, it would produce more CO2 than ammonia alone. So, the equation would be even worse.
Regardless of the threat of CO2, it appears the cost of amine scrubbing would be hugely prohibitive.
mike g, you may be thinking of fracking liquids.
Pat Frank says:
October 8, 2013 at 8:52 am
I agree that only if the wildest (or some of the wilder, since it’s hard to top Hansen’s boiling oceans) catastrophe scenarios had any degree of probability would the cost be justified. But WX will not get more extreme, the ice caps won’t melt, billions won’t starve & humanity won’t be reduced to a few breeding pairs on Antarctica subsisting on lichen or go extinct, as forecast by Bob Geldof.
Greg says:
October 7, 2013
If should be noted that this text seems to be CERN media relations dept.’s press release not directly from the research team.
This echoes the CERN director censuring the last report saying that what it reported had to be “politically correct”.
With that kind of bias at the top it seems unlikely they will be allowed to find any effect that substantiates Svensmark.
============================================================================
Quite right. It will take a seismic shift in the European Union’s present pro-CAGW
stance before the CLOUD experiment will be able to `interpret’ their findings less
restrictively.
One does not upset one’s paymasters, or, if one has to, one upsets them VERY
carefully.
That’s two big papers from CLOUD. Both contain surprises. Bring on the next one!
For those who are interested, Svensmark has a recent paper on his current SKY2
experiment out. (see hockeyschtick, wed 4th Oct) and there is a …. summary
here at http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/09/130904093523.htm
Enjoy.
oops … brain f**T: hockeyschtick wed 4th SEPT, Sorry!
Physicist and the former ISRO chairman, U.R. Rao, has calculated that cosmic rays — which, unlike carbon emissions, cannot be controlled by human activity — have a much larger impact on climate change than The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) claims.
In fact, the contribution of decreasing cosmic ray activity to climate change is almost 40 per cent, argues Dr. Rao in a paper which has been accepted for publication in Current Science, the preeminent Indian science journal. The IPCC model, on the other hand, says that the contribution of carbon emissions is over 90 per cent.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/21/cosmic-rays-contribute-40-to-global-warming-study/
For those wondering what Heinrick is up to:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0375960113006294
Alas, $35 to find out! But, there probably are other ways! (HINT HINT Anthony, at least a summary? Or review?)
Max
Leif, I’m having trouble understanding the physics of moving through spiral arms. I would expect our sun to be just another star in a spiral arm, moving in the same way as the rest of the stars in the arm. Why would our sun be unique in moving through the arm while the rest of the stars held their relative positions in the arm. And if no stars are holding their relative positions in the arm, I wouldn’t expect there to be arms. What am I missing?
Tilo Reber says:
October 9, 2013 at 9:45 am
http://www.ualberta.ca/~pogosyan/teaching/ASTRO_122/lect24/lecture24.html
Thanks milo. I’m still not sure why the stars move faster than the density waves, but still, it helps.
Tilo Reber says:
October 9, 2013 at 10:53 am
IMO mature stars start to move out, while young ones or giant, fast-burning ones don’t is the most important issue. Maybe Dr. S will be along to enlighten us.
Interesting update on the CERN CLOUD work: http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/10/cern-experiment-finds-key-ingredient-for-cloud-droplets/