This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Scientific Experiment By Top Laboratory Shows that Cosmic Rays Affect Cloud Formation, Which In Turn Affects Climate
Image Courtesy of CERN (Click for clearer image)
One of the world's most prestigious science labs - CERN - has found that cosmic rays affect cloud formation.
By way of background, the news magazine for the prestigious science journal Nature noted yesterday:
The number of cosmic rays that reach Earth depends on the Sun. When the Sun is emitting lots of radiation, its magnetic field shields the planet from cosmic rays. During periods of low solar activity, more cosmic rays reach Earth.
Scientists agree on these basic facts, but there is far less agreement on whether cosmic rays can have a large role in cloud formation and climate change. Since the late 1990s, some have suggested that when high solar activity lowers levels of cosmic rays, that in turn reduces cloud cover and warms the planet. Others say that there is no statistical evidence for such an effect.
The Director of CERN's cosmic ray experiment (Jasper Kirby) now says that experiments show that cosmic rays significantly enhance the production of the particles which initiate the cloud-formation process. Specifically, cosmic rays allow the minute amounts of sulfuric acid and ammonia in the atmosphere to stabilize, and then - when the clusters grow to 20 molecules or more - become the structure around which moisture can condense so that clouds begin to form.
A press release from CERN states:
The CLOUD results show that trace vapours assumed until now to account for aerosol formation in the lower atmosphere can explain only a tiny fraction of the observed atmospheric aerosol production. The results also show that ionisation from cosmic rays significantly enhances aerosol formation.
A new scientific paper published today by the CERN team in Nature summarizes the results. And here is a chart graphically conveying the results of the experiment:
While the CERN findings are very important, they are not the first experimental results to confirm the affect of cosmic rays on cloud formation.
A team of Danish scientists from Aarhus University and the National Space Institute published results in May showing the same basic mechanism:
[Danish scientists] have directly demonstrated in a new experiment that cosmic radiation can create small floating particles – so-called aerosols – in the atmosphere. By doing so, they substantiate the connection between the Sun’s magnetic activity and the Earth’s climate.
With the new results just published in the recognised journal Geophysical Research Letters, scientists have succeeded for the first time in directly observing that the electrically charged particles coming from space and hitting the atmosphere at high speed contribute to creating the aerosols that are the prerequisites for cloud formation.
The more cloud cover occurring around the world, the lower the global temperature – and vice versa when there are fewer clouds. The number of particles from space vary from year to year – partly controlled by solar activity. An understanding of the impact of cosmic particles – consisting of electrons, protons and other charged particles – on cloud formation and thereby the number of clouds, is therefore very important as regards climate models.
With the researchers’ new knowledge, it is now clear that here is a correlation between the Sun’s varying activity and the formation of aerosols in the Earth’s atmosphere.
***
In a climate chamber at Aarhus University, scientists have created conditions similar to the atmosphere at the height where low clouds are formed. By irradiating this artificial atmosphere with fast electrons from ASTRID – Denmark’s largest particle accelerator – they have also created conditions that resemble natural ones on this point.
Simply by comparing situations in the climate chamber with and without electron radiation, the researchers can directly see that increased radiation leads to more aerosols.
In the atmosphere, these aerosols grow into actual cloud nuclei in the course of hours or days, and water vapour concentrates on these, thus forming the small droplets the clouds consist of.
»
- advertisements -
Muslim Products
Pet Supplies
Wholesale Helmet
Sport Items
Lady Beauty Care
Wholesale Ashtray
Wholesale Bangle
Gift Box
Consumer Electronics
Wholesale Earphone
Silicone Products
Wholesale Earphone
Wholesale Keychain
Wholesale Scarf
Wholesale iPod iPhone
Wholesale Raincoat
Wholesale Watch
Computer Accessories
Wholesale Massager
Wholesale Furniture
Wholesale Tableware
Wholesale Ruler
Wholesale Flashlight
Eye Mask
Wholesale Stationery
Wholesale Waterproof Case
Wholesale Poncho
Wholesale Coaster
Digital Photo Frame
Photo Frame
Gift Box
Tape Measure
Wholesale Golf Products
Flash Gift
Writing Instrument
Arts Crafts
Wholesale Scissors
Wholesale Knife
Wholesale Lanyard
Wholesale Towel
Wholesale Gift Bags
Wholesale Stress Ball
Cleaner Products
Sport Support Products
Wholesale Bag
Congress should pass a law and make cosmic rays illegal.
Funny you say that, the congress-critters that are vehemently anti-AGW are scientifically illiterate enough to propose that....
The congress critters are certainly scientifically illiterate, but the majority are sane enough not to share your AGW religion. Must suck to be you.
BBC set out to do a documentary on Global warming. What they came back with shocked the world: "THE GREAT GLOBAL WARMING SWINDLE."
You can download at several sites online, but since I am in PRC, it's somehow difficult link to the sites. A Bing or Yahoo search will reveal several avenues. Or, you can keep your head in the sand and believe the hoax.
Hoax and chains, gwtards.
Naw.... I wouldn't trade what I have for your wildest dreams...
Keep working at the whoring, you may yet succeed....
At least I do argue from authority based on non existant PHD's and papers. I may be a whoremonger but you, like AGW, are a fraud.
Its well known that uncharged nucleation agents such as iodine can be used to increase the rate of cloud formation. The puzzle with this experiment with ionization of neutral molecules like SO2 is that like charges repel and so aggregation into colloids or aerosols might actually be reduced (less cloud formation) with more ionization. So perhaps, what is really happening is that charged molecules are being neutralized by electrons in the cosmic rays and thus the aggregation into aerosols is enhanced?
The other issue is whether increased cosmic ray flux due to solar flares etc is better or worse for cloud formation? Its seems to me that the magnetic shielding mechanism is due to the earths inherent field due to its rotation and its solid metal core (this field has less shielding effect at the poles than the equator). However, a flux of charged particles, such as cosmic rays, will induce its own magnetic field, so maybe this is what they are talking about in terms of increased shielding? But increases in solar storms and thus cosmic rays do knock out terrestrial electronics showing more ionized particles reach the surface. So, the invoked mechanism for cloud formation seems weak-but the results are clear- more ionization = more clouds.
This is why experiments are so much more valuable than "theories or models". And it's the weakness of all of the climate models which do not account for cloud formation and the effect of the major green house gas, water, on temperature, T. That means all extant models are not predictive for T and thus very weak (actually useless except for obtaining grants to "improve" them). If you want to understand the motivation of too many scientists just "follow the money".
If you are really worried about Global Warming how about this for a solution.
We know Global Warming is caused by CO2
We know CO2 makes up 385 parts per million of the atmosphere, up from 285PPM 150 years ago
We know that Co2 in the atmosphere traps heat.
Now to put it in perspective for you financial types. If you had $1 million worth of air you would have
$780,000 worth of nitrogen
$210,000 worth of oxygen
$6000 worth of argon
$385 worth of CO2. Up from $285 150 years ago
That little extra $100 worth of CO2 raised the temp of the whole world 1 degree.
THAT MAKES CO2 THE MOST POWERFUL INSULATOR IN THE UNIVERSE.
So why don't we insulate our houses with CO2? If 100PPM will raise the temp 1 degree what will 1,000,000 PPM do?
Just make bubble wrap filled with CO2 and insulate everybody's house with it.
This will sequester millions of tons of CO2 and it will also insulate our houses so well we will be able to heat a house all winter with 1 gallon of fuel oil.
Presto, no more CO2 in the atmospere, no more fossil fuel CO2 pollution, and no more Peak Oil worries.
Or plant life, that should end well.
Well thank you Captain Obvious.
Lets do a little arithmetic. The earth is covered by 75% water. How much of the 25% that is left is occupied by people. Maybe 5-10% if that. So 10% of 25% is 2.5% and that is the area that we as humans occupy on the entire planet.
For modern civilization to affect the global climate you would have to believe that:
1. The Oceans have no effect on the climate of the earth and they never change.
2. The land masses have no effect on the climate of the earth and they never change.
3. The Sun has no effect on the climate of the earth and it never changes.
4. The only thing that effects the climate of the earth is the Human Race and it's technology.
5. All of this negative effect is generated within the 2.5% area where we all live.
6. All of the negative effect is effecting the entire planet and it's entire eco system
7. The temperature and climate of the earth has never flucuated in the past, and the ideal temperature is what it is today.
This shows it best.....
http://eoimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/ve//1438/earth_lights_lrg.jpg
.
2012 beotches!!!! Watch the massive EQ's between 09/25/11 - 10/29/11... shall be interesting...
In the 70's it was a ice age that was going to wipe out earth. That movement was a religious cult and it faded away. Now it's global warming which is also a religious cult and these morons will fade away as well. No different than the conspiracy theory wack jobs that say no planes hit the twin towers. These are just naive cultists and I classify them all as UFO, Paranormal, Big Foot, Lochness Monster nut jobs. Further, anything the U.N. is involved in is likely a fraud.
In 2007 a griound breaking British documentary called The great global warming swindle said cosmic rays are more a factor in climate change than human activity
see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtevF4B4RtQ
Al Gore and his evangelical green leech acolytes trashed the conclusion and continue to enrich themselves with dubious science.
We have a duty not to polute this planet, but proving climate change is down to human activity is not proven by proper science.
"DAMN YOU! Damn you inconvienient truth of science!" - Al Gore
Thanks GW, I can't comment at your site no matter what I use so when You go to another web design please make sure it takes comments and it's easy for you to use.
Sorry, jo. It's Blogger's fault, I can't change the comment settings...
Just because we (America) now have no visible public NASA space program is in no way evidence that other agencies have as well. To think that TPTB would give up the high ground is well, a ridiculous notion.
Weather as a weapon. http://gramercyimages.com/blog1/2011/07/07/weather-modification-%E2%80%93-a-covert-weapon-of-mass-destruction/
BTW anti-AGW asshats;
Know that Dr. Michael Mann has been once again, for the 7th time, exonerated from ANY accusation of scientific misconduct, while the uber-fuckhead of Anthony Watts keeps on lying his head off.
Here's the thread on Watts's WUWT in which (among other things) this supposed exoneration is debunked.http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/24/mann-uva-emails-released/
The main point made is that this first release of UVA e-mails contains only the ones whose release Mann has not contested, The ones whose release he has contested are going to be argued about to a judge, who will rule on them in coming months.
This will be interesting....
From historical precedent involving the judiciary into science matters has always worked wel.... Reminds me of the Inquisition....
Reminds me of how AGW zealots continually threaten those that deny their theology.....
Show trials for global warming deniers
By John Burtis
Friday, October 13, 2006
My, I was certainly taken aback when I saw that Grist Magazine's staff writer, Mr. David Roberts, is calling for "Nuremberg" style trials for global warming "deniers."
Grist, you see, is the latest hopped up hot house periodical to feature not only an interview with that rising global warming tsar, Al Gore, but one with his close pal in the saddle, Bill Moyers, the darling of the PBS's pulp fictional genre. And Bill's conversazione is available in the current edition.
Mr. Roberts is totally incensed, it appears, that Exxon Mobil, for pity sakes, actually believes that the oil business is viable and, gasp, donates money to institutions supporting its views on energy. And, according to a panting Mr. Roberts, they operate just like the tobacco companies because they peddle an equally noxious and poisonous emission – carbon dioxide – a carcinogen if ever there was one. And carbon dioxide will kill you just as fast as the nasty death dealing chemicals found in tobacco and in those dreaded additives that make the death weed taste so doggone good, like chocolate.
Not satisfied with bawling, shouting, writing, blathering, and pushing people around, to say nothing of passing off Mr. Gore's impolitic pseudo-science as fantastically pure Einsteinian thought on full parade, save for the lack of that beautiful equation or two, David Roberts is now prepared to start up the show trials to begin the prosecution of those, like me I guess, who fail to fall for Mr. Gore's favorite personal and trite fictional theories on the global dissemination of hothouse gasses.
The "global warming deniers," those bastards, he says, must be tried.
No, to hook me on the Mr. Gore's 50 pound test line, I'd like a heartier and meatier dose of local stellar output, more on large inter-stellar molecular clouds, a further explanation of the earth's elliptical orbit, lunar effects, precessions in the earth's spinning on it's axis, a bit more on the angle of tilt, volcanoes and their own emissions, some methane ice inputs into the Gore equations, and the simple recognition that 10,000 years ago we were in an ice age and now we're not. Or maybe even a brief chat about the cyclic nature of previous ice ages and continental drift with a wild attribution on the Deccan and the Siberian traps tossed in for good measure.
But that's not going to happen. Not by a long shot. I'm a hard sell. But you either buy the theory hook, line, and sinker, or you're an infidel – just like Islam, without the prayers.
But all we get are calls for show trials, inquisitions, shouts of death for the non-believers and global warming deniers, and calls for miles of open pits for those who dared believe that man may not be totally at fault for all the planet's ills, change of habitats, and every extinction imaginable.
In the case of the environment, which has most of the wild eyed radicals of the left in a torch burning tirade calling for the blood of the heathen, it's time to move beyond Spain of the 15th century and the Auto-da-Fe operations of that desperate Inquisition. Back then you were at least allowed to renounce your misdeeds and recant your sins without being put on public trial before you were burned at the stake, but not today.
Nope, currently, the radical environmentalists want to drag you right up front for a perfectly good show trial, preferably in front of those clowns on the 9th Circuit, in their peaked caps, eye masks, and long flowing black robes, no doubt, and have a good public go at you, with rocks, vegetables, and all, thrown by the believers, with immediate guilty verdicts all around.
To cleanse you of your apostasy, I'm sure the verdict will be a burning at the stake, as they did in the old days to the folks who didn't get behind the goings on, support the holy Inquisition, or who moved a bit too slowly in coming clean on their shabby beliefs.
And the global warming apostles of doom are everywhere. They're on TV, the radio, on the net, and in advertisements on Boston's MBTA busses. They have taken over honest discourse in once decent magazines like Smithsonian and National Geographic, who print all kinds of half baked slop to curry favor with the growing global warming crowd and the flat worlders.
"Hey," some bird will yell, "That road's flat." And Smithsonian will feature a lengthy think piece by Professor Doctor Ward Churchill supporting the notion that Kansas is completely flat, from end to end.
"My land, why, Mr. Churchill's a college professor," some planet warming tout will broadcast on CNN to add gravitas to the empty boasts contained in the article he's shilling for.
There are more good folks talking about global warming now than were talking about Kofi Annan and his disdainful diatribes against slavery, usury, and the fluctuations hobbling the pound sterling a few short years ago, before he got religion and a big fat pension and began keeping mum on everything except Israel's shortcomings and my, how nice Hezbollah is looking today and where is my hand-made camel top coat.
But now it's time for some honest to goodness trials and executions for the bums who deny that global warming is completely, totally, and one hundred percent caused by people – big people, little people, and every Republican, and leave Kofi out of it all.
And pretty soon the trains will start running us out to where Al Gore, John Kerry, Bill Moyers, and Mr. David Roberts think we should go after our rump proceedings are completed and to the slag heaps where we'll be shot.
Shoot me quick, Dave, I hate lines.
Oh, yes, if you can manage it, knock me off in June. I hear it's going to be a tough winter and it'll be tough to dig holes.
Don't believe me? Ask Solzhenitsyn.
Global warming, you know.
John Burtis is a former Broome County, NY firefighter, a retired Santa Monica, CA, police officer. He obtained his BA in European History at Boston University and is fluent in German. He resides in NH with his wife, Betsy. John Burtis can be reached at: letters@canadafreepress.com
Do you think that anyone cares about the shit you regurgitate?....
I sure as hell didn't read it....
No of course you didn't read it... like a good AGW 'scientist' your mind is already made up and anything that contradicts your religious views is to be ignored. I am writing this for the benefit of others who are considering the issues.
As I said earlier I suggest that anyone really interested should follow discussion at two respectable climate sits one pro, one con...
You are a text book case of a closed ideologically driven mind...borderline sociopath...
Why 2 respectable sites, Flaky? Because they frame the discussion within boundaries that are acceptable to you? Who knows, maybe AGW is a factor in alleged global warming.... we will never know because there is no experimental data to support the AGW thesis, just fraudulent computer models and a vigorous religious movement.
Here we go again with the clown brigade. So, NorthenSoul, please list the 7 cases where Mann was exonerated. I know of 3 and I also know that they were unconvincing.
Actually, don't bother. AGW is falling apart anyways, and who need to argue with a religious kook anyways.
So does that mean the hockey stick graph that high school kid debunked actually wasn't bogus?
The reason Ben is printing like crazy is b/c of some alien butterfly swung its wings a little from 1,000 light years away.
Jesus H. Christ!
It was so obvious that all the anti-AGW trolls would jump in here and celebrate a "validation" of their belief system (note I'm not using the word "theory" or "knowledge") without, of course, answering the most basic questions this research should elicit.
For instance:
Keep being validated in your pitiful egos while, we, in the real world can SEE what's REALLY up with that.
NorthenS, Are you sure your name is not Flakmeister? Anyways, you are correct in noting that we need to answers the questions posed by you, since clearly (no pun intended) the so called science of AGW is far from settled.
Mathane?
Would that be the gas emitted from the orifices of climate modelers?
Good one Anonymouse!
Northern, I am someone who is well and truly confused and undecided on the issue of AGW. While you do bring up good points at times, I have to tell you that the tone of your posts does nothing but push me, and probably others, away from your position. You act exactly like the pro-AGW nutballs that I hear about from the anti-AGW crowd: like an overzealous pseudoreligious fanatic. You deride and insult anyone and everyone instead of just responding.
There are very good reasons why there are people like me. One can come to a rational conclusion on an issue in two ways: knowledge and trust/faith. I do not think that any layman/non-scientist is truly and fully qualified to make a determination on the issue (nor am I convinced even that scientists can, given its complexity). That leaves me and others in the position of trusting what scientists say.
The problem is that I can't. Their credibility is shot to hell. AGW is supported by people with strong vested interests as a matter of political propaganda, a secondary consideration and tool for the accumulation of power by government. Simultaneously, there are just as strong vested interests on the denier side, with the oil industry backing flawed findings to support the status quo. Both sides lie. Both have manipulated data to fit their agenda. And I can't find a truly neutral party (since research on the issue is either funded by public grants and therefore unanimously pro-AGW, or private interests who are unanimously anti).
The concept makes sense of course, of AGW, but the factors involved are mindbogglingly complex. So what is someone like me to do? Back those who oppose AGW because it's clearly a method of social control and has become yet another narrative of fear? Back those who support it because skeptical scientists are inordinately backed by vested interests? Or neither?
I'm not sure. But I can tell you this: nobody likes being berated as an idiot, or being called a fanatic by someone at least as fanatical. So stop it. It's annoying and isn't convincing anyone.
Thanks d_senti, that's about the best articulation I've seen of the rational man's position on this issue. Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right!
d_senti, the problem with the pro AGW'ers is their collective position that the science is settled, they are correct, and anyone who disagrees with them is a denier (a religious term that has nothing to do with science). They are convinced that theirs is the last word in this matter and their tactics and approach smack of totalitarianism. The pro-AGW'ers are not interesting in truth, only in being right.
Ahh.. there can be debate about the science, but your stance is the one founded purely on an ideological basis. You don't know enough to have a such a strong opinion one way or the other.
And AGW does not begin and end with Michael Mann... BTW, did it bother you the least bit that the info came via hackers....Who paid them, what was their motivation? Does the recent Rupert Murdoch flap sound familiar???
Edit: I found this for you.. appropriately titled,
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/02/dummies-guide-to-the-latest-hockey-stick-controversy/
FWIW, my Ph.D thesis included one of the first applications of PCA for particle identification...
Quoting Flakmeister: FWIW, my Ph.D thesis included one of the first applications of PCA for particle identification...
Gee Flaky, I believe you. You hold a PHD just like those 20 plus peer reviewed papers that you published, you know, the ones that you have never linked to or substantiated. What do you call someone who appeals to authority and then hides their qualifications....an AGW scientist/shill.
Why don't you look up applications of eigenvalues and eigenvectors.... bet you didn't cover that stuff in "Whoring for profit"
Hmmmm Flaky, trying to impress me with jargon? How about this:
The mathematical expression of this idea is as follows: if A is a square matrix, a non-zero vector v is an eigenvector of A if there is a scalar ? (lambda) such that
]
Why are eigenvectors useful?
What do you do with them?
Hey Fagmeister,
The reason why eigenvalues and eigenvectors are useful, is because matrices describe linear transformations. So what happens to any basis vectors completely describes the whole transformation.
It is called cut and paste, just like your phony PHD and 20 plus papers you claimed to have authored, but cannot post.
:)
Yep.... you can always tell by the context who cuts and pastes...
Keep trying, maybe you'll get lucky
Yes I can Flaky, I can tell by context that you are good at cutting and pasting, because I can take quotes of your crap, google it and find the references online. Notice that despite how hard you try, fewer and fewer people give a shit about AGW. They are sick of fear mongers and liars, religious kooks trying to sell the the apocalypse, as an excuse to take their money.
Face it, you are in over your head.... you got pwned..
BTW, give one example of where I cut and pasted without saying I cut and pasted... you can't, so go fuck yourself, Shill.
I'm sick of closed minded ideologues like your type.
I will now ignore you.
Flakmeister: "BTW, did it bother you the least bit that the info came via hackers....Who paid them, what was their motivation? Does the recent Rupert Murdoch flap sound familiar???"
See these turn-the-tables counterpunches:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/14/one-more-reason-to-distrust-cru-an...
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/06/mcintyre-from-climategate-to-guard...
--------
Here are threads on WUWT describing recent (July & August) important challenges to the Nonsensus:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/05/the-emily-litella-moment-for-clima...
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/16/new-paper-from-lindzen-and-choi-im...
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/26/pielke-sr-on-new-spencer-and-brasw...
Two threads following up on the above:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/28/spencer-and-braswell-on-slashdot/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/30/fallout-from-our-paper-the-empire-...
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/14/its-not-about-feedback/
PS: Here's another counterpunch thread on phone hacking:
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2011/8/6/more-on-phone-hackers.html
Dear Flakmeister,
are we certain that the information came from hackers, and was not a leaked FOIA request? The only real way to move forward in the AGW debate (yes, debate!) would be to develop an impartial commitee of scientists working with raw data available to all. The IPCC circle jerk is no longer working, and whilst you can pretend that you and your co religionists are winning the debate, the reality is that you have already failed. Seriously, start over and try again, and this time seek truth instead of confirming dogma.
A very reasonable post....
Do not think that there will be anything resembling a rational discussion here on AGW. The Deniers are in the majority here, most if not all for ideological reasons. And this is fight club...
If you are really on the fence, pick two sites, one pro, realclimate, one skeptical, WUTW. Follow some discussions, form your conclusions...
When I showed up here, Peak Oil was clearly the minority position. That has all but changed.
Flakmeister: "If you are really on the fence, pick two sites, one pro, realclimate, one skeptical, WUTW. Follow some discussions, form your conclusions..."
Please do! Here's the first WUWT link again: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/24/breaking-news-cern-experiment-conf...
BTW, it's not true, as you claimed in another comment, that the discussion on WUWT is all about AGW, not GW. Such posts were ones I dismissed as being "lightweight peanut-gallery comments." There are many intelligent and nuanced comments that concede that the CERN paper doesn't go very far and that there are awkward aspects to Svensmark's theory (as you imply by focusing on GW). They provide lots of fascinating links, as well as good critiques of the dismissive position of the Real Climate defense team.