This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.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 -
Wow... what a red herring and strawman rolled into one...
A reasonable carbon tax would not significantly raise the price of oil. Besides oil is not the problem. But you are so unaware of actual issues and data to know that...
Go back to your whoring....
Flaky, even a 10% increase in the cost of energy will dramatically affect almost 3 Billion people. Just try living on $2.50 per day. Of course, scratch an AGW fanatic like you and underneath you will find an eugenicist. So if more than a billion brownies, sand niggers, zipper heads and darkies die, why there is more for you. Just one thing..... imagine if some of them live in your neighbourhood. Do you think they will slowly starve whilst you swill?
Almost half the world — over three billion people — live on less than $2.50 a day.
At least 80% of humanity lives on less than $10 a day.Source1
More than 80 percent of the world’s population lives in countries where income differentials are widening.Source2
The poorest 40 percent of the world’s population accounts for 5 percent of global income. The richest 20 percent accounts for three-quarters of world income.Source3
According to UNICEF, 22,000 children die each day due to poverty. And they “die quietly in some of the poorest villages on earth, far removed from the scrutiny and the conscience of the world. Being meek and weak in life makes these dying multitudes even more invisible in death.”Source4
Around 27-28 percent of all children in developing countries are estimated to be
Wow....
This is an example of cherry picking data.... disparage a source, such as the UN, but then use their numbers to make a argument when convienient.
I never knew you were such a compassiate and caring person. Do you do much volunteer work?
I can assure you that the carbon footprint of someone making $2.50 a day is pretty tiny and would not be affected by any such tax....
Really Flaky, someone making $2.50 per day would not be affected by a carbon tax?
Rising energy cost not only increase the price of gas, but also the cost of fertilizer. For some farmers, energy and fertilizer comprise more than 35% of their input costs. So if input costs increase, the cost of producing food increases. This is an second order effect that AGW kooksters like yourself ignore. Even if the poor do not own cars or motorcyles, they still have to cook their food with hydrocarbons. What happens when the cost of cooking fuel increases, cost of fuel rises, and subsistence wages remain unchanged?
But then, who cares if a few hundred million browns starve, eh Flaky? As long as your belly stays full and hangs over your belt... all is good. Until the starving masses figure out you have food...
Jarred Diamond's "Collapse" starts out with a 500 cow farm in Greenland, y'know, back when it was, well "Green."
- Ned
Unfortunately energy depletion means mankind's very brief space age may be slowly coming to an end. The US has no manned space vehicle left, the Russians have just suffered their 4th rocket failure in a year, and can only put a man in space using 1960's and 1970's tech.
I respect G Dubbya's posts a great deal...
However..
You've got to be kidding me on this one. It takes a fancy lab and merits an extra special post to tell us all the sun affects the earths weather?
Helloooooooooooooooooooo?? Anyone home???
The sun is responsible for all life and all events on earth as we know it. It is the power source, the life source. No sun, no life. No weather. No anything. Get it?
Thats all you needed for an article.
Next?
The kicker is that it's not only our Sun, but all stars in the Milky Way Galaxy produce cosmic rays that affect cloud formation on Earth. When the Earth is in a star rich area (one of the spiral bands) then there are more rays, more clouds, and cooler temps. When the Earth is not in a band, there are less rays, less clouds and a warmer planet.
Henrik Svensmark and Nigel Calder have written a book (The Chilling Stars: A New Theory of Climate Change) which describes not only the theory, but the fact that (at the time of writing) the more datasets the added, the more correlation they found, reinforcing the theory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henrik_Svensmark#Galactic_Cosmic_Rays_vs_Gl...
it's called science. It's an acquired taste.
Sometimes science only serves to prove what some people deduce using common sense.
The very interesting question is if someone may actually use this finding in court against paying any CO2-based-climat-hoax taxes.
So basically, if there is law based on some incorrect assumption, may I defense myself using plain science?
% CO2 content does affect the Earth's climate. That's indisputable fact supported by hard evidence and physics.
The effect of clouds on surface temperature is 10x any model of CO2 that I've seen.
Inconveinient Cou, sorry but words are not proof. Try again.
Separation of effects (memory, I recall):
Humans produce all of the above; therefore it must be human caused </sarc>
I recall that the same symptoms were the cause of global cooling, when that was the convenient political direction.
- Ned
Actually, water vapor is 95% of the greenhouse effect. The catch is that it is equilibrium, i.e. the effect is basically constant. The CO2 and methane are not. The rate at which are are entering the atmosphere is greater than the rate at which they are removed. So the fact that anthrpogenic GHG are actually a small component of the total is a red herring.
Take the example of a closed sink with leaky drain, Play around until the water from the tap is equal to the water leaking out. Now turn the water up 0.1%.... small amount extra but you will flood the floor soon enough, even though the extra water is a small fraction of the total flow.
Capeche?
Flak u b not so much of a master. Actually, I'd assign you to junior apprentice gun bunny, but well, your organization can call you a "meister" if they wish. But: u b wrong:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas (even the wiki gets this close!)
So, though I'm not so much of a tiny little piglet as before (and I always look over my shoulder for that Rusty-guy).
U never heard about that new GS company? "Photosynthesis?" IPO comin' up real soon, you ought to get in on the "GROUND FLOOR!"
Closed sink? Your nay control engineer are you. Your one of those "static-scoring folks" who keep doing the same thing over and over while expecting different results.
N'est ce pas?
GasFormula
Contribution
(%) Water vapor H2O 36 – 72 % Carbon dioxide CO2 9 – 26 % Methane CH4 4 – 9 % Ozone O3 3 – 7 %
Well, I misstated a factoid that I should have verified first. The number I quoted comes from the fact that ~98% of the Greenhouse effect is from non-anthropogenic sources. Mea Culpa
By the way, before you start crowing too loudly. Your understanding of the carbon cycle is sadly amiss. Yes, photosynthesis sucks a lot of C02 out, but, if you are pumping C02 faster than the ability of the earth to remove it, you have a serious problem..... The C02 cycle is a slowly varying equilibrium, (it does not have to be static and geological history shows it as such), we as a species have blown that equilibrium up...
So are you going to tell me now that C02 data is falsified???
Edit: BTW, I know when I have made an error and am willing to admit it.... Can't say that for ~99% of the people here...
Here is another factoid that you missed, proving that you are who you say you are.
For the convenience of others, I have attached below a copy of your CV posted by you on Zerohedge, Sun, 08/21/2011. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/guest-post-three-paths-near-term-human-ext...
Still waiting...
Flakmeister
Vote up!
0
Vote down!
0M. Sc. in Theoretical Physics, Ph.D. Experimental Physics,
Post Doctroral Experience: U. of Chicago, U. Michigan, Visiting scientist U. of Manchester,
Staff Scientist at Brookhaven National Lab
Primary author of ~20 peer reviewed research papers....
Referee for the Physical Review
Internationally known: Invited seminars and colloquia in 7 countries, 3 continents.... ~20 of the top 100 research universities in US, places like Stanford, CalTech. Featured speaker at 2 international conferences....
Over 20 years experience basic research....
And while not related 5 years experience in structured finance on Wall St.
flak-no, you misrepresented the fact that underpins your "argument" (which is the AGW meme).
Dang, what other "facts" in your posts do we have to "fact-check", every one?
and, don't deflect (your speciality, I observe) who cares about "carbon-cycle" fraud among AGW fraud as the pyramid comes a' tumblin' down.
I'm saying that the "codes" in England were self-admitted to be falsified (including the comments embedded in the codes). Took a leaker with ballz and a sense of responsibility to the truth. That, Sir, YOU lack.
- Ned
But, well, you are no Scientist, who would admit error before others discovered same and DQ'd you. With Consequent Destruction of your supposed "Reputation."
took a tiny little piglet to find you out in under sixty minutes.
state of the world := "so sad"'
You are clearly a shithead....
Note from Flaky to himself:
As per Alinsky, when your arguments are weak, abuse the respondent.
PS remember to bring Scope and KY when visiting Al Gore. He enjoys releasing his third chakra into my base chakra.
Water vapor is more of a greenhouse gas than CO2. And atmospheric levels of CO2 are a lagging indicator of climate change, not a leading indicator.
I never, ever thought this crap would see the light of day when it cranked up circa 1998. Total bullshit that CO2 causes climate change, it is caused by climate change and lags by hundreds of years.
"Uh...you lost me."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7NQ3qI4BxY
"Translation for everyone other than science nerds: the sun is probably an important driver of the Earth's climate."
Just to whomever composed that sentence - are you stupid? The sun IS the driver of Earth's climate. Without the sun the Earth would be a frozen (as in -150 degrees centigrate) mass of rock.
I think you're off by 120 degrees centigrade or a bit more, for surface temparature...
Actually without the sun, the Earth would never had formed.
Thank you.. now we can go back to wondering just why the fuck we needed a Top Laboratory to discover this.. wow.
The Next Scientific Frontier: Sun-Earth Interactions
So this is anti-global-warming?
Possibly. It demonstrates that Earth's climate is not a closed system. This could mean that global temperatures changes are caused by something extraterrestrial -- like solar activity.
Personally I'm happy because it's further proof that "scientific consensus" (which believed the sun had no effect on Earth's climate) can easily be wrong. There is far too much proud willful ignorance among scientists who don't wish to doubt their own theories, lest their grants dry up.
Knowledge and discovery should come first, and if it overturns the old order, fine. It's really the same problem we see in the govt/banking cartel. Vested interests blocking necessary change in the pursuit of profit.
Well said, AOT. I've been in science for over 20 years and have seen grant monies fall into fewer hands. What used to be science with serendipity on thousands of fronts, has become centrally directed science on fewer fronts. When power/money falls into the hands of the few, they cannot help themselves but to set policy to ensure their own prosperity..
This is all about grant money, just like anything remotely addressing AIDS had money thrown at it in the 80s.
Sad to see science, and the scientific method, so openly jaded.
It is sad. There is some good science out there, it's just getting more and more difficult to have the freedom to do it w/o the lure of directed funds.
edit: btw, twenty years later and massive amounts of money are still being hurled into AIDS research.
You may wish to watch the video. Or read the post.
This is old news, really, but glad it is hitting the more mainstream.
One of the 10K PhDs that signed the anti-global warming petition. The science was so weak as to be laughable, particularly the math behind the "hockey stick" crap.
Apologies. I tried to read it, but don't have a very focused attention span with all that's going on out there...I'll take that as an affirmative.
Plus I live for excuses to post Kids in the Hall links...