CERN experiment confirms cosmic ray action
Climate Change – News and Comments
The global warmists’ dam breaks
Long-anticipated results of the CLOUD experiment at CERN in Geneva appear in tomorrow’s issue of the journal Nature (25 August). The Director General of CERN stirred controversy last month, by saying that the CLOUD team’s report should be politically correct about climate change (see my 17 July post below). The implication was that they should on no account endorse the Danish heresy – Henrik Svensmark’s hypothesis that most of the global warming of the 20th Century can be explained by the reduction in cosmic rays due to livelier solar activity, resulting in less low cloud cover and warmer surface temperatures.Willy-nilly the results speak for themselves, and it’s no wonder the Director General was fretful.
Jasper Kirkby of CERN and his 62 co-authors, from 17 institutes in Europe and the USA, announce big effects of pions from an accelerator, which simulate the cosmic rays and ionize the air in the experimental chamber. The pions strongly promote the formation of clusters of sulphuric acid and water molecules – aerosols of the kind that may grow into cloud condensation nuclei on which cloud droplets form. What’s more, there’s a very important clarification of the chemistry involved.
A breach of etiquette
My interest in CLOUD goes back nearly 14 years, to a lecture I gave at CERN about Svensmark’s discovery of the link between cosmic rays and cloudiness. It piqued Kirkby’s curiosity, and both Svensmark and I were among those who helped him to prepare his proposal for CLOUD.By an unpleasant irony, the only Svensmark contribution acknowledged in the Nature report is the 1997 paper (Svensmark and Friis-Christensen) on which I based my CERN lecture. There’s no mention of the successful experiments in ion chemistry and molecular cluster formation by the Danish team in Copenhagen, Boulby and latterly in Aarhus where they beat CLOUD to the first results obtained using a particle beam (instead of gamma rays and natural cosmic rays) to ionize the air in the experimental chamber – see http://calderup.wordpress.com/2011/05/17/accelerator-results-on-cloud-nucleation-2/
What will historians of science make of this breach of scientific etiquette? That Kirkby was cross because Svensmark, losing patience with the long delay in getting approval and funding for CLOUD, took matters into his own hands? Or because Svensmark’s candour about cosmic rays casting doubt on catastrophic man-made global warming frightened the national funding agencies? Or was Kirkby simply doing his best (despite the results) to obey his Director General by slighting all things Danish?
Personal rivalries aside, the important question is what the new CLOUD paper means for the Svensmark hypothesis. Pick your way through the cautious prose and you’ll find this:
“Ion-induced nucleation [cosmic ray action] will manifest itself as a steady production of new particles [molecular clusters] that is difficult to isolate in atmospheric observations because of other sources of variability but is nevertheless taking place and could be quite large when averaged globally over the troposphere [the lower atmosphere].”
It’s so transparently favourable to what the Danes have said all along that I’m surprised the warmists’ house magazine Nature is able to publish it, even omitting the telltale graph shown at the start of this post. Added to the already favourable Danish experimental findings, the more detailed CERN result is excellent. Thanks a million, Jasper.
Read remainder at Nigel Calder's blog
I am afraid that it doesn't matter that cosmic rays encourage cloud formation. What matters is that clouds do not affect the overall energy distribution (the hydrostatic temperature lapse rate structure in the troposphere), hence the temperature at any given pressure, in the atmosphere:
ReplyDeleteVenus: No Greenhouse Effect
Simply put, despite the planet-wide thick cloud cover on Venus, despite its much greater albedo than Earth's, the temperature-vs-pressure curves of Venus and Earth, when their different distances from the Sun are taken into account, are essentially the same. Only the distance from the Sun, nothing else, accounts for the detailed temperatures in the two planets' atmospheres. The physical reasons for this are given in my analysis at the above site. As I have been trying to tell even the skeptics, the Venus/Earth comparison, properly done for the first time, trumps all of climate theory (consensus or skeptic), and demolishes it. This overwhelming and definitive evidence of two detailed planetary atmospheres is the necessary starting point now for the correction of, and real progress in, climate science. Everyone on every side of the climate debates needs to learn and understand this critical point.
Good points.
ReplyDeleteThe warmists claim extra GHGs somehow increase the radiating height of the TOA, but this doesn't make sense to me. Best way to refute this argument?
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2013/12/03/tim-cullen-svensmark-vindicated/
ReplyDeletehttp://img250.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=45311_expanded_overview2_122_15lo.jpg
ReplyDelete