CERN Studies Connection Between Cosmic Rays and Climate Change

Layzej writes with this quote from Nature: "For a century, scientists have known that charged particles from space constantly bombard Earth. Known as cosmic rays, the particles are mostly protons blasted out of supernovae. As the protons crash through the planet's atmosphere, they can ionize volatile compounds, causing them to condense into airborne droplets, or aerosols. It is hypothesized that clouds might then build up around the droplets — possibly affecting the Earth's climate. To find out, [Jasper] Kirkby and his team are bringing the atmosphere down to Earth in an experiment called Cosmics Leaving Outdoor Droplets (CLOUD). ... Early results seem to indicate that cosmic rays do cause a change (abstract). The high-energy protons seemed to enhance the production of nanometer-sized particles from the gaseous atmosphere by more than a factor of ten. But, Kirkby adds, those particles are far too small to serve as seeds for clouds."

Comments

Lack of

[sphealey]

In other words, CERN studies lack of connection between cosmic rays and climate change.

sPh

Re:Lack of

[Pino Grigio]

I'm honestly not sure how you can come to this conclusion. Look at the graph:

Cloud Graph.

I was convinced there was more to this after reading Calder's book, "The Chilling Stars", quite some time ago. This experiment simply adds to the evidence gathered and presented there. The next question concerns the growth of CCN after this initial formation of small sized particles. It's interesting to me that this is immediately dismissed by hockey-stick fiddlers. There is a certain closed-mindedness to anything other than the current dogma in certain circles.

Re:Lack of

[bonch]

There is a certain closed-mindedness to anything other than the current dogma in certain circles.

Just look at the negative moderation of your post. Certain people have latched onto current climate change dogma so strongly that it's become a source of self-worth for them, proof of how much smarter they are than the "deniers." Nobody is even allowed to offer a calm, opposing opinion supported by evidence.

Re:Lack of

[GameboyRMH]

It's because the deniers have previously presented this theory as an alternative explanation to global warming vs. human-released fossil carbon, and while it was found that cosmic radiation can have some influence, the effects are nowhere near significant enough on their own.

So of course when this theory shows up in an article the first reaction of scientifically-minded people is to put that dead horse back in the ground before the deniers get a chance to beat on it again, because that's a frustrating waste of everybody's time.

So, yes it has an effect that's worth studying. But NO this wasn't the mystery factor that those elitist scientists didn't notice 'cuz they're fulla book learnin' but ain't got no common sense.

CERN : maybe :: IPCC : absolutely certain

[tp1024]

The problem with a lot of public climate science is a matter of language. Specifically, the utter abuse of language by the IPCC to imply absolute scientific certainty where there is in fact, little more than strong hints in need of further investigation. Which is not surprising, as an intergovernmental panel is not a scientific, but a political institution.

This is in contrast with the particle scientists CERN, who are much more careful with their language, because they have not thrown scientific integrity out of the window in order to overstate their findings. Which is all the more remarkable given the huge expenditure on some experiments like the LHC. I've written a rather longish piece on that topic a few days ago.

Re:More Anti-AGW Commenters

[ScentCone]

people's willingness to accept global warming seemed to hinge on whether or not they needed to change their lives as a resul

I've noticed a different variation on that, myself. I see that the people who strongly embrace the notion that any changes in the climate are entirely anthropogenic (and specifically WHA, "western hemisphere anthropogenesis"), are the people have been told that the cure happens to be a reording of global affairs in a way that happens to line up with their politics. Typically, taxing productivity, redistribution of earnings, centralized control of all economic activity, etc. In other words, I see a strong correlation between the All-AGW-All-The-Time crowd, and the Nanny-State/Statist demographic. They dismiss all non-anthropogenic factors as being meaningless because those tend to chip away at the Hopey Changey stuff that is their actual agenda.

Re:I remember...

[NeutronCowboy]

And yet, the CERN research showed that cosmic rays are at best a tiny fraction of the nucleation factors that create clouds.

I remember when this possibility came up during climate change discussions. What you were most likely modded down for is that you took a very speculative article with little supporting evidence, and trumpeted it as proof that AGW is bogus.

Sometimes, the masses are right, and they are laughing at Bozo the clown.

Skeptics aren't anti-AGW

[subl33t]

Skeptics are pro-objective. Even the main body of the IPCC AR report is filled with "maybe"s, "likely"s, and "possibly"s.
It's the summary for policy makers that's tacked-on to the end that's filled with "impending doom!" - it's an entriely political document, not a scientific one.

Re:I remember...

[GooberToo]

Wrong. What I was modded down was that everyone found the mere correlation of preliminary research indicated that things are far more complex and the other camp could stand it that climate change is really fucking complex and us humans are still trying to figure out the variables, let alone how things actually work.

You see, when it comes to climate change and slashdot, rarely does intelligence prevail. Censorship, by means of moderation rather than debate, generally prevails.

Re:More Anti-AGW Commenters

[Jeng]

people have been told that the cure happens to be a reording of global affairs in a way that happens to line up with their politics. Typically, taxing productivity, redistribution of earnings, centralized control of all economic activity, etc

Really? I haven't been told that redistributing wealth or centralized control of econimics are the cure for AGW, what I've been told the AGW is for us to stop polluting so damn much.

Now some people have some funny ideas about how to go about that, some are dead wrong and could do much worse damage to the climate than we have, but I haven't heard that what would amount to communism to be a cure. In fact there is not a communist country with a good environmental record.

Re:How is that sand tasting?

[GameboyRMH]

The graph doesn't say otherwise. It shows that cosmic radiation can cause droplets to form, which we already know. Not that it has an effect great enough to account for any meaningful amount of global warming.

After all that you are unwilling to admit that perhaps there is a lot about climate science yet to discover, unwilling to admit your masters have hoodwinked you.

LOL irony overload! XD

Also I get the feeling that this "unwillingness to share data" argument is the hot new fashion among denialists, maybe a nice big compiled list of data sources and climate simulator source code downloads will make you move on...

Re:How is that sand tasting?

[hsthompson69]

The Cloud Graph link posted just one response above the one you are replying to says otherwise, yet here you are Denying the existence of it simply because it does not fit the Dogma you have chosen to believe.

There is always an ad hoc special pleading available for a Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming hypothesis that is never unambiguously stated. Keep showing refutations of individual points, and warmists will keep insisting that it's all the *other* points that count.

Re:There are enough other reasons to reduce carbon

[hsthompson69]

Its' a scientific fact, not a story.

This word you use...I do not think it means what you think it means.

Yes, climate change is a scientific fact. Let's expound on that a bit.

Natural climate change is a scientific fact. We can assert this because climate change happened long before anything we currently deem "artificial" or "anthropogenic" existed.

Now, perhaps you only partially agree with this scientific fact. Perhaps you believe that natural climate change has stopped, and current climate change is no longer natural, but anthropogenic. On top of that, perhaps you even believe that this climate change is going to be catastrophic.

Anthropogenic climate change is far from scientific fact, and I'll bet you can't even start the scientific method by stating a succinct falsifiable hypothesis of anthropogenic climate change. But hey, go ahead and try!