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

[NeverVotedBush]

I would think the crucial information would be if there had been a significant change in the cosmic ray flux over the last century and how that correlates with a change in cloud coverage or density.

Re:Lack of

[interkin3tic]

Are you saying that's the null hypothesis they will be testing (pedantic) or are you merely saying they won't find a connection (unscientific)?

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.

Re:Lack of

[bonch]

Which is the opposite of the conclusion, but okay, whatever goes along with Slashdot's groupthink, I guess.

Re:Lack of

[Livius]

Either way it's a step forward for human knowledge.

Re:Lack of

[treeves]

"the day" being pre-classical Greek civilization, say, pre-300BC?

Re:Lack of

[Layzej]

I would think the crucial information would be if there had been a significant change in the cosmic ray flux over the last century and how that correlates with a change in cloud coverage or density.

Studies in that area have been inconclusive. The IPCC AR4 summarizes:

There appears to be a small but statistically significant positive correlation between cloud over the UK and galactic cosmic ray flux during 1951 to 2000 (Harrison and Stephenson, 2006). Contrarily, cloud cover anomalies from 1900 to 1987 over the USA do have a signal at 11 years that is anti-phased with the galactic cosmic ray flux (Udelhofen and Cess, 2001)

Here are some more recent studies which also have been unable to show a definitive link:

Calogovic, J., et al. (2010): Sudden cosmic ray decreases: No change of global cloud cover. Geophysical Research Letters, 37, L03802, doi:10.1029/2009GL041327.

Erlykin, A.D., et al (2009a): On the correlation between cosmic ray intensity and cloud cover. Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, 71, 17-18, 1794-1806, doi:10.1016/j.jastp.2009.06.012.

Kulmala, M., et al. (2010): Atmospheric data over a solar cycle: no connection between galactic cosmic rays and new particle formation. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 10, 1885-1898, doi:10.5194/acp-10-1885-2010.

Pierce, J.R., and P.J. Adams (2009): Can cosmic rays affect cloud condensation nuclei by altering new particle formation rates? Geophysical Research Letters, 36, L09820, doi:10.1029/2009GL037946.

Sloan, T., and A.W. Wolfendale (2008): Testing the proposed causal link between cosmic rays and cloud cover. Environmental Research Letters, 3, 024001, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/3/2/024001.

Re:Lack of

[Layzej]

I don't know, this one looks pretty good. I'm going to keep my eye open for more submissions from this Layzej guy ;)

Cosmics Leaving Outdoor Droplets (CLOUD)

[Chris Mattern]

Face it, your desperate attempt to get a cute acronym has just left you looking like a CLOD.

Re:Cosmics Leaving Outdoor Droplets (CLOUD)

[ozbird]

Denialists Really Off the Planet; Latest Excuse Tenuous (DROPLET.)

No doubt

[wsxyz]

There is no doubt that if cosmic rays are driving global warming, then human activity is driving cosmic rays.

Re:No doubt

[Rei]

Obligatory graph. That shows the different climate forcings, their medians, and their error bars. What the current study is working on is cloud formation. You'll notice that cloud formation has a pretty huge error bar; we're not very good at modelling it, and there's a lot of research to try to improve that. But note that even if you assume the best-case cooling effect from clouds, rather than the median (or the worst, for that matter), you're still not cancelling out the other forcings. Note the error bars on the net result at the bottom.

Re:No doubt

[Poorcku]

Bad modelling hasn't yet stopped "scientists" from influencing policy making... [FILL IN ALARMIST AND ARMAGEDDONIST FACTOID HERE] - if you know what I mean. Yes Greenpeace, I am looking at you.

Re:No doubt

[Rising Ape]

And what exactly does Greenpeace have to do with climate scientists?

Re:No doubt

[Marc Madness]

Bad modelling hasn't yet stopped "scientists" from influencing policy making... [...] Yes Greenpeace, I am looking at you.

When did scaling government buildings to protest climate change become science?

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:CERN : maybe :: IPCC : absolutely certain

[brit74]

Industry loves uncertain language, as well. Afterall, no action can be taken if everything is uncertain. No wonder they've been working so hard to raise doubts.

More Anti-AGW Commenters

[brit74]

I like how, when faced with decades of research on the CO2 - global warming connection, the anti-AWG crowd are completely skeptical. But, a hint that cosmic rays might affect cloud formation and climate change, and they're already convinced.

It fits pretty nicely with other research that showed that people's willingness to accept global warming seemed to hinge on whether or not they needed to change their lives as a result. (As if facts were true or not depending on their consequences for their own lives.)

In one version of the news story, however, the scientific study was described as calling for “increased antipollution regulation,” whereas in another it was described as calling for “revitalization of the nation’s nuclear power industry".... individualists who received the “nuclear power” [solution to global warming] were less inclined to dismiss the facts [of global warming] related by the described report http://thesituationist.wordpress.com/2007/10/02/nuclear-power-makes-individualists-see-green/

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:More Anti-AGW Commenters

[ScentCone]

We went to Iraq primarily to secure a source of oil for the US

Actually, we, and many other countries, went because Iraq invaded Kuwait and showed every inclination to also invade Saudi Arabia, and use the resulting power grab to run much of the middle east the same way that Saddam was running Iraq. You do remember that part, right?

Re:More Anti-AGW Commenters

[ScentCone]

Wrong war.

No, same war. Saddam agreed to all sorts of things as he got kicked back out of Kuwait.He followed through on essentially none of those things, and contined - without interruption - to shoot at allied aircraft patroling the no-fly zones (to which he agreed). He never stopped shooting in the war he started when he invaded and attempted to annex Kuwait. And that's just the tip of that iceberg.

Re:Wait...

[Chris Mattern]

I thought Climate Change was anthropomorphic

That's *Mister* Climate Change to you, pal!

I remember...

[GooberToo]

...posting on this very topic a couple of years back in a climate change thread. I was troll moderated to hell and quickly attacked by the slashdot masses about how this could never cause anything to happen. Never mind such research has been going on for easily a decade, if not the very preliminary work for over two decades.

So according to the slashdot herd, this is completely wrong and there is absolutely no need to ever study it as they long ago confirmed this is all nonsense. Hurry! We've all been saved by the massive stupidity which is the slashdot masses.

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.

Re:I remember...

[bonch]

Someone else here made an excellent observation that many, and perhaps most, of those who embrace the idea of anthropogenic global warming also happen to be people whose cure for the global warming involves solutions that align with their political views. It's strange that there seems to be no recognition of the link between anti-industry, centralized-economic politics and belief in manmade global warming.

An even more interesting observation is the one made by Michael Crichton--environmentalism follows a religious model so common that it just might be ingrained in humans. The world starts as a Garden of Eden (pristine nature) that is then sullied by the existence of man (industry and technology), a sin that must be purged through sacrifice and prayer (environmentalist policies). In fact, you'll find this same formula in almost every belief system, from religions to political parties. Everyone thinks they're fighting selfish humans to return the world to some perfect state, if only governments would institute their policies.

Already, there are several defensive posts from people trying to nip this article in the bud because their beliefs are under threat.

Re:Wait...

[Rei]

Anthropomorphic climate change? Like this? ;)

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:Star Trek IV now makes SO MUCH MORE SENSE!

[tp1024]

If only people would remember how quickly earth ran out of energy reserves in that movie, once the sun was blocked ....

AGW causing cosmic rays too?

[XxtraLarGe]

AGW is even worse than we expected!

Re:AGW causing cosmic rays too?

[Toonol]

Climate warming creates, as a side effect, a tachyon-based ripple effect that goes back decades in time and motivates humans to release carbon. Our models don't take superluminal effects into account, and hence we foolishly believe carbon is causing the warming, instead of the other way around.

Re:Irene good night Cern

[Toonol]

Blaming Irene on global warming is embarrassingly unscientific.

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?

[geekoid]

"After all the lies,"

What lies?

" the unwillingness to share data, "
Data is shared all the time.

"the insular peer review,"
the peer review is only insular in the EXPERTS IN THE FIELD peer review. just like every other field.

" lack of temperature increases,"
2010 was the hottest on record. the lack of temp. increase is a LIE.

  and now a strong argument that changes how we think about cloud formation, "

ah, I see. You have glommed onto a belief system, and have completely stopped thinking about it. well done, I'm sure Fox news will throw you a towel to wipe their cum off your face.
RTFA, bitch.

Talking to you people is like talking to creationist. Lies, misunderstanding, and all your knowledge about the topic is from headlines and echo chamber sites.

Not CLOUD -- it's CLOD -- you clod!

[FridayBob]

The name of this project is horribly contrived and invented only to result in a certain cool acronym, which it does not! It's easy to see that someone spent some time thinking about the name, but obviously not enough.

Clearly the acronym for "Cosmics Leaving Outdoor Droplets" is CLOD, and possibly CLOuD, but not CLOUD!

Was the lead author as incompetent and unimaginative with the rest of his project? If he conducted his research the same way he arrived at his acronym, it doesn't bode well! Of course, I could check by reading his paper, but since I refuse to pay Nature's subscription fee, I don't feel like giving him the benefit of the doubt.

Re:No dice

[tallbloke]

Stratospheric water vapour and co2 are in the wrong forcing ratio on that graph. SWV is about 30% as effective as a ghg. It's been falling in concentration since around 2000 and partially explains the hiatus in warming. Solomon 2010 http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/science.1182488

Re:The Real Flat Earthers

[bill_mcgonigle]

Come to think of it, Flat Earthers thought that was peer reviewed also because a handful of ships captains said it was true..

Don't attack one myth with another. <WP:Myth_of_the_Flat_Earth>