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

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.

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: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: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: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: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

[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.