|
Post by StuartG on Jun 10, 2011 13:47:59 GMT 1
CERN are running experiments to investigate how Cosmic rays [particles] affect the clouds and their formation. This lead has a video of an interview of Jasper Kirkby who heads the research. physicsworld.com/cws/article/multimedia/45950If they don't cause climate change they probably do affect the weather but by how much? As Jasper Kirkby says in the video 'correlations don't prove cause and effect'. So we should get some findings soon... "CERN cloud experiment studies cosmic climate connection" 08 June 2011" www.publicserviceeurope.com/article/445/cern-cloud-experiment-studies-cosmic-climate-connection but when? www.neuralnetwriter.cylo42.com/node/2525indico.cern.ch/getFile.py/access?resId=0&materialId=slides&confId=52576could His findings be contentious? "Clouded research" www.canada.com/story.html?id=975f250d-ca5d-4f40-b687-a1672ed1f684www.neuralnetwriter.cylo42.com/node/2525#comment-2960Oh... StuartG Background... 'Do cosmic rays cause climate change?' Apr 3, 2008 physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/33645These findings from Henrik Svensmark seemed to have sparked these inveatigations... Cosmic rays and clouds "The idea that cosmic rays — high-energy particles that bombard Earth from space — could be affecting the Earth’s climate was put forward by physicist Henrik Svensmark of the Danish Space Research Institute in Copenhagen and colleagues in the late 1990s. Svensmark found that variations in global cloud cover at altitudes of up to 3 km, as revealed by satellite data from 1983 onwards, correlated neatly with the incident cosmic ray flux measured by neutron counters located around the world. Furthermore these variations matched changes in sunspot activity, which varies on an 11-year cycle, with the peak in sunspot activity, which occurred around 1990, corresponding to a minimum in incident cosmic rays and coverage of low clouds. " these statements were then discounted by ... "Now, new research by Terry Sloan of the University of Lancaster and Arnold Wolfendale of the University of Durham has cast further doubt on the link between cosmic ray flux and cloud cover (Environ. Res. Lett. 3 024001 ). The pair says that the observed correlation between cosmic rays and cloud cover does not imply that variations in the former cause changes in the latter. They came to this conclusion after looking for correlations between the two observables beyond the simple global averaged data from the sunspot cycle. " Here is the full letter... "Testing the proposed causal link between cosmic rays and cloud cover" Published 3 April 2008 iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/3/2/024001/pdf/1748-9326_3_2_024001.pdf"Cosmic rays and climate" Jasper Kirkby /CERN CERN Colloquium, 4 June 2009 indico.cern.ch/getFile.py/access?resId=0&materialId=slides&confId=52576
|
|
|
Post by StuartG on Jun 10, 2011 14:24:40 GMT 1
"The Cloud Experiment at CERN" vimeo.com/24241007He seems to have got there in the end.. StuartG ps. This video is 335 Mb so it's better to download rather than keep accessing.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jun 10, 2011 15:50:35 GMT 1
I've just watched the Kirkby video, stu. I've seen 2 others by him over the last few years.
Very impressive. No bluster, no assertion, just presenting the historical correlations, explaining about how aerosols form. Modestly always stressing the current lack of understanding of the effects observed. I call him an example of a REAL scientist.
Compare with the paleaodendroclimatologists, for example, "hiding the decline", splicing incompatible data together, ignoring unexpected data, and cherry-picking single trees to give the pre-required "finding". They are a scandal.
Kirkby is a shining example of integrity in comparison. I'm looking forward to the currently embargoed publication of their Cloud results. I feel thoroughly cheered up after watching his presentation.
|
|
|
Post by StuartG on Jun 13, 2011 12:30:11 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jun 13, 2011 12:44:41 GMT 1
How nice to read a write up that isn't full of snide innuendo and the rubbishing of a researcher's qualifications, funding, political beliefs and publishing/citation record.
It is indeed VERY old-fashioned science being practised at CERN!
|
|
|
Post by StuartG on Jun 13, 2011 13:10:12 GMT 1
For what its worth, my take is... CERN is scientifically OK, but it's funded by politics, therefore it will have a 'politburo' who will be worried that their funding will be curtailed, but on the other hand, if it is curtailed [bluntly 'knock CLOUD on the head'] then the technology will drift to another country [US? maybe even China, it's of much/more interest to the latter], I suspect that they will try to side track further investigations in order to take it from the public eye. [the Brits are good at that sort of spin, watch out for a spindoctor/scientist [with Brit accent!] to speak on the subject in future. Aren't I cynical. StuartG
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Jun 13, 2011 14:23:38 GMT 1
Bet you won't be hooting so much if they don't go the way you want -- plus I'm sure then your fawning appreciation will be somewhat modified as well....................
Sorry, but I just get a bit SICK of anyone on your side being a golden boy, and anyone 'on the other side' being a spawn of satan, irrspective of the actual scientific or personal merits of the people involved.......................
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Jun 13, 2011 14:42:28 GMT 1
Except to GET the funding, he would have had to demonstrate all that.
I don't know why you think that qualifications and publishing/citation record don't matter? Except I do of course, MOST the people you are fond of referencing are significantly short on both....................
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jun 13, 2011 18:03:58 GMT 1
Falling back on orthodoxy and the consensus again. How boring.
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Jun 13, 2011 18:41:36 GMT 1
Eh? What's that got to do with anything?
If orthodoxy means -- look at someone qualifications and experience before judging their opinion, then that seems like plain commonsense to me! Someone without relevant experience or qualifications MAY be right, but it's very unlikely. When their own artickles etc show not just misunderstandings, but great big glaring errors, then surely anyone with any degree of sense is right in saying -- by your own record on these matters, I don't think you're someone to be relied upon.
It's not rocket science, for gawds sake!
As regards politics/beliefs, I think you're more prone to this bias than anyone else here, to the point where even glaring mistakes (Casey again) are ignored because you LIKE THEIR CONCLUSIONS. Ditto chiefio, that supposed model of clarity who clearly misunderstood the Essex paper.
I ask again, HOW many mistakes does it take before you'd judge a source who is 'on your side' to be unreliable? I think the answer is, it doesn't matter how many, because you blithely ignore all of them!
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Jun 13, 2011 18:46:24 GMT 1
Just for the record, I think the CLOUD stuff is kind of cute. If there is a cosmic ray effect, it will be fun. I doubt that it will explain the whole climate thing, but it will be new physics to add to the existing physics of the greenhouse effect.
It will make some of my colleagues (who spent many nights on dark, windy moors tending cosmic ray detectors housed in black dustbins) feel encouraged that their interests were more than just some astronomical specialist niche.............................
|
|
|
Post by StuartG on Jun 13, 2011 21:09:37 GMT 1
PROPOSAL ^^^^^^^ "A STUDY OF THE LINK BETWEEN COSMIC RAYS AND CLOUDS WITH A CLOUD CHAMBER AT THE CERN PS" April 24, 2000 cloud.web.cern.ch/cloud/documents_cloud/cloud_proposal.pdfThis .pdf doc is just the proposal for the research, However it is interesting in it's own right... Page 1 "Beyond its semi-periodic 11-year cycle, the Sun displays unexplained behaviour on longer timescales. In particular, the strength of the solar wind and the magnetic flux it carries have more than doubled during the last century [2]. The extra shieldinghas reduced the intensity of cosmic rays reaching the Earth’s atmosphere by about 15%, globally averaged. This reduction of cosmic rays over the last century is independently indicated by the light radioisotope record in the Greenland ice cores. If the link between cosmic rays and clouds is confirmed it implies global cloud cover has decreased during the last century. Simple estimates indicate that the consequent global warming could be comparable to that presently attributed to greenhouse gases from the burning of fossil fuels." Page 18 "By analysing the 14C content in the rings of long-lived trees such the Californian bristlecone pine, a year-by-year record has been assembled of the cosmic ray flux on Earth over the past several thousand years. The data for the last 1000 years are shown in Fig. 13 [39]. The periods where the 14C deviation approaches or exceeds 10 parts per mil correspond to recorded climatic anomalies: a) 1000–1270, the so-called Medieval Warm period, b) 1280–1350, the Wolf minimum, c) 1420–1540, the Sp¨orer minimum, and d) 1645–1715, the Maunder minimum. The warm period that lasted until about 1300 enabled the Vikings to colonise Greenland and wine making to flourish in England. It was followed by a period of about 500 years duringwhic h—save for a few short interruptions— the glaciers advanced and a cooler, harsher climate predominated. The Maunder Minimum, when there was an almost complete absence of sunspots, corresponded to a high cosmic ray flux on Earth and therefore, under the present hypothesis, to an increased cloudiness. This provides a consistent explanation for the exceptionally cold weather duringthis period. Indeed, in every case the lack (a) or excess (b–d) of 14C is consistent with the hypothesis of a higher cosmic ray flux leading to more clouds and cooler temperatures, and vice versa." Remember what Kirkby said "correlations don't prove cause and effect" StuartG
|
|
|
Post by principled on Jun 13, 2011 21:16:22 GMT 1
STA Whatever the results it will be interesting to see if they can be incorporated into the climate models currently used. Stu's link to the lecture appeared to say that the effect COULD be around 20 times greater than that the 1.6W/m2 of anthropogenic CO2. I suppose that this would also go a long way to explaining other historic climate changes. BTW STA, as you have access to all the academic journals, could you give us a summary when the paper is published? P
|
|
|
Post by StuartG on Jun 13, 2011 21:21:48 GMT 1
Here's another .pdf from Jasper Kirkby... cloud.web.cern.ch/cloud/documents_cloud/kirkby_iaci.pdfINTRODUCTION That there is a causal connection between the observed variations in the forces of the Sun, the terrestrial magnetic field, and the meteorological elements has been the conclusion of every research into this subject for the past 50 years. The elucidation of exactly what the connection is and the scientific proof of it is to be classed among the most difficult problems presented in terrestrial physics. The evidence adduced in favor of this conclusion is on the whole of a cumulative kind, since the direct sequence of cause and effect is so far masked in the complex interaction of the many delicate forces in operation as to render its immediate measurement quite impossible in the present state of science. F.H. Bigelow US Dept. Agriculture Weather Bureau Bulletin No.21, 1898 This quotation [6] is from an article written over a century ago and yet it could be taken almost wholly from a contemporary paper. The observation that warm weather seems to coincide with high sunspot counts and cool weather with low sunspot counts was made as long ago as two hundred years by the astronomer William Herschel [7] who noticed that the price of wheat in England was lower when there were many sunspots, and higher when there were few. StuartG
|
|
|
Post by StuartG on Jun 13, 2011 21:59:35 GMT 1
Cosmic rays and climate "II. Evidence for pre-industrial solar-climate variability • Numerous palaeoclimatic reconstructions suggest that solar/GCR variability has an important influence on climate • However, there is no established physical mechanism, and so solar-climate variability is: ‣ Controversial subject ‣ Not included in current climate models" indico.cern.ch/getFile.py/access?resId=0&materialId=slides&confId=52576This looks to be an excellent pictorial document, and it's the copy of slides from the CERN Colloquium, 4 June 2009 and matches the streaming video here cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1181073/ in Windows Media or Flash Download high-res version: mpg (3.0 GB) so You can view the slides in detail whilst the video progresses. StuartG
|
|