From Nature magazine
It sounds like a conspiracy theory: 'cosmic rays' from deep space might be creating clouds in Earth's atmosphere and changing the climate. Yet an experiment at CERN, Europe's high-energy physics laboratory near Geneva, Switzerland, is finding tentative evidence for just that.
The findings, published today in Nature, are preliminary, but they are stoking a long-running argument over the role of radiation from distant stars in altering the climate.
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. Clouds might then build up around the droplets.
The number of cosmic rays that reach Earth depends on the Sun. When the Sun is emitting lots of radiation, its magnetic field shields the planet from cosmic rays. During periods of low solar activity, more cosmic rays reach Earth.
Scientists agree on these basic facts, but there is far less agreement on whether cosmic rays can have a large role in cloud formation and climate change. Since the late 1990s, some have suggested that when high solar activity lowers levels of cosmic rays, that in turn reduces cloud cover and warms the planet. Others say that there is no statistical evidence for such an effect.
Polarizing lens
"People are far too polarized, and in my opinion there are huge, important areas where our understanding is poor at the moment," says Jasper Kirkby, a physicist at CERN. In particular, he says, little controlled research has been done on exactly what effect cosmic rays can have on atmospheric chemistry.
To find out, Kirkby and his team are bringing the atmosphere down to Earth in an experiment called Cosmics Leaving Outdoor Droplets (CLOUD). The team fills a custom-built chamber with ultrapure air and chemicals believed to seed clouds: water vapour, sulphur dioxide, ozone and ammonia. They then bombard the chamber with protons from the same accelerator that feeds the Large Hadron Collider, the world's most powerful particle smasher. As the synthetic cosmic rays stream in, the group carefully samples the artificial atmosphere to see what effect the rays are having.
Early results seem to indicate that cosmic rays do cause a change. The high-energy protons seemed to enhance the production of nanometre-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. "At the moment, it actually says nothing about a possible cosmic-ray effect on clouds and climate, but it's a very important first step," he says.
Scientists on both sides of the debate welcome the findings, although they draw differing conclusions. "Of course there are many things to explore, but I think the cosmic-ray/cloud-seeding hypothesis is converging with reality," says Henrik Svensmark, a physicist at the Technical University of Denmark in Copenhagen, who claims a link between climate change and cosmic rays.
Others disagree. The CLOUD experiment is "not firming up the connection", counters Mike Lockwood, a space and environmental physicist at the University of Reading, UK, who is sceptical. Lockwood says that the small particles may not grow fast enough or large enough to be important in comparison with other cloud-forming processes in the atmosphere.
"I think it's an incredibly worthwhile and overdue experiment," says Piers Forster, a climatologist at the University of Leeds, UK, who studied the link between cosmic rays and climate for the latest scientific assessment by the International Panel on Climate Change. But for now at least, he says that the experiment "probably raises more questions than it answers".
See what we're tweeting about
26 Comments
Add CommentCosmic rays seem cyclic and have changed little since records began in the 50s. Perhaps they do affect clouds somewhat but to my knowledge there hasn't been a correlation between clouds and rays during that time.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe graph of cosmic rays and another perspective on this from climatologists can be found here;
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/08/the-cerncloud-results-are-surprisingly-interesting/
It's interesting research. The inevitable ensuing arguments from anti-AGW people will be to do an about-face on the role of the sun and now argue that it must be because it's cooler allowing more cosmic rays increasing greenhouse also in contradiction to their arguments that greenhouse effect is saturated etc etc...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd it's too bad that's going to override the value of the research in and of itself. We won't be allowed to let the science be the science.
There are those who claim that the greenhouse effect of Co2 is saturated. Not that the entire greenhouse effect is saturated By far & away the largest greenhouse effect is in fact caused by water vapour. Wether cloud lowers or raises the earths temperature depends largely on the altitude of the cloud & whether it occurs during the night or during the day. Night time cloud traps heat in. Also partial cloud cover during the day well may trap more heat than it radiates back into space, particularly if followed by a cloudy night. This is easily verifiable in your own back yard. Why should advances in understanding be feared for the effects it might have on the debate? Is this not exactly what happened with the email scandal where release of data was suppressed if it did not favour AGW? Surely it is scientific enlightenment we are looking for.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"There are those who claim that the greenhouse effect of Co2 is saturated."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIs that your friends on Venus?
"Is this not exactly what happened with the email scandal where release of data was suppressed if it did not favour AGW?"
No evidence of this was ever found. All data is now available, so where are the papers based on it that dont favour AGW?
Well you will not object to open discussion then will you. Even should the evidence not support your present view you will be strictly non partisan. That is a comfort.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Well you will not object to open discussion then will you".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOf course I would not object, but where does making unproven claims, even dis-proven claims, as fact fit into that?
For some people on both sides of this debate, no matter how compelling the evidence, so long as they can find a so called expert to refute the claims, they will claim it is unproven. It is not a matter of a democratic vote either. Unfortunately, even if the so called experts were unanimous, it would not necessarily be so where such a complex system is involved. In this case, so far the debate is far from over. Why try to shut it down? Only one side of the debate is trying to shut it down. That is why so many of us compare it to a religion. No doubts are allowed that question the dogma.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut we are not talking about finding 'an expert', this is more common with those trying to refute the accepted science, we are talking about your claims of an 'email scandal' where no evidence of anything of the sort has been established despite you stating it as if proven fact!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere isn't any side of the debate trying to shut anything down. This is you misconception to cope with the lack of supporting evidence for your position.
There is however one side trying to start a debate and at its core it is to try and cast doubt and suggest the conclusions of science remains on a knife edge when nothing could be further from the truth in scientific circles. A real sceptic would wonder why this seem to mostly divide along political lines.
I think the science and the areas of uncertainty should be the subject of debate by those most qualified to do it. The debate you seem to be suggesting is that of the unqualified concocting anti-science and conspiracy theories with unethical scientists in it for the money and hiding data that contradicts their research.
Let's get back to making clouds and forget the endless AGW debates. This year we have continued low sunspot activity, the 11 yr cycle has been extended - how?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe cloud cover in UK has been noticeably higher these last few years, perhaps the cosmic rays are acting as a catalyst to cloud production. Cern experiment should try increasing clouds not just making them from scratch.
There are plenty of highly qualified scientists who are not on grants or allied to big business who doubt the majority view. You & many like you are far too ready to dismiss them. No point me or anyone else trying to point them out to you. All you do is Google someone who disputes their view & that is proof enough for you so why should I bother. If you were truly non partisan you would seek them out yourself & read some of their books instead of being yet another sheep. Does it bother you at all for instance how for years now every year we hear there are going to be more & stronger hurricanes than in the past? Check the record for yourself.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"There are plenty of highly qualified scientists who are not on grants or allied to big business who doubt the majority view. "
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDefine 'plenty' and 'qualified'?
"Does it bother you at all for instance how for years now every year we hear there are going to be more & stronger hurricanes than in the past? Check the record for yourself."
Does it bother you that this is untrue? Check it for yourself. The latest science, which still is far from being considered a consensus, suggests FEWER but perhaps slightly stronger (around 10% if I remember correctly) hurricanes. Again you are promoting things like they are facts but are not.
"There are plenty of highly qualified scientists who are not on grants or allied to big business who doubt the majority view. "
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDefine 'plenty' and 'qualified'?
"Does it bother you at all for instance how for years now every year we hear there are going to be more & stronger hurricanes than in the past? Check the record for yourself."
Does it bother you that this is untrue? Check it for yourself. The latest science, which still is far from being considered a consensus, suggests FEWER but perhaps slightly stronger (around 10% if I remember correctly) hurricanes. Again you are promoting things like they are facts but are not.
"Again you are promoting things like they are facts but are not." We could say this about the ubiquitous Black Hole, if you want to stray to TOTAL untruth.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHey what happened to objective, testable science?
Obviously wasting my time. You are an ideologue.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRealClimate has a good assessment of the research article, and Gavin put it succinctly when he said:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Of course, to show that cosmic rays were actually responsible for some part of the recent warming, you would need to show that there was actually a decreasing trend in cosmic rays over recent decades – which is tricky, because there hasn’t been (see the figure). "
So, it may or may not be that GCRs affect climate, that is the same as it has always been, but, in any case, you can't produce a long term trend, warming since 1950, from data where there is no trend.
Interesting observation. I wonder if this could be integrated with studies showing aerosolized bacteria providing a nucleus for H20 condensation. In other words, although the nuclei of cosmic ray water droplets are too small for to condense further by itself, the bacteria could accelerate condensation. So rather than producing an Ultrapure atmosphere chamber, add some bacteria.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAgree Cigar, there are many unknowns.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere would be a few less unknowns if scientists dropped their pet theories and postures. They need to re-evaluate the assumptions that are taken for granted. Cosmology carries a lot of blame sending us down the 'isolated island' route. Instead we should be looking at the BIG picture.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis world is totally dependent upon its solar source, the sun is dependent upon its galactic source and out there things are changing. We should turn our attention to what's happening to the Milky Way. Forget the Black Hole/gravity cr*p and make sense of the electric circuit of which we are a tiny part. At least we can start preparing for the next big chapter which must be on its way!
Mostpeople think that the weather is formed by outside sources. But most of it works with the little bit that is fored outside our planet. The electrical currents in the earth have the strongest effects.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf in the Atlantic a hurricane starts to form it is because a circular current, way below, has started.
It would be possible to stop a hurricane by having ships stationed around the outsides of the hurricane. They would be equipped with the Monopole HV generator and synchronized pulse the voltage in the opposite rotation of the hurricane in a sequential way.
Of course that would cost a few million dollars but what does the average hurricane do in damage?
Contrary to the machinations of the corporate spin doctors and their shills in the blogosphere all data that could legally be released was released in a timely manner (no data should eve be released until it has passed QA/QC protocols and this can be a lengthy process). Those data whose release was delayed were proprietary, that is to say the data were generated by the researchers under contract to some other entity, typically a nation state and so were not the property of the researchers to release to the public.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAt any rate, as pointed out in #4 above, all those data are now available on the web.
It's quite amusing that people quote Realclimate.org as a source. RC is well known for censoring and removing questions and comments that do not follow it's own particular brand of eco-religion.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAsking RC's opinion on climate is like asking the Al-Queda what kind of BBQ goes best on pork chops.
RC is a joke.
Nice ad hominem; way to ignore the argument.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo, has there been a 50-60 year trend in GCRs that in any way coincides with the 50-60 year warming trend?
BTW, elsewhere you posted that SciAm did not report this story because it ran counter to their agenda, and accused them of biased reporting. That accusation was made after this story was published. Anything to say on that?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWRT to SCIAM's bias, they commonly bury stories on page 8. This was one of them. It took me a long time to find it.
The central issue with gamma rays is that thesae experiments show testable, verifiable, repeatable and falsifable results, and those results show an impact on cloud formation.
It is self-evident that clouds influence the temperature. However, since the release of the above paper, high profile Global Warming True Believers have now gone on record stating that clouds aren't that important. Huh????
So, now we have a AGW theory that previously stated that CO2 somehow, in an unproven, unverifiable, untestable and unfalsifiable fashion USED to amplify and control cloud behavior, and now it doesn't.
Face it, this dawg just don't hunt no mo'.
It's contemptible that every weather and climate related issue be it storms, droughts, hot weather, cold weather, blizzards and on an on are presented as evidence of AGW. When you see the invisible hand of your theory in everything, it means you really have no evidence, as it is not a scientific theory, merely a religion. Time to get back to basics.
What is most disgusting is that it took 9 years to get the funding for this experiment and that the scientists were hooted and shouted down by the AGW zealots long before the experiment was started, let alone after the results were in.
Is this one experiment definitive? No. But if the AGW supporters wish to make a case, they better start doing some real live science. Those of us who understand what science is demand it, and I wish that the SCIAM editors would up their understanding of what constitutes science and not politics.
Further to Dessler's comments trashing the cosmic ray issue: His hastily compiled paper contains significant errors, some of them of the Mann Hide the Decline type in which he cobbles together two different data sets for no apparent reason, other than they fit his prec-conceived notions better.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisVery nice.
The real test of a theory is the ability to predict future weather patterns. This paper by Landscheidt from ten years ago was amazingly successful using the solar activity/cloud model:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://bourabai.narod.ru/landscheidt/new-e.htm
Here is a follow through published later:
http://www.john-daly.com/sun-enso/sun-enso.htm
And here is a more recent prediction
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/13/archibald-climate-forecast-to-2050/
If the cloud theory is right we will find out in the next few years as they are predicting cooling for a couple of decades. So far the CO2 theory's expectation of steady warming has been a total disaster. We will soon find out who is right.
In the 1970's there was a "scientific" belief in a coming global ice age. We were also told that global reserves of gasoline were going to continue to shrink and be unavailable to the common person in 25 years. Now, 40 years later there is a "scientific" belief that man is causing global warming and that global reserves of gasoline are shrinking even though the supply is being artificially restricted by not allowing drilling to take place. I've yet to have explained to me how carbon emissions on earth have caused ice cap melting on Mars. From what I've seen in world history the earth warms and cools. From 1300's for several hundred years there was an ice age which caused famine and millions to die. Based on what I've seen we are still warming from that ice age. Eventually, the temperature will go the other way. Mankind seems to love chicken little explanations and has a rather inflated opinion of themselves as to whether they can exact change on the weather.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this