Bishop Hill Amine a minor setback for Svensmark
Oct 7, 2013 Climate: Svensmark 
CERN has been doing some more tinkering with Svensmark's cosmoclimatology theory, trying to detect the effect of simulated galactic cosmic rays on cloud formation in the presence of various gases. The results are not altogether favourable for Svensmark, but it's also fair to say that the story is anything but over:
The CLOUD researchers made two key discoveries. Firstly, they found that minute concentrations of amine vapours combine with sulphuric acid to form aerosol particles at rates similar to those observed in the atmosphere. Then, using a pion beam from the CERN Proton Synchrotron, they found that ionising radiation such as the cosmic radiation that bombards the atmosphere from space has negligible influence on the formation rates of these particular aerosols.
However, the story of the cosmoclimatology theory is not over by any means:
This is the first time that atmospheric particle formation has been reproduced with complete knowledge of the participating molecules”, said Kirkby. “However our measurements leave open the possibility that the formation of aerosols in the atmosphere may also proceed with other vapours, for which the effect of cosmic rays may be different. This is an important step forward, but we still have a long way to go before we fully understand the processes of aerosol formation and their effects on clouds and climate.”
Reader Comments (25)
So when do we start smearing the CERN team like the catastrophiliscs do when any one dates question their Mann Made Religion (tm)?
Regards
Mailman
....when anyone dares question....
Stupid fat fingers!!! :)
Mailman
"This is the first time that atmospheric particle formation has been reproduced with complete knowledge of the participating molecules”, said Kirkby."
Complete knowledge. lol. O Lord, save us from people who start an experiment with "complete knowledge".
Laden and Mann have misinformed the twittersphere
In the meanwhile http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/4/045001#.UlKoSpyGcV8.twitter
"In the meanwhile http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/4/045001#.UlKoSpyGcV8.twitter
Oct 7, 2013 at 4:30 PM | Registered Commenteromnologos"
Fascinating. I note that some of the postulated effects include the rate of break-up of Arctic sea-ice,and Figure 1 b) indicates the asymmetry in an opposite Δp sub(z0) at the South Pole.
Michael,
When Kirkby used the term “complete knowledge”, I think he was only referring to the fact that they were able to keep the chamber “clean” and so were able to ensure that what they were looking at was an uncontaminated experiment. Judging from his previous utterances, I don’t think Kirkby is one for overstatement. Indeed, what he says in the second paragraph that the Bish links to, is most encouraging to my mind. Science stated as it should be.
The existence of a meteorological response in the polar regions to fluctuations in the interplanetary magnetic field (IMF) component By is well established
Is that mentioned in AR5?
Agrre with Michael appear to be a valid experiment does not disprove anything about Svensmark.Im sure its a bit of both and a lot more of particle involvement which we don't know about YET LOL
I'm quite sure, hmm well sort of sure........um those cosmic brains [up at CERN] solving the mysteries of the Universe and all sorts of other stuff, gleefully desire to pull apart Prof. Henrik Svensmark's work and hypotheses.
I am reminded, of another thread and of a comment made by Dougieh,
Guess who?
Petty jealousies in the upper mesosphere of academia and "he's not part of our gang and he ain't cool and hip and trendy, like Brian is - innit"?
You could bet the house on it and mine too.
I don't see any reason for us to be looking for anything here other than a straightforward piece of scientific research.
Let the chips fall where they may. There is a long way to go before Svensmark's hypothesis is either confirmed or finally refuted.I'm not even all that keen on the idea that these findings are a "setback" for anyone and I'm not sure that Svensmark would see it that way either.
As Kirby says,
I agree completely with Mike Jackson. Let the chips fall where they may. Too many comments so far seem to be based on what the commenters would like the results to be. It is hypocritical for sceptics to criticise climate scientists for trying to "torture" the data to make it support the CAGW hypothesis and then immediately criticise findings that do not support (even though they may be perfectly compatible with) a hypothesis that they would like to be true.
Agree with the last two points. The wording of the statement was exactly what I would expect from scientists, leaving many doors open though closing one.
How can one piece of evidence in a complicated system be classed as a setback. Japer Kirkby and his team are studying the formation of clouds. He has not set out to prove or disprove Henrik Svensmarks hypothesis. As I see it Kirkby is remaining objective and reporting his findings. I believe that there is still a connection between solar sunspot cycles and global temperature. Maybe a link will not be found but we must search for it objectively and that is exactly what Kirkby and his team are doing. Huge credit to them. Once we set out to prove a particular hypothesis we become as bad as the "Team".
I'm not sure which comments you think those are, Roy. I certainly didn't comment on the results. I studiously avoid giving an opinion for, or against, Svensmark's theory. But I still think Kirkby's quoted phrase "complete knowledge" is a poor choice of words, though I'm happy to accept Laurie Childs interpretation of them. One of biggest problems is scientists saying one thing in the literature, and then something else that has been sexed-up for the MSM.
A suggestion for a slight revision to the title: Amine or setback for Svensmark.
Its just normal science, a theory of many parts if presented and a experiment is done which suggest that parts of the theory need to be reconsider and you go from there. Climate 'science' take note of the lack of dogmatic certain this process involves. Of course it will jumped on as 'support ' for the cause . Where as when looked like it would go the other way its was attacked was worthless .
A crucial result is the increased uncertainty of the aerosol contribution to climate change, as the authors point out:
"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) considers
that the increased amount of aerosol in the atmosphere from human
activities constitutes the largest present uncertainty in climate radiative
forcing2 and projected climate change this century29. The results
reported here show that the uncertainty is even greater than previously
thought, because extremely low amine emissions—which have substantial
anthropogenic sources and have not hitherto been considered
by the IPCC—have a large influence on the nucleation of sulphuric
acid particles."
I commented at the WUWT blog on this topic http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/07/svensmarks-cosmic-ray-theory-two-steps-forward-one-step-back/ that there are thousands of organic and inorganic constituents of the atmosphere at these incredibly low (parts per quadrillion) concentrations that have NOT been tested under the stringent CLOUD conditions. So there is plenty of room for further investigations that will have a bearing on the Svensmark hypothesis.
michael hart
I agree that "complete knowledge" might have been an unfortunate form of words but I'm inclined to side with Laurie's interpretation.
All Kirby was saying (I think) is that the result is reliable to the extent that it was not contaminated by matter that was not being examined. Perhaps the addition of "as far as we know" would have satisfied everyone.
My reaction was the same as Roy's. I did get the feeling that this was seen as "bad news for 'our' side". Perhaps I was being a bit hyper-critical. You must admit it is a criticism that is sometimes levelled at us and we need to be careful to avoid the trap.
Bloody hell! Look at this: BBC writes about climate change as if it were highly exaggerated...
Every climate model 'reproduces' the temperature history of the entire planet for the last 150 years to within a minute fraction of a degree, so it's hard to see how any significant factors can possibly have been left out. Somebody should tell Svensmark.
Oct 7, 2013 at 4:22 PM | Unregistered Commenter michael hart "O Lord, save us from people who start an experiment with complete knowledge"
Michael,
Dr Kirkby wrote "complete knowledge of the molecules present" as in (my words) "the surroundings were very clean and we introduced only molecules that we knew."
The best experiments are often those that start with a full knowledge of perturbing effects. Experiments like showing CO2 causes heating are made without full quantification of perturbing variables and are in something of a mess.
I'm at a loss to work out what your objection is.
Geoff, statements like "a full knowledge of perturbing effects" amounts to the same thing, as far as I can see. It is an exaggeration that would generally be frowned upon by reviewers and editors, and I cannot see the justification for 'upping the ante' when reporting it in other media. The desire to make science more accessible to a wider audience does not justify this kind of language, in my opinion.
Anyone else just hear Chris Evans on BBC Radio 2? He gave a good 2 minute speech on the net benefits of GW, based on a telegraph article and Lomborgs new book. Absolutely stunning. Just wait for the backlash though.
Oct 8, 2013 at 2:46 AM | Unregistered Commenter michael hart wrote Geoff, statements like "a full knowledge of perturbing effects" amounts to the same thing, as far as I can see. It is an exaggeration that would generally be frowned upon by reviewers and editors, and I cannot see the justification for 'upping the ante' when reporting it in other media"..............
Michael,
I was not writing for the media, which is often a waste of time. The media industry is like the trade union industry, both a generally unproductive lot feeding off data produced by others and often distorting data in order to communicate it for their self esteem. I have little time for either (unless I want to publicise work of my own in the news).
The words I used are science words, chosen for conveying the message to those who know the science, in a brief but effective way.
What do you wish me to do? Write in comic book style?
Gentlemen
I believe we are being given an example of uncle Steve's thimble and pea theory and as far as I can see you are all looking under the wrong thimble ^.^
This experiment has zero relevance to Svensmark's work.
Svensmark's theory is that highly charged protons (mostly) enter the atmosphere and react with everything they hit. He proposes that the largest of the molecules created during these reactions can reach the surface of the Earth and become cloud nuclei. Pions are tiny short lived particles that might be created during the reactions caused by cosmic ray collisions in the atmosphere but have nothing to do with Svensmark's theory.