Bishop Hill Cosmic-ray effect small?
May 16, 2013 A new paper in Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics says that the effects of galactic cosmic rays on clouds is small:
The problem of the contribution of cosmic rays to climate change is a continuing one and one of importance. In principle, at least, the recent results from the CLOUD project at CERN provide information about the role of ionizing particles in ’sensitizing’ atmospheric aerosols which might, later, give rise to cloud droplets. Our analysis shows that, although important in cloud physics the results do not lead to the conclusion that cosmic rays affect atmospheric clouds significantly, at least if H2SO4 is the dominant source of aerosols in the atmosphere. An analysis of the very recent studies of stratospheric aerosol changes following a giant solar energetic particles event shows a similar negligible effect. Recent measurements of the cosmic ray intensity show that a former decrease with time has been reversed. Thus, even if cosmic rays enhanced cloud production, there would be a small global cooling, not warming.
It will be interesting to see if Svensmark has anything to say.
Reader Comments (15)
Hmm. If I understand the last two sentences of the abstract, they are confirming Svensmark's hypothesis
i.e. more cosmic rays = more low level clouds = cooling and vice-versa.
Cosmic ray intensity is inversely correlated with Sun's magnetic output which acts as a cosmic ray shield.
Of course, I'm getting old and no doubt someone clever here will point out my mistake.
Jasper Kerkby at CERN gave a presentation on this issue in 2009
http://cds.cern.ch/record/1181073/
And yes G Watkins you have it right.
Hmm... "Recent measurements of the cosmic ray intensity show that a former decrease with time has been reversed. Thus, even if cosmic rays enhanced cloud production, there would be a small global cooling, not warming."
No possible connection then with the recent hiatus in global warming?
It is interesting that he cosmic ray hypothesis has to be tested by experiment in a mutibillion dollar facility whereas anything that supports the CAGW mantra is blindly accepted and it is up to everybody else to disprove it.
I'm still waiting to hear about how they have sectioned off an area of forest and are going to monitor everything in that area for the next 10/20/30 years to determine what they can deduce from tree rings.
A previous paper by Erlykin gave this conclusion:
For those not familiar with Jasper Kirkby's work
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63AbaX1dE7I
The telling graph was hiddent in the supplementary material.
http://calderup.wordpress.com/2011/08/24/cern-experiment-confirms-cosmic-ray-action/
TerryS-
Sill you. Everyone agrees that performing such an experiment will take too long. Unless we cease CO2 emissions by 1980, the world will burn!
Besides, the Ringling boys have already proclaimed which trees are blessed with stationarity and teleconnectedness.
The fact that they found a cosmic ray affect at all says a lot, I think.
"although important in cloud physics..." We confirm that cosmic rays affect clouds.
"the results do not lead to the conclusion that cosmic rays affect atmospheric clouds significantly" They don't affect clouds much. What?
But I'm more concerned that their conclusions were something like "yea, cosmic rays affect clouds, but have little affect on global warming". A little bit of double-dutch in this.
It'd be interesting also to hear from eminent Indian scientist Prof Udipi Rao, who is a GCR astropysicist and past head of the Indian space program.
His analysis is GCR's caused 0.33 C out of 0.75 C temperature rise, or 44%.
Add in the extra 0.28 C from the ~60 year cycle and not much is left over for CO2 in the temperature rise last century.
Have I been missing something - I thought that was what Svensmark et al said. So he is actually providing some confirmation of the cosmic ray theory, while minimizing its importance (much the way many here view greenhouse warming theory).
Have I got this right?
Anyone whose quantitiative baloney alarm failed to sound loudly on first reading Svensmark should check their battery and turn the gain up five or ten orders of magnitude.
Thanks to Bruce of Newcastle for broadening my bibliometric horizons.
Until he cited Rao's Current Science paper I honestly didn't know there were journals with impact factors of less than 1.
Still, it is the go-to publication for Vedic Astrology:
http://www.iisc.ernet.in/currsci/jul252001/140.pdf
Russell
I presume your attack on the journal publishing the paper can be taken as an admission you can find nothing to criticise in the paper itself?
You need to up your game to be taken seriously here, dude - innuendo by association may be de riguer at you favorite alarmist blogs, but here it just makes you look pathetic.
Mr Seitz, please be assured that those of us with the most rudimentary baloney alarms give your worthless sneerings the widest conceivable berth.
Russell - You can read a bio of Prof Rao here. Is your CV similar perchance?
You might wonder to yourself just why India is less than keen to embrace the CAGW religion.