The Cloud project.

Hi ATS

About 6 months ago I posted a thread called Strong evidence of solar/ cosmic influencing our climate.,
The title did not really delivered what it said tho... I'm sorry about that. In my enthusiasm to debunk man made climate change, I kind of missed the important part, and posted something that I thought I've read, instead of what was actually written. Again my apologies.

Now I'm back to make up for my mistake and I'd like to present to you:

The CLOUD experiment.

CLOUD is an experiment to study a link between cloud formation and galactic cosmic rays at CERN.
CLOUD is a collaboration from 19 institutes from Europe, Russia and the USA.

• Bulgaria:
  Institute for Nuclear Research and Nuclear Energy, Sofia
  
• Austria:
  University of Innsbruck, Institute of Ion Physics and Applied Physics
  University of Vienna, Institute for Experimental Physics
  
• Estonia:
  University of Tartu, Department of Environmental Physics
  
• Finland:
  Helsinki Institute of Physics and University of Helsinki, Department of Physics
  Finnish Meteorological Institute, Helsinki
  University of Kuopio, Department of Physics
  Tampere University of Technology, Department of Physics
  
• Germany:
  Goethe-University of Frankfurt, Institute for Atmospheric and Environmental Sciences
  Leibniz Institute for Tropospheric Research, Leipzig
  
• Portugal:
  University of Lisbon, Department of Physics
  
• Russia:
  Lebedev Physical Institute, Solar and Cosmic Ray Research Laboratory, Moscow
  
• Switzerland:
  CERN, Physics Department
  Fachhochschule Nordwestschweiz (FHNW), Institute of Aerosol and Sensor Technology, Brugg
  Paul Scherrer Institute, Laboratory of Atmospheric Chemistry
  
• United Kingdom:
  University of Leeds, School of Earth and Environment
  University of Reading, Department of Meteorology
  Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Space Science Department
  
• United States:
  California Institute of Technology, Division of Chemistry and Chemical Engineering
  

The CLOUD experiment involves an interdisciplinary team of scientists from 18 institutes in 9 countries, comprised of atmospheric physicists, solar physicists, and cosmic-ray and particle physicists. The PS provides an artificial source of cosmic rays that simulates natural conditions as closely as possible. A beam of particles is sent into a reaction chamber and its effects on aerosol production are recorded and analysed.

The following text is tells exactly why I'd like to present this study to ATS. Conclusions from this study could very well draw the line, and finally debunk or prove which side is right about man made climate change.

If this link between cosmic rays and clouds is real, it provides a major mechanism for
climate change. During the 20th Century the cosmic rays reaching the Earth diminished
by about 15% as a result of increasingvig our in the solar wind, which scatters the cosmic
rays. The inferred reduction in cloud cover could have warmed the Earth by a large
fraction of the amount currently estimated to be due to man-made carbon dioxide. In
that case, the effect of carbon dioxide may have been overestimated. If, on the other hand,
the link to cosmic rays proves to be illusory, present diplomatic efforts to curb emissions
of carbon dioxide will be more strongly supported scientifically. Settling the issue, one
way or the other, is therefore an urgent task.

CERN will play an important role in this study as you can read next.

We are proposing a European facility at CERN where atmospheric scientists can investigate
the role of natural ionisation in aerosol and cloud formation. The concept of a
facility is appropriate for the comparatively large and complex experimental programme
of CLOUD extending over several years, and in view of the need for flexibility in a field
where rapid progress may be expected in the next few years.
CLOUDs requirements include a variable particle beam, techniques derived from
CERNs bubble-chamber experience, exacting cryogenic temperature control, and the
skills in integration, experimental management and data-processing for which CERN is
well known. For all these reasons, CERN is uniquely suited to host the facility.

I think the best part of this study is the collaborative set up. They explain why in the following text.

Collaboration:
The physics of CLOUD basically concerns the atmosphere and climate. However the
science also embraces palaeoclimatology, geomagnetism, solar and heliospheric physics, astrophysics,
cosmic ray physics and particle physics. The experiment therefore requires a fusion of techniques and
expertise from a wide range of disciplines. The CLOUD collaboration brings together the required
expertise. Many members of the collaboration are currently involved in related modelling studies or
atmospheric observations with surface, airborne and satellite experiments, and close feedback is expected
between the field results and those obtained obtained in the laboratory with CLOUD.

The reason given to study this subject.

There is evidence that link massive climate changes from our recent and pr-historic past to our little old Sun.
Do to ever progressing and new technologies this evidence has become a stockpile of evidence.

The Sun is a variable star. The sunspot record over the last 400 years reveals both a quasi-periodic
solar cycle of about 11 years and also longer-term changes, including a grand minimum lasting about
70 years during which the sunspots all but disappeared. This coincided with the most pronounced of
several prolonged cold spells between 1450 and 1890 which are collectively known as the Little Ice Age.
Light radio-isotope records in ice cores, tree rings and other archives extend the measurements of solar
variability back over the last 250 kyr. They reveal numerous occasions when the Sun waxed or waned
over centennial periods.

To read the full reasons given, please click this Link and scroll down to page 65. ( Must read ! )

The following shows the study in progress ( 2008 ) and includes a long term plan up until at least 2011.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) attributes more than 90% of the observed climate warming since 1900 to the rise of anthropogenic greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Aerosols and clouds are recognized as representing the largest uncertainty in the current understanding of climate change.

Large uncertainties remain on solar-related contributions, such as the effects of changes of ultra violet radiation or galactic cosmic rays on aerosols and clouds opening the possibility that Earths climate could be affected by changes in cloudiness caused by variations in the intensity of galactic cosmic rays in the atmosphere.

The CERN CLOUD experiment is a unique experiment designed to quantitatively measure the effect of galactic cosmic ray-induced changes in aerosol and cloud formation by using a defocused PS proton/pion beam to simulate the ionization of cosmic rays over the large (3m) CLOUD gas chamber. It is well established in the CERN experimental program being approved in the long term scientific program of CERN until 2011 and beyond.

Collaboration in the CLOUD experiment ( Wiki-SIM )

The last Wiki link does not tell a lot, but I posted it along with the rest, to show that the CLOUD project is in fact a work in progress and it takes care of any smartass shouting that it is just a proposal.

However... There is more.

CERN CLOUD experiment starts up

CERNs much-anticipated CLOUD experiment has begun, the atom lab says. Using the 50-year-old Proton Synchrotron, the experiment simulates cosmic rays passing through the earths atmosphere, and hopes to reveal the extent to which the constant background drizzle of charged particles plays a role in cloud formation. Earlier experiments have suggested that ionisation causes clouds to seed - and that ionisation is influenced by the type and quantity of cosmic rays that reach the earth.

And finally some pictures... Well... The next best thing, graphics.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/8ed65f279713.jpg[/atsimg]

And here's the correlation into deep time, with CO2 as a comparison.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/6ad82927a854.jpg[/atsimg]

( For source see Heliogenic climate change blogspot in sources list. )

( MUST SEE !)

The next link will take you to an interview with the CLOUD project leader Jasper Kirby.
Status of the CLOUD experiment - November 2009

The video will only take 4 minutes and 26 seconds. If you got all the way to this point You might as well watch it...to.

The first results of the CLOUD study are expected for this year I've not been able to find those yet. I guess they aren't published yet. ( Current date Tuesday October 12 2010 ) Okay STRIKE THAT !

For the first results click Here.


I hope I've left you with everything you need to know about this particular study, and maybe you are now ( like me ) also anticipating the next round of results. I for one, am of the opinion that it is interesting stuff, and the outcome could make an end to the whole climate debate/ man made once and for all.

All the reason needed to post about CLOUD on ATS in my humble opinion.

Kind regards

~ Sinter.


Sources:

public.web.cern.ch...

indico.cern.ch...]Cosmic rays and climate ( Jasper Kirby 4 June 2009 )

A STUDY OF THE LINK BETWEEN COSMIC RAYS AND CLOUDS WITH A CLOUD CHAMBER AT THE CERN PS

ADDENDUM TO THE CLOUD PROPOSAL ( 4 August 2000 )

CLOUD: AN ATMOSPHERIC RESEARCH FACILITY AT CERN ( addendum 2 17 October 2000 )

MEMORANDUM ( 13 August 2004 )

CLOUD: A PARTICLE BEAM FACILITY TO INVESTIGATE THE INFLUENCE OF COSMIC RAYS ON CLOUDS ( 17 January 2002 )

Beam Measurements of a CLOUD (Cosmics Leaving OUtdoor Droplets) Chamber ( Original CLOUD concept. 24 February 1998 )

heliogenic.blogspot.com...
You will find the original article from the above blog in the following link.
CERN's cosmic cloudmaker cranks up

Results from the CERN pilot CLOUD experiment ( 15 February 2010 )

reply to post by Sinter Klaas


Nice thread!

Originally posted by Sinter Klaas
Conclusions from this study could very well draw the line, and finally debunk or prove which side is right about man made climate change.

I don't know if it will do that, but it certainly could should a new contributory mechanism.

I'm still not convinced there is a single answer. In other words, I'm inclined to believe there may be many mitigating and accelerating mechanisms in global climate change.

It could be that both sides of the debate are right.

reply to post by loam


Hi

I believe you're right. Everything influences everything. Like a butterfly in Beijing can cause a thunderstorm in LA.

Chaos theory. Learned that from Jurassic Park. :lol

However...

If this study shows that cosmic rays have a considerable effect on cloud forming, our current climate models are plain wrong. If I remember correct, water vapor is hardly taken in to account. Let alone water vapor influenced by cosmic rays. I always understood that water vapor is the most potent greenhouse gass around by sheer volume.

Correct me when I'm wrong tho ?

That's why this study could be so important. If they are right, there isn't really a lot of room left for the current ideas. Is there ?

Please forgive me as I'm no expert on the matter.

Thanks

Fascinating stuff Sinter! Thanks for the effort on a well presented thread. Not much to add, but I would be curious to hear Oz and Phages thoughts on this, did ya u2u em'?

Peace,
spec

Bump!

Im not sure why this didnt receive many replies

I think this probably one of the best experiment Ive seen. I think that one thing that should be taken into account is man made impacts such as persistent contrails, which have had an impact on the climate in north america. Will read into it more anyway

Hopefully this gets more attention, it deserves it

S & F

reply to post by OzWeatherman

Im not sure why this didnt receive many replies

I think this probably one of the best experiment Ive seen.....

I have been waiting for this with baited breath.

Why has there not been more interest?
Take a look at the leaked danish text! - "The draft hands effective control of climate change finance to the World Bank.."

Then look at this:

U.S. Congressional Record February 9, 1917, page 2947: Congressman Calloway announced that the J.P. Morgan interests bought 25 of America's leading newspapers, and inserted their own editors, in order to control the media.... www.mindfully.org...

April 19, 2010:...JP Morgan will now oversee 54 U.S. daily newspapers, the largest being the Los Angeles Times, making it the country's second largest daily newspaper publisher after Gannett.

JP Morgan will also own 31 television stations, surpassing the number of TV stations owned by CBS and News Corp.... www.newsandtech.com...

5 companies own 95% of all the media that we get every day. They own the major entertainment theme parks, entertainment movie studios, television and radio broadcast networks and programing, video news and sports entertainment.
Source: hubpages.com...

“Our job is to give people not what they want, but what we decide they ought to have.”

– Richard Salent, Former President CBS News. netctr.com...

reply to post by Sinter Klaas


Hi Sinter,
Interesting post and thread. S and F.
I was just pondering the material, this may be a lack of understanding on my part of course, but your information seems to contradict itself.
On one hand you provide a statement indicating that a lack of cosmic rays effected by the heliosphere (the solar activity and winds etc) could have led to warming due to the inferred lack of cloud cover generated by what is only postulated.

If this link between cosmic rays and clouds is real, it provides a major mechanism for
climate change. During the 20th Century the cosmic rays reaching the Earth diminished
by about 15% as a result of increasingvig our in the solar wind, which scatters the cosmic
rays. The inferred reduction in cloud cover could have warmed the Earth by a large
fraction of the amount currently estimated to be due to man-made carbon dioxide. In
that case, the effect of carbon dioxide may have been overestimated. If, on the other hand,
the link to cosmic rays proves to be illusory, present diplomatic efforts to curb emissions
of carbon dioxide will be more strongly supported scientifically. Settling the issue, one
way or the other, is therefore an urgent task.

Yet further on your graphs clearly indicate a trend where temperature and GCR follow each other. They should be in opposite trends.
I wonder how you would resolve this contradiction. As by the reasoning of the study an increase in GCR infers greater cloud coverage and lower temperature trends.
The graphs tell a different story.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/8ed65f279713.jpg[/atsimg]

At the end of this graph GCR trend with warming yet some one has put a graphic with an arrow indicating GCR trending down. Why is there no data showing this?
GCR actually increase post 2000. As can be seen here.
www.skepticalscience.com...
Why do we need arrows in the graphic, the data should simply tell the story!

But look at the actual graph. When GCR is up, temps should be lower and when GFC are lower temps should be trending higher.
You need to factor in an anti-correlation with the sun. By this I mean, when GCRs are high, the solar activity is low. So we will get a trend in temp that correlates with GCR, but only as a solar trend.
How does this dismiss the trend in human otput of CO2 and the observed warming as a trend right through the last few soalr cycles when we should be seeing a correlation between high and low GCR cycles instead?
After all, that is the premise of your thread is it not?
files.abovetopsecret.com...
This image has the temp trends with GCR's.
Temps are rising steady. Regardless of the GCR state.
files.abovetopsecret.com...


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/6ad82927a854.jpg[/atsimg]
heliogenic.blogspot.com...
Further more, the second graph showing CO2 with GCR is dated up and until about 2.6 million years ago.
This graph ends at the Tertiary period. Why?
Why not use the GCR and CO2 trends for the last century along with the temperature records?
Here is the trend in CO2 for the last few centuries. With significance to the AGW debate as it is concering our CO2 output as a cause of warming.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/7d29e84c9bd5.gif[/atsimg]
And the temperature trend.
files.abovetopsecret.com...
cdiac.esd.ornl.gov...

We have much more recent studies showing GCR and cloud coverage so as to compare with CO2 output.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/c0728451301d.gif[/atsimg]
www.skepticalscience.com...
Whilst this shows a correlation in parts, around the 80's, the later part of this graph should be interesting for a number or reasons.
A: GCR is decreasing whilst Cloud anomalies remains high in the late 90's.
And B:The late 90's contains the highest global average recorded. 1998 with high cloud anomaly with low GCR.
And if we were to add the temperature anomaly trends into the above graph, the temperature would not correlate with the GCR and Cloud anomaly, instead we get a steady temperature rise.
This steady tempurature rise correlates with the observed anthropogenic output of CO2 increasing independantly from temperature, GCR and cloud coverage. Physics states a perservering relationship with CO2 and temperature.
Considering we are increasing CO2 independantly from these other factors yet it has a known and perservering effect on temperature effect on climate does not need to be infered.
files.abovetopsecret.com...
zipcodezoo.com...


www.skepticalscience.com...

reply to post by Sinter Klaas


Nice work Sinter

I gotta take issue with one thing though:

Conclusions from this study could very well draw the line, and finally debunk or prove which side is right about man made climate change.

This is an important experiment, no doubt, but this kind of be all-end all reasoning works the wrong way - backwards. It assumes we know nothing about what causes warming, only that it is warming, so therefore if we work backwards and find a historical cause then that suddenly fixes everything.

Well not so fast.

Because again, the idea that CO2 traps energy and leads to warming is not some unvalidated theory that scientists just pulled out of a hat to explain global warming after the fact. It is based on fundamental greenhouse effect physics that are not under any debate and that predicted all this over a hundred years ago.

The "theory" that CO2 causes warming is as much a theory as the theory that filling a pool with water makes it wet. Indeed we even know how much energy should be trapped from a CO2 doubling: 3.7 W/m^2

So if you find an alternate explanation that explains current warming - this doesn't suddenly win by default, you have to also explain why CO2 isn't the primary cause.

So in this case you have two options:

1. re-write the laws of physics
2. show that climate sensitivity (the climatic response to CO2 forcing) is negative through negative feedbacks.

Climate sensitivity is the one thing that still is under debate amongst climate scientists and hence why there is a large amount of uncertainty in future temperature projections. But most feedbacks are pretty well understood or at least obvious enough that they will be positive or negative.

The only feedback that is much less understood, that could actually be negative and therefore cancel a lot of the warming expected from CO2 is *drumroll* Clouds. (The idea being that more warming creates more water vapour which creates more clouds which have a cooling effect).

Now there's all sorts of evidence out there that this feedback is ultimately positive, therefore making CO2 warming even worse - but let's assume that evidence is wrong, that it is negative and that it largely mitigates CO2 warming, so that now we have our satisfactory explanation on why CO2 is not the primary cause. This sets the stage for our explanation on why cosmic rays are.

Except now there is a contradiction here. Because on the one hand you have the idea that warming is primarily caused by a lack of cosmic rays which produces less clouds. And this is supposedly consolidated by the idea that CO2 doesn't have much of an effect because it's warming creates more clouds which produce a cooling feedback.

Well that negative feedback applies to any warming, not just CO2. So if cosmic rays are the primary cause then they would be subject to the same negative feedback. Therefore this should be a pretty self-regulating effect: Less clouds = more warming = more clouds = more cooling.

So the point is, if cosmic rays turn out to be a major role player in warming cycles (which is certainly possible) this won't settle the debate at all - it will only make it that much more complicated. Because you can't simply invoke "more clouds" to explain why CO2 isn't causing much warming and then say the reason why we're seeing "natural" warming is because of less clouds.


At the end of the day, the truth is what it's always been - there are many different factors that influence our climate and there are probably many in play right now. But no matter how you slice it, it's becoming more and more difficult to cut man made CO2 out of the picture.

And that's why full-out deniers are so ridiculous to me. They take anything they can to try and undermine this simple fact. If CERN ends up showing a vital link between cosmic rays and clouds they will fill their blogs declaring anthropogenic global warming dead (for the 15,000,000th time) and stating that the debate is over, when in fact it just got more complicated.

So that's my only issue - please don't give them any more ammo to make these oversimplified declarations

Otherwise great work tho, thanks for putting in the time to get all this info together and help explain all sides of the story. S&F.

reply to post by atlasastro


Excuse me . I need to get in the subject again but if I remember correct, the reason I posted this thread was this:

I've created a thread before using the CLOUD project as proof climate change is not man made. Luckily I found myself being way wrong when I was confronted with the CLOUD project again.

I posted a new one on topic to let people learn about the CLOUD project and apologies for my previous assumptions.

The contradicting part you see is only when cosmic rays reall do have a massive impact on cloud forming.
I belief the first results didn't show this is the case yet and it might never show that it is. They don't know yet.

reply to post by mc_squared

Conclusions from this study could very well draw the line, and finally debunk or prove which side is right about man made climate change.

I was writing this with the idea that when it proves that cosmic rays do not have a big impact there are no longer good excuses around to deny that man is the source of our current climate change.

Please forgive my black and white quote cause I am aware the world has more shades of gray then I could ever imagine

I was writing this with the idea that when it proves that cosmic rays do not have a big impact there are no longer good excuses around to deny that man is the source of our current climate change.

Ah I see... true dat.

Although I'm sure if that happens the deniers will just bust out their grayest crayons and say the data from CERN is corrupt now, and then they will all do the "real" calculations on their blogs and claim the information they have is more robust because Al Gore is fat and he owns a beach house in Malibu.


PS - how's the weather over there? I'm still watching those temperatures in the Canadian arctic closely and they're crazier than ever. This week highs and lows are once again hovering at or even above zero.

Iqaluit Current Conditions

Of course now we're in deep winter and normal temperatures for that area at this time of year are a high of -21 and low of -30. So temperatures are up to 30 C above normal!

I'm bringing this up here because if you look at that forecast you will see those temperatures correlate very much with cloudy conditions. Later in the week, when it's supposed to be sunny the temperature is supposed to drop 10-20 degrees.

This says a lot about the complexity of cloud feedbacks.

In the summer, when they block out the Sun they tend to produce a cooling effect. In the winter, when there isn't much Sun to begin with they do more to insulate heat and produce a warming effect.

reply to post by mc_squared


:O You mean al. G doesn't own a Malibu beach house ?

You are probably right though. Like I said somewhere else... My personal investigation gave me more then enough reason to accept we are problem, even when I include the lies that go with it.

Clouds are a natural insulator. If its cloudy it doesn't get very cold. Clear skies don't stop the warm air from leaving.

There really is that much of a temperature difference in the arctic. Damn ! That can only cause a spiral effect. look what we are experiencing now. What effects will there be next year ?

The weather has returned to normal conditions here... For now that is.

Cloud Formation May Be Linked to Cosmic Rays
Experiment probes connection between climate change and radiation bombarding the atmosphere.

Article from Nature. 23/8-11


It seems that during a solar climax the magnetic field of the sun protects the Earth from cosmic rays.
During a solar minimum the highly charged protons causes clouds to form more rapidly at nano levels.

Link : www.scientificamerican.com...

If the influence is indeed causing sufficient changes is still there to be seen. Scientists aren't yet in agreement.

Originally posted by Sinter Klaas
Cloud Formation May Be Linked to Cosmic Rays
Experiment probes connection between climate change and radiation bombarding the atmosphere.

Article from Nature. 23/8-11


It seems that during a solar climax the magnetic field of the sun protects the Earth from cosmic rays.
During a solar minimum the highly charged protons causes clouds to form more rapidly at nano levels.

Link : www.scientificamerican.com...

If the influence is indeed causing sufficient changes is still there to be seen. Scientists aren't yet in agreement.

It's leaving us all in a bit of limbo really, and at the very end of Prof Nir Shaviv's paper, (and it is actually a bit more than a good summary) is this,
"that some of the 20th century warming should be attributed to the sun, and that the climate sensitivity is on the low side (around 1 deg increase per CO2 doubling)."

motls.blogspot.com...

Shaviv's blog,

sciencebits.com...

BTW, You are not right is saying there is not agreement, it's more like a war!

aolsearch.aol.co.uk...

reply to post by smurfy


War ? I didn't read about them shooting eachother... ? Yet...

I for one do not intend to blame our or any climate change to the Sun, and its protective heliosphere against cosmic rays.

I do think we should be aware of yet another factor that drives our planets climate through time.
Us humans do disturb any natural carbon cycle in existence. I just prey that we don't screw up that bad.

Maybe it's nothing more the just a fart... probably not. But hé lucky me... I'm no expert.