P Gosselin at the No Tricks Zone writes:
The Latest On The CLOUD Experiment at CERN
By Sebastian Lüning and Fritz Vahrenholt
On May 10, 2013, at the online Austrian ORF, there was a rare interview with the CLOUD Experiment director of the European European Organization for Nuclear Research, Jasper Kirkby. Within the scope of the CLOUD project, it is being investigated to what extent solar activity has on cloud formation via the mechanism of cosmic radiation and the impact this could have on the Earth’s climate (see Chapter 6 of our book “Die kalte Sonne“). Here’s an excerpt of the worthwhile interview:
ORF: What is the relationship between solar activity and cosmic radiation?
Kirkby: Cosmic radiation consists of high energy, charged particles. When they reach our solar system, they are deflected away by the magnetic field of the sun. Foremost by the magnetic field of the solar plasma. When the sun is active, less cosmic radiation reaches the Earth. The relationship to the solar cycle: When there are many sunspots, the Earth receives 10 – 30% less cosmic radiation.
Is this relationship sure?
Yes, it is solidly confirmed. We also know that cosmic radiation ionizes every cubic centimeter of the Earth’s atmosphere. Unsure so far is whether or not this also could have a climatic impact. Clouds are extremely important for the Earth’s climate. If I could magically eliminate all clouds from the atmosphere, then 30 watts of additional heat energy would reach every square meter of the Earth.
To put this number into context: The warming of the atmosphere through the impacts of man is currently pegged at 1.5 watts per square meter. Small variations in cloud cover could have large impacts.
What do your experiments show?
At this point in time we cannot say if cosmic radiation impacts the climate. So far up to now we have investigated the production of condensation nuclei for cloud droplets – particularly those that are formed from gas, i.e. gas-to-particle-conversion”. They represent about half of the condensation nuclei in the atmosphere. The remaining nuclei come from soot and dust.
What gases are involved in this process?
We have looked at sulfuric acid and ammonia. The results of the first trials: Cosmic radiation enhances the formation of condensation nuclei from gases by a factor of 10. But that alone is too little to have a significant impact on cloud formation. According to our latest experiments, there has to be another gas or vapor involved that enhances this process. We suspect organic substances.
The results are currently being reviewed by a journal. Unfortunately I can’t tell you more. Only this much: The results are very interesting. Over the course of the year there are going to be some publications on the subject.
Let’s assume that you are able to show that cosmic radiation indeed does contribute a lot to cloud formation. What would that mean?
I think that the experiments are important in two ways. Firstly, they would show that there is a natural source to climate change. And the other point is that it would change our understanding of anthropogenic climate change. We know quite a bit about greenhouse gases. What we know little about are aerosols. These are particles that come from industry floating in the atmosphere. They surely have a cooling effect. However, we have no idea just how great this effect is. It may be small, but it may be very big. Maybe it is even big enough to offset the additional CO2 in the atmosphere.. We don’t know.
My emphasis added. Since temperatures are not following the climate models based on CO2 emissions there has to be other factors that are influencing climate change. I think that cosmic rays interaction with aerosols are prime candidates. Cooling has been associated with increased volcanic activity, a prime source aerosols in the atmosphere. A weak sun enables the increase in cosmic rays, thus the combination could bring on the next grand minimum. Once the papers are published, we will know more. Stay Tuned.
Unfortunately the results are pretty vague. I also got this as a counter when I brought up GCR’s with an alarmist. http://t.co/5TaBsLl3Wf
Sent from my iPad
I’d like to see what the response is to the following noted divergence in gcr/cloud cover in this research:
I think there is likely a sun cloud connection but I think there is much more to it than the GCR mechanism. The very quiet minimum resulted in the lowest “Top of the Atmosphere” measurement in early 2009. I realize they were talking about the thermosphere but in the stratosphere there are a lot of changes that take place when the ultra UV radiation reduces by 10% at solar minimum. I suspect a compressed atmosphere may be particularly sensitive to changes in solar wind solar activity resulting in high pressure at the poles that comes spilling down into the moderate latitudes. The problem with observing this is that whatever the sun is doing has also got to be separated out from what the ocean states do such as the warm vs. cold phase of the PDO. This warm PDO causes more zonal flow in the jet stream and the cold phase increases the jet streams north south amplitude resulting in big swings in the temperatures. I’ve also noticed that we seem to be stuck in a La Nina pattern again this year. I don’t know how much of this is just ocean oscillations or if the sun, through stratospheric affects is playing a role as well.
Without gravity acting to restore the thermodynamic equilibrium which is stipulated in the Second Law of Thermodynamics (which says: “An isolated system, if not already in its state of thermodynamic equilibrium, spontaneously evolves towards it. Thermodynamic equilibrium has the greatest entropy amongst the states accessible to the system”) and thus, as a direct corollary of that Law, supporting (at the molecular level) an autonomous thermal gradient, then …
(1) The temperature at the base of the troposphere on Uranus would be nowhere near as hot as 320K because virtually no direct Solar radiation gets down there, and there is no surface at that altitude. The planet’s radiating temperature is under 60K because it receives less than 3W/m^2.
(2) The temperature of the Venus surface would be nowhere near as hot as 730K (even at the poles) because it receives only about 10% as much direct Solar radiation at its surface as does Earth at its surface.
(3) Jupiter would be nowhere near as hot, even in its core, which receives extra kinetic energy which was converted by gravity from gravitational potentential energy due to the continual collapsing of this gaseous planet. This is why Jupiter emits more radiation than it receives.
(4) The core of our Moon would be nowhere near as hot as it is thought to be, probably over 1000K.
(5) Earth’s surface would indeed be perhaps 20 to 40 degrees colder, and the core, mantle and crust nowhere near as hot, maybe no molten material at all.
Think about it! If you’re not sure why, it’s explained in Sections 4 to 9 and Section 15 here.