Though Media Refuse To Admit, CERN Results Vastly Strengthen Svensmark’s Cosmic Ray-Climate Theory

Looking at the English-language media, one might be led to think that the latest CERN experimental results show that trees alone dominate cloud formation, by supplying the necessary cloud seeding medium. Little reference is made to cosmic rays acting as the cloud formation modulator, initiating the cloud seeding process, as hypothesized by Henrik Svensmark.

Lubos Motl at the Reference Frame noted that factions of the mainstream media seem to have spun the recent CERN papers in a “bizarre” way.

Climate models way off target. CERN’s latest CLOUD experiment results further underpin Svensmark’s cosmic ray-climate theory. Image: Maximillien Brice/CERN

German press reports cite cosmic rays

Yet looking at the reporting by German-language scientific media, one finds plenty of mention of cosmic rays as a major player in cloud formation, which has a large cooling effect on our climate, and that erosols have been grossly misweighted in the recent climate models.

Dr. Sebastian Lüning and Professor Fritz Vahrenholt here write that the latest CERN results confirm what they claimed already in their 2012 book: The Neglected Sun. Today they write:

Already one year ago, in April 2015, scientists warned that the cooling effect by aerosols had been exaggerated (see our blog article “Director of the Hamburg Max-Planck-Institute for Meteorology: Aerosols cool less than previously assumed“). This appears to have been confirmed further. Within the scope of the CLOUD Project at CERN, scientists have found more indications that the aerosol effect in the models must corrected strongly downwards.”

Scinexx.de here writes that trees earlier “provided the means for lots of clouds before industrialization” and that “man obviously has influenced cloud formation [Industrialization] less than previously thought.”

So if it wasn’t human emitted particles seeding clouds before industry; and causing cooling like in the mid 20th, what could it have been? The answer according to CERN is “organic vapours emitted by trees that produce lots of aerosol particles in the atmosphere when there’s no sulphuric acid.

How does the cloud seeding by organic tree particles work? Through nucleation-inducing cosmic rays.

Cosmic rays as the amplifier

Scienxx.de writes that scientists used the CLOUD experiment to discover this in a controlled environment and so “determine how strongly certain components in the air or certain molecules contribute to cloud formation” and “how strongly these are amplified by the energy influx through cosmic rays.”

Adding:

Although the product of alpha pines occurred only in concentrations of one molecule per one trillion air molecules, they effectively contributed to cloud formation as the experiment showed. Through the influence of ions from cosmic rays, the effect increases even 10 to 100 times.”

That means cloud cover (and so cooling) would be the likely result in conditions of high cosmic ray influx into the lower atmosphere, as is the case during periods of low solar activity. Thus it appears Svensmark’s theory strengthens further.

Germany’s online wissenschaft-aktuell.de also points out the essential role of cosmic rays.

In the artificial atmosphere, scientists directed a beam of positively charged particles, so-called pions, which were generated by a Proton-Synchrotron. With this they simulated the effect of cosmic rays, which are constantly penetrating into the atmosphere. This stream of particles caused the organic molecules to ball up into approximately 2-nanometer size particles. More measurements confirmed that these volatile organic compounds grew further to form efficient condensation nuclei. In parallel the scientists underpinned the mechanism with computer models. ‘These results for me are the most important so far that the CLOUD experiment yielded so far,’ said Kirkby.”

The online Austrian science.orf.at here tells us more of the same: cosmic rays are at very much at play:

The experiment also showed that the nucleation rate rose by one or two orders of magnitude under the influence of cosmic rays. ‘This allows one to conclude that cosmic rays had a greater role on aerosols and cloud formation in preindustrial times than under today’s relatively dirty conditions,” said Paul Winkler of the Department of Aerosol Physics and Environmental Physics at the University of Vienna.”

In their press releases the government-paid scientists can add the mandatory “the-warming-continues” remarks all they want, but one thing is clear: The models have a long way to go and they are in dire need of major revamping. CO2 is nowhere near as important as some want us to believe it is. Cosmic rays, modeulated by the sun’s magnetic field, are together a factor that need to be accounted for.

It’s time for the habitual solar-denying so-called “experts” to acknowledge this and to start modelling much more accurately. We’ve known this for years already.

 

19 responses to “Though Media Refuse To Admit, CERN Results Vastly Strengthen Svensmark’s Cosmic Ray-Climate Theory”

  1. Boyfromtottenham

    Well done Svensmark and Kirkby! Science rules.

  2. Harry Dale Huffman

    It is not science until you can tie it to reality QUANTITATIVELY. The casual reader may not notice, for example, that the post quotes “…cosmic rays had a greater role on aerosols and cloud formation in preindustrial times than under today’s relatively dirty conditions.” That is a strange conclusion, in an article meant to show that cosmic rays are being neglected by climate scientists. So one has immediately to ask, what “dirty conditions”**, and “how much smaller is the calculated cosmic ray effect upon cloud formation than are those dirty conditions?” For much smaller it must be, if “cosmic rays had a greater role… in pre-industrial times.” And (this is the awkward question), if cosmic rays had a (much? little?) greater role before today’s “dirty conditions”, which is also before the “rise in CO2”, then who’s to say that neglecting them, in favor of those newer, stronger forces at work, is unwise? And remember, I am one of those who KNOWS, despite the almost universal belief among scientists in the “global warming greenhouse effect” of CO2, that it doesn’t exist at all. So I’m not arguing for the consensus science, I’m just telling you that the Svensmark theory is as bad, scientifically, as the consensus theories. For again, my Venus/Earth temperatures comparison says there is NO “cloud” effect upon the global temperature either, because Venus has a world-spanning, miles-thick cloud cover, compared to Earth’s tattered shroud, and that great difference (among other great differences, in CO2 concentration, albedo, and planetary surface) has NO EFFECT upon the Venus/Earth temperature ratio, which depends ONLY upon the relative distances of the two planets from the Sun.

    There WILL NOT BE any progress in understanding the GLOBAL “climate”–in the guise of the global mean surface temperature–until my Venus/Earth comparison is generally recognized as the DEFINITIVE correction to climate science.

    **And that does not mean just “sulfuric acid”, or atmospheric sulfate. In my work on remote aerosols, over 20 years ago, I found strong evidence that elemental, or “black” carbon, due largely to diesel fuel combustion, is a major nucleation species for atmospheric sulfate (in the western US at least).

    1. Jamie

      “It is not science until you can tie it to reality QUANTITATIVELY.”

      Please, this remark is idiotic and hypocritical. It is idiotic because scientists can come up with hypothesis and test them. This is exactly what happened, investigation into a possible variable of climate change. The fact that you are threatened by any variables other than carbon, shows you do not want to understand climate, that you do not have that necessary spark of curiosity needed scientific inquiry. Yet you have the audacity to suggest that until a scientist proves a theory conclusively, he or she is not practicing science!

      Secondly it is the warmists who cannot tie their hypothesis to the real world of weather. It got so embarrassing they had to change their marketing strategy from ‘global warming’ to ‘climate change’.

      If we take your idiotic non-scientific statement literally, then by definition global warming is not science, since we are predicting long-term weather. long-term predictions of weather cannot be ‘tied to reality quantitatively’, they are assumptions based on models; therefore, according to your logic, the warmists are not scientific.

      I love this idiotic definition of science. It is hilarious that your bizarre standard for science actually excludes the warmists. There have been many warming and cooling trends throughout history, and these trends have not been ‘tied to reality quantitatively’, therefore the warmist Grand-Unified Weather Theory of Carbon is not science, by your own standards.

    2. TedM

      HDF: “…cosmic rays had a greater role on aerosols and cloud formation in preindustrial times than under today’s relatively dirty conditions.” – See more at: http://notrickszone.com/2016/05/30/though-media-refuse-to-admit-cern-results-vastly-strengthen-svensmarks-cosmic-ray-climate-theory/#comments

      Harry has that been demonstrated quantitatively? No!!!!!!!!

      1. yonason

        @TedM

        I agree with your assessment. But it was Paul Winkler who said it, as quoted by Pierre. It’s an odd thing to say, since SO2 is among the “dirt” we produce, and among the most responsive to gamma rays.

        Anyway, I would like to see that Winkler quote explained in depth, since it seems to have been said only to neutralize the results of the experiments. I don’t see how it follows from the results of the experiments.

  3. Tom Anderson

    My impression is that Kirkby had to soft pedal cosmic ray influence to get the research published in Nature. There is much there to read between the lines.

    1. clipe
    2. Frederick Colbourne

      The references to chemicals emitted by trees is less than half the story.

      There have been several recent papers on oceanic bacteria as the references below show.

      I can’t find the one I am looking for, published this year, that focuses on chemicals emmitted by one-celled oceanic organisms.

      Just as with trees, the chemicals emmitted can be modified by cosmic rays to form cloud condensation nuclei.

      P.S. Don’t accept the criticism of Svensmark’s theory based on the timing of the Lashamp event. More highly resolved analysis shows the event supports Svensmark.

      References:

      http://www.livescience.com/3609-bacteria-form-clouds.html

      https://duckduckgo.com/?q=bacteria+clouds+chemical+ocean&ia=web

  4. John F. Hultquist

    Dated July 26, 1964
    “What makes the Blue Ridge Mountains Blue?
    LINK

    Dated January 7, 2008
    “Those Smoky Mountains — What Makes the Blue Ridge Blue?”
    LINK

    1. DirkH

      Thanks!
      Followed a link, great photo here
      https://www.nps.gov/blri/index.htm

  5. AndyG55
  6. CERN Results Strengthen Svensmark’s Cosmic Ray-Climate Theory | The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF)

    […] Full post […]

  7. sod

    How do sceptics live with such internal contradictions in their theories?

    400 ppm of CO2 has zero effect, while one molecule has:

    “Although the product of alpha pines occurred only in concentrations of one molecule per one trillion air molecules, they effectively contributed to cloud formation as the experiment showed. Through the influence of ions from cosmic rays, the effect increases even 10 to 100 times.”

    1. AndyG55

      If you are ignorant of the science behind this..

      Don’t blame anyone but yourself.

    2. Mindert Eiting
    3. DirkH

      sod 31. May 2016 at 12:18 PM | Permalink | Reply
      “How do sceptics live with such internal contradictions in their theories?
      400 ppm of CO2 has zero effect, while one molecule has:”

      Condensation nuclei have nothing to do with IR absorption. Therefore it is not a contradiction.

      Always happy to help, sod! I know this science stuff is difficult for some. Just ask.

  8. CERN-Sensation: Die Wälder bilden Wolken als Schutz vor Sonnenbrand! Kosmische Strahlung verstärkt Wolkenbildung bis zum 100fachen! – wobleibtdieglobaleerwaermung

    […] Though Media Refuse To Admit, CERN Results Vastly Strengthen Svensmark’s Cosmic Ray-Climate Th… […]

  9. More Good News on Climate

    […] global warming. The studies find that organic vapors from trees, especially when exposed to cosmic rays in clean air, produce an abundance of nuclei suitable for cloud […]

  10. Unsettled Science: Antarctic Isn’t Warming, Models Wrong Again | Atlas Monitor

    […] 4) CERN Results Strengthen Svensmark’s Cosmic Ray-Climate Theory No Tricks Zone, 30 May 2016 […]