Svenmark’s cosmic ray theory now proven?

At least that’s what a group of Danish researchers suggest after they conducted experiments to determine that the theorem holds true. From the article:

Back in 1996 Danish physicists suggested that cosmic rays, energetic particles from space, are important in the formation of clouds. Since then, experiments in Copenhagen and elsewhere have demonstrated that cosmic rays actually help small clusters of molecules to form. But the cosmic-ray/cloud hypothesis seemed to run into a problem when numerical simulations of the prevailing chemical theory pointed to a failure of growth.

Fortunately the chemical theory could also be tested experimentally, as was done with SKY2, the chamber of which holds 8 cubic metres of air and traces of other gases. One series of experiments confirmed the unfavourable prediction that the new clusters would fail to grow sufficiently to be influential for clouds. But another series of experiments, using ionizing rays, gave a very different result, as can be seen in the accompanying figure.

The reactions going on in the air over our heads mostly involve commonplace molecules. During daylight hours, ultraviolet rays from the Sun encourage sulphur dioxide to react with ozone and water vapour to make sulphuric acid. The clusters of interest for cloud formation consist mainly of sulphuric acid and water molecules clumped together in very large numbers and they grow with the aid of other molecules.

Atmospheric chemists have assumed that when the clusters have gathered up the day’s yield, they stop growing, and only a small fraction can become large enough to be meteorologically relevant. Yet in the SKY2 experiment, with natural cosmic rays and gamma-rays keeping the air in the chamber ionized, no such interruption occurs. This result suggests that another chemical process seems to be supplying the extra molecules needed to keep the clusters growing.

“The result boosts our theory that cosmic rays coming from the Galaxy are directly involved in the Earth’s weather and climate,” says Henrik Svensmark, lead author of the new report. “In experiments over many years, we have shown that ionizing rays help to form small molecular clusters. Critics have argued that the clusters cannot grow large enough to affect cloud formation significantly. But our current research, of which the reported SKY2 experiment forms just one part, contradicts their conventional view. Now we want to close in on the details of the unexpected chemistry occurring in the air, at the end of the long journey that brought the cosmic rays here from exploded stars.”

You can download or read the actual underlying paper right here in pdf format. Oh, shit! Do you mean to tell me that yet another natural occurring phenomenon that the AGW cultists ignored, downplayed, or pretended didn’t matter actually has a significant impact? We have learned yet another important fact, one that should make it clear that we still do not completely understand this process and those that claimed the science was settled are full of shit.

The only thing that is really settled is that climate science has a long way to go before it gets this complex system right. The natural phenomenon involved are not just complex, there are so many of them that we barely know what they are, let alone how they interact. Pretending man suddenly is the sole agent to influence such a complex system, one where such huge energies and numbers occur naturally, is an act of stupidity and desperation. Anyone claiming anything else is full of shit. A lot of someones owe Henrik some serious appologies. Ain’t science and the scientific method grand?

Comments are closed.

  1. TxAg94

    You can download or read the actual underlying paper right here in pdf format.

    Yeah, I’m gonna get right on that…that’s what we have nerds like you around here for.

    Thumb up 3

  2. Seattle Outcast

    Look, just because you keep proving that “global warming” isn’t real and/or caused by people burning “fossil fuels”, doesn’t mean that Al Gore will ever admit to:

    1) lying
    2) being a fatso hypocrite
    3) epic cluelessness
    4) being in the whole thing for the money
    5) undeserving of his Nobel prize
    6) bad editing on a “documentary” that spends most of the time switching between really fucking bad (and debunked) science and Al Gore attempting to look worldly, educated, concerned, and scientifically literate

    Thumb up 5

  3. Hal_10000

    Do you mean to tell me that yet another natural occurring phenomenon that the AGW cultists ignored, downplayed, or pretended didn’t matter actually has a significant impac

    This again? Oh, someone got a cluster to form in a chamber! Guess we should throw out the more numerous experiments that show otherwise. Guess we should throw out the thousands of pieces of data that confirm global warming and go with a theory whose predictions for climate patterns have been the complete opposite of the observations.

    There is a long way to go from this to proving that cosmic rays even affect climate. And the fact is that the pattern of temperature has follow global warming predictions much better than cosmic rays.

    Thumb up 1

  4. AlexInCT *

    This again? Oh, someone got a cluster to form in a chamber! Guess we should throw out the more numerous experiments that show otherwise.

    Did you read the article or the paper? The tests where they could not get the clusters to keep forming happened because the conditions didn’t accurately reflect the reality that cosmic radiation never stops. During the day it is the sun, at night it is from other stars. If you apply the charge, even with a reduced charge to reflect radiation at night, you get the larger molecules to form.

    Guess we should throw out the thousands of pieces of data that confirm global warming and go with a theory whose predictions for climate patterns have been the complete opposite of the observations.

    I do not know why that’s not already the case Hal considering that we discovered that practically all this shit is based on fudged data that conveniently went missing or models they won’t show us all so nobody can dispute the bullshit.

    There is a long way to go from this to proving that cosmic rays even affect climate.

    You sound like the catholic church talking to Copernicus about his crazy belief that the earth is not the center of the universe or something.

    Thumb up 4

  5. Hal_10000

    I do not know why that’s not already the case Hal considering that we discovered that practically all this shit is based on fudged data that conveniently went missing or models they won’t show us all so nobody can dispute the bullshit.

    See, this is why I hate this debate. Because you keep going back to disproven bullshit. Ten investigations have shown the data was fine. A Koch-funded study by a climate skeptic (BEST) confirmed their results. No data went missing, which I have now had to say 648 times. If you’re unwilling to acknowledge reality, such as when your skeptic bullshit talking points have been thoroughly disproven, there’s no point in arguing about this, is there?

    If the cosmic ray theory were right, temperature would follow solar activity. They. Do. Not. If the CO2 theory is right, we should see a steady rise. We. Do.

    Look, science works by making predictions and confirming those predictions. CO2 theory made a prediction – a steady rise in temperature. That theory has more or less been correct. It’s possible, given the last 10 years, they overestimated the climate sensitivity slightly. CR theory also makes a prediction: that temperature should follow the solar cycle. This has not happened; not anywhere close. If you’re going to impugn global warming theory in favor of cosmic ray theory, just line up for your aromatherapy and homeopathy too.

    Thumb up 3

  6. stogy

    It’s possible, given the last 10 years, they overestimated the climate sensitivity slightly.

    It’s a lot less of an overestimation when you factor in ENSO as well. We’ve just come out of the warmest la nina ever.

    Thumb up 1

  7. AlexInCT *

    Look, science works by making predictions and confirming those predictions.

    So why have we not abandoned AGW completely since absolutely not a single one fo their predictions has been accurate, either in the short or long term?

    It’s a lot less of an overestimation when you factor in ENSO as well. We’ve just come out of the warmest la nina ever.

    Source please?

    Thumb up 1

  8. stogy

    Happy to help :)

    Recent global-warming hiatus tied to equatorial Pacific surface cooling – Yu Kosaka & Shang-Ping Xie from Nature (2013)

    There are others as well:

    Foster & Rahmstorf (2011) Environmental Research Letters

    Here’s a light open access version of the argument:

    About the lack of warming

    So why have we not abandoned AGW completely since absolutely not a single one fo their predictions has been accurate, either in the short or long term?

    If you actually look at the science, instead of blogs by hacks, you’ll find that your statement here is completely untrue. A greater problem is that real world observations have shown change to be happening at a faster rate than predicted and the rate of change is accelerating – arctic ice melt for one, sea levels for another.

    Thumb up 1

  9. Hal_10000

    So why have we not abandoned AGW completely since absolutely not a single one fo their predictions has been accurate, either in the short or long term?

    The first AGW predictions were made in the 1930’s and estimated a steady rise of 2.5 degrees per century. That’s still within the uncertainties. At most, the sensitivity is down to 1.5 degrees per century. And it could still be a bit higher.

    Thumb up 1

  10. AlexInCT *

    If you actually look at the science, instead of blogs by hacks

    That one gave me one heck of a laugh dude.

    What science? The shit Mann and other such shysters did isn’t fucking science despite how much you cultist want to pretend otherwise. In real science, the type where the scientific principle is followed, peer review isn’t done as a circle jerk, and the poltiical agenda and money are not the drivers behind the findings, people that do what most, if not all, of your AGW gurus have done, get shunned and rediculed by the community. The fact is that if it wasn’t for the blogs you want to criticize we wouldn’t have ever found out how unscientific and dispicable the AGW cult is.

    The first AGW predictions were made in the 1930′s and estimated a steady rise of 2.5 degrees per century. That’s still within the uncertainties. At most, the sensitivity is down to 1.5 degrees per century. And it could still be a bit higher.

    Yeah, they also predicted another ice age, Hal. And a lot of other stuff. Cherry picked shit, which AGW seems to be absed on, still makes this psuedo-cult anything but scientific. And can you link me the work that blamed man for that rise in the 1930s? I would love to see that connection made. I believe you are conflating the fact that someone said the planet was warming through natural occurences with your cult’s fantasies about socialist utopia coming about by blaming man for the warming.

    Thumb up 3

  11. Hal_10000

    Yeah, they also predicted another ice age,

    And that’s where I opt out of this discussion. This is a point we’ve been over and over and over. No one predicted an ice age except idiot reporters. Global cooling was a brief fad in the 70’s that never supplanted global warming. You know this.

    Thumb up 4

  12. stogy

    That one gave me one heck of a laugh dude.

    Heh! Says the guy who gets climate change information from Mark Morano, who is actually a political hack!

    if not all, of your AGW gurus have done, get shunned and rediculed by the community.

    So the actual science I linked to? The thousands of scientists working on climate-related science, of all political persuasions – including conservatives…?

    Cherry picked shit, which AGW seems to be absed on, still makes this psuedo-cult anything but scientific.

    Heh! And then as an example of how climate scientists have got it wrong, he links to a completely discredited, cherry picked and completely unscientific argument:

    Yeah, they also predicted another ice age, Hal.

    Thumb up 0

  13. AlexInCT *

    Heh! Says the guy who gets climate change information from Mark Morano, who is actually a political hack!

    Oh that is priceless Stogy. A worshipper of the fucking movement that is totally financed and beholden to the most powerful entities on the planet – the western nanny state governments that want to rob us of our freedoms and rights because the credentialed elites in charge of these cesspools are all power hungry criminals with delusions of grandeur – whom are buying fake science to further their power grabbing agenda has a problem with someone else that doesn’t share his politics, so he labels that persona political hack.

    What’s next? You will tell me that since anti-AGW research is financed by greedy corporations – big oil!!1!!eleventy!! – it is unreliable, while AGW crap that receives massive amounts of money from the governments that stand to gain the most from the political solutions to a made up problem is pure as driven snow? Fuck you cultists are delusional.

    So the actual science I linked to? The thousands of scientists working on climate-related science, of all political persuasions – including conservatives…?

    Thousands? A laughable number considering most of the vocal AGW “scientists” have no background in any science related to climate, or in science at all, to make them anything but politically motivated hacks anyway. That shit the UN IPCC puts out is not just nonsense, it is usual signed by people that don’t know what science is to begin with. These are nothing but hacks, getting big money from governments with an agenda, and whose work is based on fabricated stuff by people like Mann. You mean the people that destroy evidence and hide their models from us? Yeah, sure. Like I said: if you start from a faulty premise of faked data, everything anyone does that relies on that, even remotely, is null and void. Period.

    These hacks have made no viable predictions. Yes, I said it again, because your links are full of shit. They are people making excuses for why their bullshit predictions have not come to pass. I do not buy any of it. Even if I was stupid enough to grant them that they might have a point, it only serves to show that they are talking out of their ass when they make predictions because they keep getting it wrong, and do so, because they do not understand the system. But you can keep pretending you have ground to stand on.

    Heh! And then as an example of how climate scientists have got it wrong, he links to a completely discredited, cherry picked and completely unscientific argument:

    Actually I linked to a scientific paper that followed the scientific method. That you consider that cherry picking isn’t funny: it is par for the course. Your lack of understanding of the scientific principle, or good science of any kind, coupled with your blind faith in marxist bullshit, is enough for you to think you have science on your side. But the facts speak differently. At least I understand Hal’s motivation to keep pretending this stuff is real, but in your case it is blind faith.

    Thumb up 1

  14. stogy

    Actually I linked to a scientific paper that followed the scientific method.

    No, you linked to a press release, and one that mentions ‘magic’, too! The fact that you don’t seem to be able to tell the difference between a press release and peer reviewed science is very telling.

    A laughable number considering most of the vocal AGW “scientists” have no background in any science related to climate

    How would you know? You don’t read any of them. You get all of your information from partisan websites. You have no actual understanding of any of the actual science, and then you link to an un-peer reviewed press release because it matches your confirmation bias. The only thing proven here is that you’re nothing but a useful idiot.

    I am willing to debate climate policy, but as you know so little about climate science, and keep putting out tired and discredited old myths, I can’t really see the point in talking about it with you any more.

    Thumb up 0

  15. stogy

    OK, so how do you extrapolate what Svenmark has done, which is essential show that water vapor and sulfur dioxide can be converted into sulfuric acid in a lab, into the real world. I notice they don’t make any big conclusions:

    So in conclusion it has been shown that an increase in ion- induced nucleation survives as the clusters grow into CCN sizes in direct contrast to the present neutral experiment and current the- oretical expectations. It is proposed that an ion-mechanism exists which provides a second significant pathway for making additional H2SO4, as a possible explanation of the present experimental find- ings.

    But you do.

    Do you mean to tell me that yet another natural occurring phenomenon that the AGW cultists ignored, downplayed, or pretended didn’t matter actually has a significant impact?

    And the fount of all contrarian wisdom, Anthony Watts says:

    it looks like the upcoming IPCC AR5 report will be obsolete the day it is released.

    Say what’s your position on the lack of correlation with Forbusch decreases?

    And congratulations – you’ve graduated to the big leagues of climate change misinformation, Watts up with that?

    For fun, it’s a good idea to see how often the arguments Anthony posts contradict each other, but the same cheerleading squad chime in every time pronouncing the imminent demise of AGW regardless of the scientific merit of the arguments. You should fit in well there.

    I actually spent an afternoon there a year ago looking at all the links on one post claiming that arctic winds were driving the ice melt. Anthony had carefully cherry-picked statements out of full papers that were actually arguing the contrary and posted them as supportive of his views. About half way through the afternoon, my posts started to disappear, even though they had been previously allowed by the moderator. The only claim I actually made was that his citation links fell short of what could really be considered skeptical. So watch for that. You really have to wonder about the great warming conspiracy when data from the same papers can be used uncritically to… discredit the great global warming conspiracy, don’t you. Or not.

    I usually post under a different name over there (one of the few not yet banned), so keep an eye out for me there too.

    Also, there are a couple of good sites that Anthony linked to a week or so ago that actually take apart the claims that he makes. Here are a couple of the better ones:

    Hot Whopper
    Wottsupwiththatblog

    Oh and of course, don’t forget Tamino.

    Still waiting on your response to the links I posted earlier, btw.

    Thumb up 0