CERN: 'Climate models will need to be substantially revised'

We were clear in the 2006 post that establishing a significant GCR/cloud/climate link would require the following steps (given that we have known that ionisation plays a role in nucleation for decades). One would need to demonstrate:

… that increased nucleation gives rise to increased numbers of (much larger) cloud condensation nuclei (CCN)
… and that even in the presence of other CCN, ionisation changes can make a noticeable difference to total CCN
… and even if there were more CCN, you would need to show that this actually changed cloud properties significantly,
… and that given that change in cloud properties, you would need to show that it had a significant effect on radiative forcing.

Of course, to show that cosmic rays were actually responsible for some part of the recent warming, you would need to show that there was actually a decreasing trend in cosmic rays over recent decades – which is tricky, because there hasn’t been (see the figure).

http://www.realclimate.org.nyud.net:8080/images/cr2011.jpg

The CLOUD results are not in any position to address any of these points, and anybody jumping to the conclusions that they have all been settled will be going way out on a limb. Indeed, there is a lot of evidence that (particularly) point 2 will not be satisfied (see for instance, Pierce and Adams (2009), and a new paper by Snow-Kropla et al).

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/08/the-cerncloud-results-are-surprisingly-interesting/

Based on the first results from CLOUD, it is clear that the treatment of aerosol formation in climate models will need to be substantially revised, since all models assume that nucleation is caused by these vapours and water alone. It is now urgent to identify the additional nucleating vapours, and whether their sources are mainly natural or from human activities.
...
This result leaves open the possibility that cosmic rays could also influence climate. However, it is premature to conclude that cosmic rays have a significant influence on climate until the additional nucleating vapours have been identified, their ion enhancement measured, and the ultimate effects on clouds have been confirmed.

25 August 2011 4:27 PM

Cosmic Rays vs the Global Warmers

Climate change sceptics have relied on two arguments to make their case. Firstly, some say the climate is not, in fact, changing at all; the the warming itself is a myth. It is hard to make this case these days as the figures are so persuasive. The second, much stronger, argument states that even if the world is getting warmer, it is the Sun, not us, to blame.

Understandably, then, sceptics are http://www.thegwpf.org/the-observatory/3702-cern-finds-qsignificantq-cosmic-ray-cloud-effect.html">getting pretty excited by a paper published in Nature magazine this week in which scientists at CERN, the nuclear research laboratory near Geneva, have shown that radiation from space can affect the way clouds form in our atmosphere – and in turn - perhaps - affecting temperatures on the ground (you can read the CERN press release on the paper here; the Nature paper itself is behind a firewall).

Back in the late 1990s, when the science of climate change was far from settled, I found the argument that changes in solar activity could account for most - if not all - of the temperature rise we saw in the 20th Century extremely persuasive. The ‘manic-Sun hypothesis’, championed by a pair of Danish physicists called Henrik Svensmark and Eigil Friis-Christensen posited that it was changes in ‘space weather’ rather than human activity that were largely to blame for climate change. The hypothesis has been flagged up in this country by the science writer Nigel Calder.

…

I am no longer a sceptic about climate change. I accept it is happening (the evidence on the ground is too strong to ignore) and the link with rising CO2 levels seems to be pretty incontrovertible. The manic sun hypothesis is plausible, but as time goes on it is beginning to look like it might explain SOME but by no means the bulk of the warming we have seen.

…

8/25/2011 @ 11:36AM

Did CLOUD Just Rain on the Global Warming Parade?

One of the hot topics, so to speak, in the global warming debate is allocating responsibility for 20th century warming between natural and man-made effects. This is harder than one might imagine — after all, no one’s thermometer has two readings, one for “natural” and one for “man-made.” This week, from CERN in Geneva, comes an important new study in this debate.

Global warming skeptics argue that only a portion, possibly a small portion, of recent warming is due to man-made CO₂ and greenhouse gasses. Climate alarmists have, in turn, argued that all of 20th century warming, and more, was due to anthropogenic effects (if the “and more” is confusing, it means that some scientists believe that certain man-made and natural cooling effects actually reduced man-made warming below what it might have been.)

…

About a month ago, before the study results had been made public, the skeptic camp experienced a “dog that didn’t bark” moment when the director of CERN asked that his scientists (incredibly) refrain from drawing any public conclusions from the study, saying “I have asked the colleagues to present the results clearly, but not to interpret them.” Skeptics, http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2011/07/the-dog-that-didnt-bark.html">including me, guessed that this meant the data was tending to support the Svensmark hypothesis. After all, the climate community has no problem drawing alarmist conclusions from the thinnest of data. Every climate scientist seems to have his or her own full-time PR agent. If they were explicitly avoiding public comment, and in fact telling scientists to effectively not do their job and draw no conclusions from the data, then the results must be threatening to the mainstream global warming community.

…

But let’s be careful. We are basically now in the exact same place with Svensmark that we are with CO2 greenhouse warming. We know the relevant effects exist in a lab, and are fairly certain they exist in nature, but we are uncertain how sensitive the actual climate is to these effects. http://www.forbes.com/sites/warrenmeyer/2010/10/15/denying-the-catstrophe-the-science-of-the-climate-skeptics-position/">We skeptics criticize alarmists for exaggerating feedbacks and real-world sensitivities to CO2. We should avoid the same mistake.

…

CERN experiment confirms cosmic ray effect on climate, another blow to climate models

by Jonathan DuHamel on Aug. 25, 2011, under Climate change

CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research in Geneva, Switzerland, has confirmed that cosmic rays have a strong influence on cloud formation and hence on climate. This is another blow to climate models. The research was part of CERN’s CLOUD experiment.

…

Results of the CERN experiment are published in Nature. http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110824/full/news.2011.504.html">Nature News admits (reluctantly because the results are politically incorrect), “Cloud formation may be linked to cosmic rays.”

…

The announcement and the politics involved are discussed on Anthony Watts’ blog http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/24/breaking-news-cern-experiment-confirms-cosmic-rays-influence-climate-change/">here.

Because these results make some climate models obsolete and call into question the contentions of those on the climate funding dole, there will be attempts to minimize the results. It should be interesting.

…

BREAKING NEWS – CERN Experiment Confirms Cosmic Rays Influence Cloud Seeds

Posted on August 24, 2011 by Anthony Watts

…

Nature paper examines cosmic ray climate change hypothesis, gives support

Bradley J. Fikes | Posted: Wednesday, August 24, 2011 10:00 am

…

The paper discusses the CLOUD ("http://public.web.cern.ch/public/en/research/CLOUD-en.html">Cosmics Leaving Outdoor Droplets") experiment at CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research. The experiment pertains to a hypothesis by http://www.nctimes.com/news/science/article_9be4048a-f28d-5c7e-9856-5c8d49be3138.html">Henrik Svensmark that cosmic rays trigger the formation of ions and particles that seed cloud formation. It gave support to Svensmark's hypothesis, although even with it, under some conditions the rate of cloud formation can't be explained with the current understanding.

…

Svensmark says this process helps regulate global temperatures, and needs to be taken into account in any theory of climate change. His hypothesis is that more cosmic rays equals more clouds, meaning less sunlight reaches the earth, translating into less global warming. Conversely, fewer cosmic rays equal fewer clouds and more warming.. Svensmark says this change is moderated by the sun, so solar activity in deflecting/permitting cosmic rays to reach earth must be taken into account in any theory of climate change.

"The CLOUD results show that trace vapours assumed until now to account for aerosol formation in the lower atmosphere can explain only a tiny fraction of the observed atmospheric aerosol production," according to a CERN press release. "The results also show that ionisation from cosmic rays significantly enhances aerosol formation. Precise measurements such as these are important in achieving a quantitative understanding of cloud formation, and will contribute to a better assessment of the effects of clouds in climate models."

…

August 26, 2011

CERN scientists question AGW models

Rick Moran

The scientists at the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) have made an historic contribution to the global warming debate.

Using a Proton Synchotron accelerator, the scientists have determined that cosmic rays are probably as responsible, or more responsible for cloud formation on earth than any human activity:

…

In other words, the inconvenient fact of the sun contributing to global warming was simply ignored in the past by climate modelers. Now it must be part of their calculations.

…

CERN: "Substantially Revise" Climate Models

By Guvner, Newser User

Posted Aug 26, 2011 12:37 AM CDT

(User Submitted) – Climate research published in the latest Nature journal implicate cosmic rays as a major contributing factor to global warming through formation of aerosols and eventual cloud formation. All current models of climate change have failed to account for the presence and effects of cosmic rays. Considering these latest findings, CERN scientists admit that current models "will need to be substantially revised," reports The Register.

Small changes in atmospheric water vapor content and cloud cover have a significant impact on global temperature. The data now recognizes the importance of solar influence on these changes. The theory was first proposed in the 1990's but was at odds with the anthropogenic model of climate change. The potential implications of this research in supporting a 'heliocentric' rather than anthropogenic model of GW prompted CERN's director-general Rolf-Dieter Heuer to warn scientists "to present the results clearly but not interpret them".

…