Mechanism Found for GCR changes Creating Aresols & Water Vapor, GCR changes caused by Solar Magnetism

[BethesdaWX]

The SKY Experiment has found Mechanisms to which Aerosols & Water Vapor Molecular Clusters can be Formed through Changes in GCR's. Now there are still tons of uncertainties, and this is still just Another Hypothesis, as is AGW, but the Mechanisms are there and they have been reproduced, as stated in the paper. The complicated aspect of the climate system still Renders this a hypothesis, but now we have scientific evidence of a possible mechanism(s).

These Folks are Pro-AGW big time, so, I believe they're missing a few things purposely...such as Ocean Equilibrium and the PDO cycle.

http://www.frontlineonnet.com/fl2806/stories/20110325280610700.htm

But they Still find that Decreased GCC (Leaving out the Oceans for whatever reason) can account for almost 1/2 of the Warming Seen since 1850.

Leaving out Ocean/Climate System Equilibrium Pisses me off Royally...they do not even asess the fact that Since the Earth would have Less GCC, the oceans would be absorbing more and More Radiation...and that the Equilibrium would not be Immediate, but would be extended over several decades. So really the Atmosphere would continue to warm. The +PDO allowing the excess warmth into the atmosphere is also not Considered. That sucks, but anyhow.. here is a Snippet from the Physics Experiment.

According to Rao, one of the reasons why the effect of long-term changes in GCR intensity on low-level CC and its impact on global warming was not clearly understood was the absence of reliable estimate of GCR flux changes over a long period. This has now become available following the works of McCracken and associates who have estimated these flux changes through accurate proxy measurements of beryllium-10 (Be¹⁰ obtained from deep polar ice core. What the authors have done is to merge the long-term cosmogenic data of Be ¹⁰ with actual GCR measurements from 1933 to 1965 and reconstruct the long-term changes in GCR intensity during 1428-2005. Further, McCracken and colleagues inverted this long-term cosmic ray data to yield helio-magnetic field and observed a clear correlation with the observed sunspot data (Graph 2). The increase in magnetic field so determined agreed with that directly measured by the Advanced Composition Explorer (ACE), the satellite mission of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), launched in 1997.What the above data show is that the average GCR intensity near the earth during 1954-1996 was lower by 16 per cent compared with the average for the period 1428-1944 and that the primary cosmic ray intensity recorded during 1960-2005 was the lowest in 150 years. The data also show that during the last 150 years, when the carbon dioxide intensity increased from around 280 ppm to 380 ppm, the corresponding decrease in GCR intensity was about 9 per cent. Graph 1 tells you that a 9 per cent decrease in GCR intensity corresponds to a 2 per cent reduction in low-level CC. Extrapolating this short-term correlation to the long-term data of McCracken and company, Rao has argued that the 9 per cent decline in GCR intensity over the last 150 years would likewise correspond to a 2 per cent reduction in absolute low-level CC, which in turn implies an increase in the earth's radiation budget by 1.1 watt/m ². This, Rao has pointed out, is nearly two-thirds of the estimated increase in radiative forcing of 1.66 W/m ² due to increased carbon emissions during the same period.

SKY EXPERIMENT

The SKY experiment, the results of which started to come out in 2006, deserves to be mentioned in this context. The experiment used natural muons (the heavy cousins of electrons) that could reach a 7 m ³ reaction chamber in a basement laboratory of the DSRI. The experiment was designed to verify that electrons released in the air by the passing muons promote the formation of molecular clusters, which act as building blocks for CCN. The reaction chamber contained a mixture of gases at realistic concentrations to replicate the chemistry of lower atmosphere. Ultraviolet light, mimicking solar irradiance, created sulphuric acid through a photochemical process.

When sulphuric acid was added in concentrations below a critical value, vast numbers of aerosol particles appeared in the chamber, which were clusters of sulphuric acid and water molecules. Muon flux, electron density and the numbers and sizes of the molecular clusters, temperature, pressure and relative humidity were all measured.

The data revealed that electrons released by cosmic rays acted as catalysts, which significantly accelerated the formation of stable, ultra-small clusters of sulphuric acid and water molecules, believed to be the building blocks for CCN.

A strong electric field was applied through two electrodes mounted on opposite sides of the chamber to sweep away the electrons. The expectation was that this would greatly reduce the number of molecular clusters and confirm that electrons enhanced their production.

But Svensmark and colleagues observed an unexpected result: electrons with a lifetime of approximately 20 seconds made little difference to the cluster count. Contrary to the theoretical expectation that periods greater than 80 seconds would be required to make the clusters, this meant that electrons made clusters more rapidly than previously thought. The timescale issue raised by Gunturu should probably find an answer in this result. Further, data from the ongoing SKY experiment should also be able to answer the queries with regard to the relationship between aerosol and CCN numbers that Gunturu has raised.

MOLECULAR CLUSTERS

On the basis of SKY results, Svensmark theorises the formation of CCN from molecular clusters as follows. Stripped by cosmic rays, electrons in the atmosphere attach themselves to fragile clusters of sulphuric acid and water molecules. Their electric charges stabilise the clusters, while more molecules join them. When the molecular clusters are big enough, the electrons leave them in a stable state and catalyse other clusters to grow. In previous theories of cluster growth, Svensmark points out, each electron was supposed to remain with just one cluster. “The catalytic behaviour of the electrons is much more efficient,” he adds. This theory, he says, explains in detail the surprising quick production of droplets seen in the SKY experiment by his team. But it would seem that this picture does not quite match the cloud microphysics picture outlined by Gunturu.

A more ambitious project called CLOUD (Cosmics Leaving Outdoor Droplets) at the European Organisation for Nuclear Research (CERN), has just begun to produce the first results that are yet to be published. The aim here, as in SKY, is to investigate the possible influence of cosmic rays on the earth's clouds and climate by studying the microphysical interactions involved. Whereas SKY used cosmic ray muons, CLOUD will use a beam from the high-energy particle accelerator.

This is the first time that an accelerator is being used to study atmospheric and climate science. The initial stage of the experiment uses CERN's proton synchrotron to send a beam of particles into an ultra-clean reaction chamber filled with atmospheric gases. The effect of the beam on aerosol production will be recorded and analysed.

The CLOUD project, after many hiccups, kicked off in 2006 and the experiment began in November 2009. This experiment should provide more detailed results on the GCR-cloud cover linkages and settle many of the outstanding questions. As of now, CLOUD has seen sulphuric acid and water combine to make particles when blasted by the CERN beam in a way that matches predictions of the most recent models. Data in the near future should tell us whether these are indeed precursors to CCN.

Now, where thing Get VERY interesting... Almost a Perfect Correlation to warming, we see what has been the Ticking Timebomb of the AGW implosion I think we'll see around 2017-2021

The current understanding of climate change in the industrial age is that it is predominantly caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gases, with relatively small natural contributions due to solar irradiance and volcanoes. However, palaeoclimatic reconstructions show that the climate has frequently varied on 100-year time scales during the Holocene (last 10 kyr) by amounts comparable to the present warming – and yet the mechanism or mechanisms are not understood. Some of these reconstructions show clear associations with solar variability, which is recorded in the light radio-isotope archives that measure past variations of cosmic ray intensity. However, despite the increasing evidence of its importance, solar-climate variability is likely to remain controversial until a physical mechanism is established

Successful reconstruction

[skierinvermont]

It's funny how every week or so you think you've discovered something earth shattering but 99% of this is nothing new and is completely consistent with our understanding of climate.

I will say this is a step up from the last thread you started about the crackpot loony toon who claimed to have disproven AGW through a combination of math errors and shear stupidity.

[BethesdaWX]

What?

1) None of this is "Earth Shattering", Its Basic Physics that were reproduced, Reached 7m^3 In a Reaction Chamber. The Problem has always been finding and measuring the Mechanism in the Climate system, and we do not have the ability to do it at this time.....thus we cannot apply it into climate models/predictions unless we can measure it directly, and understanding the feedbacks involved throughout will be even Harder... so predictions using this are likely to be just as Bad as the IPCC predictions. This study does not take into account the oceans, so this is an ulterior explanation for the warming we have seen. Until we can understand more than just the "simple rapid feedback" Spectrum, there is really no point in going further with the debate on a positive feedback oriented climate system, which makes no sense whatsoever.

2) As for the "kook study", I posted it out of vague interest at 3AM, I never even understood the damn thing. So no, they are completely unrelated.

[WeatherRusty]

What?

1) None of this is "Earth Shattering", Its Basic Physics that were reproduced in a 7m^3 Reaction Chamber. The Problem has always been finding and measuring the Mechanism in the Climate system, and we do not have the ability to do it at this time.....thus we cannot apply it into climate models/predictions unless we can measure it directly, and understanding the feedbacks involved throughout will be even Harder... so predictions using this are likely to be just as Bad as the IPCC predictions. This study does not take into account the oceans, so this is an ulterior explanation for the warming we have seen. Until we can understand more than just the "simple rapid feedback" Spectrum, there is really no point in going further with the debate on a positive feedback oriented climate system, which makes no sense whatsoever.

2) As for the "kook study", I posted it out of vague interest at 3AM, I never even understood the damn thing. So no, they are completely unrelated.

Over the period of the 11 year magnetic cycle of the Sun is teased out a 0.1C to 0.2C variation in global temperature. The same general impact is given as the likely value on climate from the depths of the Maunder Minimum to today. This would encompass any and all mechanisms, both known and unknown, understood and not so well understood.

If galactic cosmic rays are modulating cloud amount, then the degree to which this is affecting temperature can be no greater than the total ascribed to solar variation, and when accounting for the impact of the 1.3W (0.1%) electromagnetic variation little remains for GCR's and cloud amount to have a significant impact.

[BethesdaWX]

Over the period of the 11 year magnetic cycle of the Sun is teased out a 0.1C to 0.2C variation in global temperature. The same general impact is given as the likely value on climate from the depths of the Maunder Minimum to today. This would encompass any and all mechanisms, both known and unknown, understood and not so well understood.

If galactic cosmic rays are modulating cloud amount, then the degree to which this is affecting temperature can be no greater than the total ascribed to solar variation, and when accounting for the impact of the 1.3W (0.1%) electromagnetic variation little remains for GCR's and cloud amount to have a significant impact.

This is simply false, read the study. You constantly talk about the "psitive cloud - AGW feedback... (BTW it has No Mechanism).

The TSI formula accounts for Changes in total energy released by the Sun, into the Atmosphere....but not the fact that the Earth has a constant Shield.....Clouds, and that changing this Shield determines how much gets through to the Surface, to warm the oceans/LT, etc.........increasing and decreasing this shield by as little a few percent can equate to Vast warmings and coolings comparable to those of today. The TSI formula assumes a constant body with no Feedbacks, and no changes in mechanisms such as GCC, Sea Ice, etc.

GCC/LLGCC reflects SW radiation, and less GCC = more energy into the climate system...not that more energy is being applied, but that less is being reflected out.

Because we don't know how much GCC has decreased since the LIA (long term), there is no way of knowing directly the correlation, but even a 3% decrease can equate to much of the warming seen.......this not even counting ocean heat storage, and long term equilibrium.....the problem with your statement is that you don't take into account that lower GCC will lead to Warmer oceans, and even if the GCC decrease STOPS, the oceans don't stop warming if the low GCC levels continue, because as record low levels of GCC continue, the oceans would still absorb due to extended equilibrium that is required for AGW to work.

Rusty, this is why you cannot over-simplify things... ........you constantly Fail to take into account the mechanisms in the climate system, and how they alter & maintain equilibrium.

You even said yourself that this supposed "Positive Global Cloud Cover Feedback" to AGW should create more warming... but yet, you dismiss that GCC hs any impact here? Whats going on man!!! Its the feedbacks within the climate system that will determine AGW....not CO2 forcing.....Feedback....feedback....feedback...remember thatword.

F.E.E.D.B.A.C.K.

[tacoman25]

It's funny how every week or so you think you've discovered something earth shattering but 99% of this is nothing new and is completely consistent with our understanding of climate.

I will say this is a step up from the last thread you started about the crackpot loony toon who claimed to have disproven AGW through a combination of math errors and shear stupidity.

Sheer.