5 ms·

From your quoted article. This work offers a new understanding of global particle formation as based almost entirely on ternary rather than binar

From your quoted article. This work offers a new understanding of global particle formation as based almost entirely on ternary rather than binary nucleation, with ions playing a major but subdominant role. Our results suggest that about 43% of cloud-forming aerosol particles in the present-day atmosphere originate from nucleation This is a major effect, confirmed by your own article. I'm not certain why you linked it, since you are arguing against cosmic rays effecting cloud formation.

Comevius 8y ago
I don't know why I linked it if you just end up making your very own conclusions. This paper is part of the CERN CLOUD project (http://cloud.web.cern.ch/ http://cloud.web.cern.ch/), an experiment trying to model our atmosphere to find out how much aerosols affect cloud formation and climate change. The conclusion so far is that cosmic rays can charge aerosol particles, and produce big enough particles to contribute to cloud forming. This represents less than 10% (several per cent) of the total particle formation from nucleation, a major, but subdominant role. Nucleation (the creation of big enough particles) itself plays a 43% role, the rest is particles already in the atmosphere. So cosmic rays is less than 10% of 43%. In any case if cosmic ray created aerosols would have such a large effect on clouds, so would other aerosols, such as those from air pollution. Clouds themselves play a less than 10% role in climate change, so it's like 10% of the 10% (cosmic ray nucleation) of 43% (nucleation), as I said a tiny effect. Clouds also not just trap heat, but reflect sunlight back, cooling the planet. As Ken Carslaw, one of the authors of the paper suggested: "It’s a tiny effect and previous studies suggest it will not be important". https://cosmosmagazine.com/climate/cosmic-ray-theory-of-global-warming-gets-cold-response https://cosmosmagazine.com/climate/cosmic-ray-theory-of-glob...
- robotrout 8y ago
  Even if we were to stipulate his 10% number, that's 4.3% of cloud formation based on cosmic rays. Not insignificant. Your repeated contention that pollution aerosols are of equal magnitude to cosmic rays contribution requires a large helping of evidence to back it up, given the huge quantity of cosmic rays that impact the troposphere.
  - Comevius 8y ago
    "requires a large helping of evidence to back it up" Those are available at http://cloud.web.cern.ch/content/publications http://cloud.web.cern.ch/content/publications. The experiments are started back in 2009. See Wikipedia for a simplified description of the results so far. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CLOUD_experiment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CLOUD_experiment Even if you think that cosmic rays are the bread and butter of cloud formation, the net effect would be global cooling. Clouds reflect more energy back into space than they do back to the ground. I would also like to mention that this cosmic ray climate change denialism started with the media misreporting Henrik Svensmark's paper. The Daily Express itself said "Winter is coming: Exploding stars could lead to ICE AGE warn scientists" https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/894696/ice-age-weather-winter-is-coming-supernova-exploding-stars https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/894696/ice-age-weathe.... Most of the media attention was on the sensationalist claim that cosmic rays are causing climate change, from which the various Facebook people extrapolated cosmic rays = global warming. Just so you know, this is the original source of this claim. The paper itself is about aerosol microphysics, but that's not as exciting as "Giant EXPLODING stars FREEZING Earth".
    - robotrout 8y ago
      This is new. Coauthored by a NASA scientist. Check it out, I think you'll be interested. ;-) https://arxiv.org/pdf/1812.02692.pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/1812.02692.pdf 4 Conclusion We have shown a strong correlation between solar and tropospheric variability, in that swings from El Ni˜no to La Ni˜na are related to the phase of the solar cycle’s “fiducial clock,” and that that clock does not run from the canonical solar minimum or maximum, but instead resets when all old cycle flux is gone from the solar disk. While the exact mechanism remains to be elucidated, changes in cosmic ray flux appear to the be the driver of these ENSO swings. Finally, in the absence of sensitivity to solar-driven CRF variations in current coupled climate models, we have a year or so to wait to see if this indicator pans out. However, should the coming terminator be followed by such an ENSO swing then we must seriously consider the capability of coupled global terrestrial modeling efforts to capture “step-function” events, and assess how complex the Sun-Earth connection is, with particular attention to the relationship between incoming cosmic rays and clouds/ precipitation over our oceans.

Comevius 8y ago

I don't know why I linked it if you just end up making your very own conclusions. This paper is part of the CERN CLOUD project (http://cloud.web.cern.ch/ http://cloud.web.cern.ch/), an experiment trying to model our atmosphere to find out how much aerosols affect cloud formation and climate change. The conclusion so far is that cosmic rays can charge aerosol particles, and produce big enough particles to contribute to cloud forming. This represents less than 10% (several per cent) of the total particle formation from nucleation, a major, but subdominant role. Nucleation (the creation of big enough particles) itself plays a 43% role, the rest is particles already in the atmosphere. So cosmic rays is less than 10% of 43%. In any case if cosmic ray created aerosols would have such a large effect on clouds, so would other aerosols, such as those from air pollution. Clouds themselves play a less than 10% role in climate change, so it's like 10% of the 10% (cosmic ray nucleation) of 43% (nucleation), as I said a tiny effect. Clouds also not just trap heat, but reflect sunlight back, cooling the planet. As Ken Carslaw, one of the authors of the paper suggested: "It’s a tiny effect and previous studies suggest it will not be important". https://cosmosmagazine.com/climate/cosmic-ray-theory-of-global-warming-gets-cold-response https://cosmosmagazine.com/climate/cosmic-ray-theory-of-glob...

robotrout 8y ago
Even if we were to stipulate his 10% number, that's 4.3% of cloud formation based on cosmic rays. Not insignificant. Your repeated contention that pollution aerosols are of equal magnitude to cosmic rays contribution requires a large helping of evidence to back it up, given the huge quantity of cosmic rays that impact the troposphere.
- Comevius 8y ago
  "requires a large helping of evidence to back it up" Those are available at http://cloud.web.cern.ch/content/publications http://cloud.web.cern.ch/content/publications. The experiments are started back in 2009. See Wikipedia for a simplified description of the results so far. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CLOUD_experiment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CLOUD_experiment Even if you think that cosmic rays are the bread and butter of cloud formation, the net effect would be global cooling. Clouds reflect more energy back into space than they do back to the ground. I would also like to mention that this cosmic ray climate change denialism started with the media misreporting Henrik Svensmark's paper. The Daily Express itself said "Winter is coming: Exploding stars could lead to ICE AGE warn scientists" https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/894696/ice-age-weather-winter-is-coming-supernova-exploding-stars https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/894696/ice-age-weathe.... Most of the media attention was on the sensationalist claim that cosmic rays are causing climate change, from which the various Facebook people extrapolated cosmic rays = global warming. Just so you know, this is the original source of this claim. The paper itself is about aerosol microphysics, but that's not as exciting as "Giant EXPLODING stars FREEZING Earth".
  - robotrout 8y ago
    This is new. Coauthored by a NASA scientist. Check it out, I think you'll be interested. ;-) https://arxiv.org/pdf/1812.02692.pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/1812.02692.pdf 4 Conclusion We have shown a strong correlation between solar and tropospheric variability, in that swings from El Ni˜no to La Ni˜na are related to the phase of the solar cycle’s “fiducial clock,” and that that clock does not run from the canonical solar minimum or maximum, but instead resets when all old cycle flux is gone from the solar disk. While the exact mechanism remains to be elucidated, changes in cosmic ray flux appear to the be the driver of these ENSO swings. Finally, in the absence of sensitivity to solar-driven CRF variations in current coupled climate models, we have a year or so to wait to see if this indicator pans out. However, should the coming terminator be followed by such an ENSO swing then we must seriously consider the capability of coupled global terrestrial modeling efforts to capture “step-function” events, and assess how complex the Sun-Earth connection is, with particular attention to the relationship between incoming cosmic rays and clouds/ precipitation over our oceans.