Effect of Svensmark's Work Starting to Be Felt in Climate Science

[Jack Hays]

The revolution in climate science may be faintly visible now. Cloud formation is front and center, and Svensmark's ideas are the foundation of the research.

". . . There are some interesting results here in terms of confirming Svensmark’s ideas, and the experiments (both laboratory and in nature) seem to be well conceived and executed. . . "

The cloud-climate conundrum

Posted on June 2, 2016 | 95 comments
by Judith Curry
Four new papers remind us of the very large uncertainties surrounding cloud-climate feedbacks.
Continue reading →

CERN’s CLOUD Experiment recently published three new papers:

• Ion induced nucleation of pure biogenic particles
• The role of low-volatility organic compounds in initial particle growth in the atmosphere
• New particle formation in the free troposphere: A question of chemistry and timing.

Science has an overview article: Earth’s climate may not warm as quickly as expected, suggest new cloud studies. Excerpts (my bold):
Clouds need to condense around small particles called aerosols to form, and human aerosol pollution—primarily in the form of sulfuric acid—has made for cloudier skies. That’s why scientists have generally assumed Earth’s ancient skies were much sunnier than they are now. But today, three new studies show how naturally emitted gases from trees can also form the seed particles for clouds. The results not only point to a cloudier past, but they also indicate a potentially cooler future: If Earth’s climate is less sensitive to rising carbon dioxide (CO2) levels, as the study suggests, future temperatures may not rise as quickly as predicted. . . .

Nature News also has an article on the papers: Cloud-seeding surprise could improve climate predictions. Excerpts: . . .

 

[Threegoofs]

The key phrase in the reference above?

"Knutti says the results will probably not affect the most likely projections of warming, as laid out by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. “Our best estimate is probably still the same," he says."

 

[Jack Hays]

The key phrase in the reference above?

"Knutti says the results will probably not affect the most likely projections of warming, as laid out by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. “Our best estimate is probably still the same," he says."

Catch up to the science and get back to me.

 

[Deuce]

Catch up to the science and get back to me.

Catch up to the science and get back to me.

 

[Jack Hays]

Catch up to the science and get back to me.

". . . There are some interesting results here in terms of confirming Svensmark’s ideas, and the experiments (both laboratory and in nature) seem to be well conceived
and executed. . . " :mrgreen:

 

[Deuce]

". . . There are some interesting results here in terms of confirming Svensmark’s ideas, and the experiments (both laboratory and in nature) seem to be well conceived
and executed. . . " :mrgreen:

Um, yeah. So? The work is valid and interesting. There's no vast conspiracy to squash his findings.

But their impact doesn't change the overall problem.

 

[Jack Hays]

Um, yeah. So? The work is valid and interesting. There's no vast conspiracy to squash his findings.

But their impact doesn't change the overall problem.

I have never said there was a conspiracy. Only the vast inertia of smugly unexamined assumptions. That is starting to erode.

 

[Threegoofs]

". . . There are some interesting results here in terms of confirming Svensmark’s ideas, and the experiments (both laboratory and in nature) seem to be well conceived
and executed. . . " :mrgreen:

The relevant quote, again:

"Knutti says the results will probably not affect the most likely projections of warming, as laid out by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. “Our best estimate is probably still the same," he says."

 

[Jack Hays]

The relevant quote, again:

Conservative and cautious. Nothing wrong with that at this stage. Others react differently.

 

[Threegoofs]

Conservative and cautious. Nothing wrong with that at this stage. Others react differently.

Untrained and naive people do that.

 

[Jack Hays]

Untrained and naive people do that.

Ad hominem is unimpressive.

 

[Threegoofs]

Ad hominem is unimpressive.

So are your cut and paste blog links.

 

[Jack Hays]

So are your cut and paste blog links.

I'm sorry the science is difficult for you.

 

[Deuce]

I'm sorry the science is difficult for you.

Cut and paste isn't science, nor is it difficult. I have absolutely no judge of how well you understand what you're posting, because when I raise objections or ask questions, you just paste something else.

 

[Jack Hays]

Cut and paste isn't science, nor is it difficult. I have absolutely no judge of how well you understand what you're posting, because when I raise objections or ask questions, you just paste something else.

It's not about me.

 

[Deuce]

It's not about me.

It's a debate forum. If I wanted to just read a constant feed from Watts I'd go to his website.

 

[Jack Hays]

It's a debate forum. If I wanted to just read a constant feed from Watts I'd go to his website.

You are embarrassing yourself. The OP presentation of these papers came from Professor Judith Curry's blog.

 

[Deuce]

You are embarrassing yourself. The OP presentation of these papers came from Professor Judith Curry's blog.

You're embarassing yourself. You paste something from Watts a dozen times a day.

 

[Jack Hays]

You're embarassing yourself. You paste something from Watts a dozen times a day.

That has nothing to do with this thread. Try to stay on topic.

 

[Jack Hays]

The linguistic insularity of English-speakers has indeed been a problem.

Though Media Refuse To Admit, CERN Results Vastly Strengthen ...

notrickszone.com › 2016 › May › 30


May 30, 2016 - Thus it appears Svensmark's theory strengthens further. .... See more at: NoTricksZone: "Not here to worship what is known, but to question it" ? Jacob Bronowski. Climate news from Germany in English ? by Pierre L. Gosselin2016/05/30/though-media-refuse-to-admit-cern ...

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.
- See more at: Though Media Refuse To Admit, CERN Results Vastly Strengthen Svensmark?s Cosmic Ray-Climate Theory

 

[Mithrae]

May as well take a leaf out of Jack's book and spam this in multiple threads (even if I'm not yet good enough to blindly C&P random bloggers' opinions):

Thus it appears Svensmark's theory strengthens further.

Not really, no: The theory of Ney (1959), Dickinson (1975) and others that cosmic radiation may effect cloud formation rates is strengthened. It shouldn't be overstated though: It's worth noting firstly that the change in nucleation rates (one or two orders of magnitude) between zero and normal cosmic radiation exposure, as measured by the experiment mentioned in the OP, will obviously be far larger than the comparatively small changes to normal atmospheric CR exposure over time due to solar cycles; and secondly that rates of nucleation for organic or inorganic vapours (~1nm) are only the first step towards cloud condensation nuclei (>50nm) and eventually the formation of cloud droplets themselves.


But as for Svensmark's contribution, his theory that (A) cosmic radiation may be largely responsible for the modern warming remains as demonstrably false as it always was, since there's no long-term trend in cosmic radiation flux in that period.

Spoiler

And his theory that (B) cosmic radiation may be largely responsible for many/most of Earth's climate changes over the past 500 million years remains unproven. In fact looking beyond the abstract, the study highlighted in the OP pretty clearly suggests a limit to ion-induced nucleation of biogenic particles (Figures 3 and 4), at current GCR levels. That limit might be higher under higher GCR conditions, but then again it might not: And if not, even the GCR effect on nucleation (let alone cloud condensation nuclei, clouds, and finally potentially climate itself) would be unchanged under higher GCR conditions. That would effectively negate the best (faint) points of correlation between geological climate and Svensmark's proposed supernova/GCR reconstruction, since by his own measure the Permian, Silurian and late Devonian peaks in supernova frequencies all meant a GCR level potentially higher than today's (Svensmark 2012, Figure 17).

By contrast (as I've noted in the past) even Svensmark himself recognises some degree of correlation between his GCR reconstruction and carbon dioxide, which suggests that even if/to the extent that the climate correlation is valid, good old-fashioned CO2 must still be considered as a contributing cause or enhancer of geological climate changes.

 

[Jack Hays]

By contrast (as I've noted in the past) even Svensmark himself recognises some degree of correlation between his GCR reconstruction and carbon dioxide, which suggests that even if/to the extent that the climate correlation is valid, good old-fashioned CO2 must still be considered as a contributing cause or enhancer of geological climate changes.

In Svensmark CO2 follows temperature, not the other way around.

 

[Jack Hays]

[h=3]Supernovae showered Earth with radioactive debris - Phys.org[/h]phys.org › Astronomy & Space › Astronomy


Phys.org


Home · Astronomy & Space · Astronomy · April 6, 2016 ..... This is fudging and most scientists have dismissed Svensmark's "theory" as smoke. Source: ...

 

[Jack Hays]

Check out #10. Not bad for a paper published in 2007.

[h=3]Reports — Most-Read Articles during June 2016[/h]astrogeo.oxfordjournals.org › ... › Astronomy & GeophysicsAstronomy & Geophysics


Jul 7, 2016 - Features: Henrik Svensmark. Cosmoclimatology: a new theory emerges A&G (2007) 48 (1): 1.18-1.24 doi:10.1111/j.1468-4004.2007.48118.x.

 

[Threegoofs]

Check out #10. Not bad for a paper published in 2007.

[h=3]Reports — Most-Read Articles during June 2016[/h]astrogeo.oxfordjournals.org › ... › Astronomy & GeophysicsAstronomy & Geophysics


Jul 7, 2016 - Features: Henrik Svensmark. Cosmoclimatology: a new theory emerges A&G (2007) 48 (1): 1.18-1.24 doi:10.1111/j.1468-4004.2007.48118.x.

That's what happens when deniers spam articles on every thread/site they can find!

I will say...this is very Trumplike- associating 'ratings' with 'correctness'.