All doomsday predictions of the first Earth Day in 1970 have turned out to be wrong

[Hawkeye10]

People who completely flunked managing a relatively mild pandemic (to date, Geert is very afraid of what might be coming because of their failure) are going to manage the planets weather?

Riiiight.....

 

[cancel2 2022]

While we are on the "doomsday" predictions, lets look at what Republicans Sean would never show that Republicans predicted would happen if Obama was ever elected:

Republican presidential hopeful Michelle Bachman said that Obama would be responsible for “punishing tax rates, redistribution of wealth, socialized medicine, inputting censorship in the form of the un-Fairness Doctrine and taking away the secret ballot from the worker.”

Republican candidate John McCain, in this video, claimed that Obama would change both the American flag and the national anthem.

Fox News speculated that Obama would forfeit the Gulf War and start a new one, and that race relations would transform “from a thorny issue to an explosive one.”

Right-wing think tank American Enterprise Institute was sure that “the Defense Department will be gutted, with cuts so deep that America will no longer be a superpower,”

Rick Santorum warned that freedom of religion would be under attack

Chuck Norris claimed America would face “1,000 years of darkness.”

And if you really want to ping pong, we could fill this forum with Trump's predictions that were either stupid or flat out lies from the jump

Arsecheese, you're an arsehole!

 

[archives]

Arsecheese, you're an arsehole!

I am just pointing out the absurdity of highlighting predictions from the past from anyone, largely they are taking out of context, and if politicalized, as is done here, easily ping ponged

 

[cancel2 2022]

I am just pointing out the absurdity of highlighting predictions from the past from anyone, largely they are taking out of context, and if politicalized, as is done here, easily ping ponged

You're just being a monumental prick which is your default status.

 

[archives]

You're just being a monumental prick which is your default status.

Just pointing out the realities, not my fault they blow your thread

 

[cancel2 2022]

The link between cloud formation and cosmic rays is well established but the magnitude of the forcing has been poorly understood. Indeed the IPCC and CMIP6 climate models choose to ignore the effect completely.

Dr. Jasper Kirkby has been doing groundbreaking work as well at CERN to understand the mechanisms at work.

There have been a flurry of recently published studies on radiative forcing and its variation due to cloud changes.

The latest is a new study published in the journal Nature. Climate scientists Dr. Henrik Svensmark and colleagues have found that cosmic rays, or variations in ionization, are closely related to the formation of aerosols and clouds, and that “low-liquid clouds are mainly responsible for the change in net radiative forcing.”

The results are groundbreaking: The connection between cosmic rays, clouds and radiation budget is reaffirmed.

The paper’s abstract:

Atmospheric ionization produced by cosmic rays has been suspected to influence aerosols and clouds, but its actual importance has been questioned. If changes in atmospheric ionization have a substantial impact on clouds, one would expect to observe significant responses in Earth’s energy budget. Here it is shown that the average of the five strongest week-long decreases in atmospheric ionization coincides with changes in the average net radiative balance of 1.7 W/m2 (median value: 1.2 W/m2) using CERES satellite observations. Simultaneous satellite observations of clouds show that these variations are mainly caused by changes in the short-wave radiation of low liquid clouds along with small changes in the long-wave radiation, and are almost exclusively located over the pristine areas of the oceans. These observed radiation and cloud changes are consistent with a link in which atmospheric ionization modulates aerosol’s formation and growth, which survive to cloud condensation nuclei and ultimately affect cloud formation and thereby temporarily the radiative balance of Earth.”

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-99033-1

Latest paper from Jasper Kirkby, lead scientist for the CLOUD study at CERN.

In a paper published on 5 February 2021 in the journal Science, the CLOUD collaboration at CERN shows that aerosol particles made of iodic acid can form extremely rapidly in the marine boundary layer – the portion of the atmosphere that is in direct contact with the ocean. Aerosol particles in the atmosphere affect the climate, both directly and indirectly, but how new aerosol particles form and influence clouds and climate remains relatively poorly understood. This is particularly true of particles that form over the vast ocean.

“Iodic acid particles have been observed previously in certain coastal regions, but we did not know until now how important they may be globally,” says CLOUD spokesperson Jasper Kirkby. “Although most atmospheric particles form from sulfuric acid, our study shows that iodic acid may be the main driver in pristine marine regions.”

CLOUD is a one-of-a-kind experiment. It’s the world’s first laboratory experiment to achieve the technical performance required to measure the formation and growth of aerosol particles from a mixture of vapours under precisely controlled atmospheric conditions. In addition, the experiment is able to study how ions produced by high-energy particles called cosmic rays affect aerosol particle formation, using either the steady flux of natural cosmic rays that rains down on the CLOUD chamber or – to simulate higher altitudes – a beam of particles from the CERN Proton Synchrotron.

In its new study, the CLOUD team has investigated how aerosol particles form from vapours originating from molecular iodine under marine-boundary-layer conditions. They found that the particle formation and growth is driven by iodic acid (HIO3), and that iodous acid (HIO2) plays a key role in the initial steps of the formation of neutral particles – those with no electrical charge.

In addition, the researchers found that the iodic acid particles form extremely rapidly – even more rapidly than sulfuric acid-ammonia particles at similar acid concentrations. They also found that ions from cosmic rays originating from our galaxy accelerate the particle formation rate to the maximum possible, which is limited only by how frequently molecules collide.

“Iodic acid particle formation is likely to be particularly important in pristine marine regions where sulfuric acid and ammonia concentrations are extremely low,” says Kirkby. “Indeed, frequent new-particle formation over the pack ice in the High Arctic has recently been reported, driven by iodic acid with little contribution from sulfuric acid.”

Read more:

https://home.cern/news/news/experim...le-iodine-acids-atmospheric-aerosol-formation

 

[Sailor]

Not at all. I just do other stuff once in awhile. You know - living an actual life stuff.

Population is definitely a huge issue, as are our unsustainable practices w/ energy & development.

We need to start thinking in terms of sustainability. We're so far from that now.

I agree. The problem is though....the people that talk about it the most practice it the least.

 

[cancel2 2022]

.
Wrong Again: 2020’s Failed Climate Doomsaying

2020 has been the wildest and most unpredictable year in the memory of most people. But did the climate doom that was predicted to occur in or by 2020 materialize? What follows are 10 predictions made for 2020 and what really happened. As it turns out, climate doomsayers weren’t seeing so 20-20 when it came to 2020.

https://junkscience.com/2020/12/wrong-again-2020s-failed-climate-doomsaying/#more-103862

 

[Into the Night]

Think of all the scare stories in the past; ozone layer, acid rain, mass starvation, new ice age etc. At least one environmentalist has seen the light.

On Behalf Of Environmentalists, I Apologize For The Climate Scare
On behalf of environmentalists everywhere, I would like to formally apologize for the climate scare we created over the last 30 years. Climate change is happening. It’s just not the end of the world. It’s not even our most serious environmental problem.

It's not possible. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You can't make energy out of nothing.

I may seem like a strange person to be saying all of this. I have been a climate activist for 20 years and an environmentalist for 30.
But as an energy expert asked by Congress to provide objective expert testimony, and invited by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to serve as Expert Reviewer of its next Assessment Report, I feel an obligation to apologize for how badly we environmentalists have misled the public.
Here are some facts few people know:

Humans are not causing a “sixth mass extinction”
The Amazon is not “the lungs of the world”
Climate change is not making natural disasters worse
Fires have declined 25% around the world since 2003
The amount of land we use for meat — humankind’s biggest use of land — has declined by an area nearly as large as Alaska

The build-up of wood fuel and more houses near forests, not climate change, explain why there are more, and more dangerous, fires in Australia and California
Brush mostly. These are brush fires. The other reasons include:
* more arsonists
* more careless people around ignition sources
* failure to clear away brush

Carbon emissions are declining in most rich nations and have been declining in Britain, Germany, and France since the mid-1970s

I assume you mean carbon dioxide? Carbon is not carbon dioxide. Otherwise True.

Netherlands became rich not poor while adapting to life below sea level

We produce 25% more food than we need and food surpluses will continue to rise as the world gets hotter

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. The Netherlands drained lands to farm that were always underwater before. They are not famous just for their windmills, but also for their dike system.

Habitat loss and the direct killing of wild animals are bigger threats to species than climate change
Wood fuel is far worse for people and wildlife than fossil fuels

Fossils aren't used as fuel. Fossils don't burn. Wood is certainly less efficient than gasoline or natural gas though. It is often burned in a sooty manner, leaving particulates in the air.

Preventing future pandemics requires more not less “industrial” agriculture

What pandemic?

I know that the above facts will sound like “climate denialism” to many people. But that just shows the power of climate alarmism.

It is still a belief in the Church of Global Warming. It is still ignoring the laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

In reality, the above facts come from the best-available scientific studies,

Science isn't a study or a research.

including those conducted by or accepted by the IPCC, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and other leading scientific bodies.

Science is not a government agency.

Some people will, when they read this imagine that I’m some right-wing anti-environmentalist. I’m not. At 17, I lived in Nicaragua to show solidarity with the Sandinista socialist revolution. At 23 I raised money for Guatemalan women’s cooperatives. In my early 20s I lived in the semi-Amazon doing research with small farmers fighting land invasions. At 26 I helped expose poor conditions at Nike factories in Asia.

I became an environmentalist at 16 when I threw a fundraiser for Rainforest Action Network. At 27 I helped save the last unprotected ancient redwoods in California. In my 30s I advocated renewables and successfully helped persuade the Obama administration to invest $90 billion into them. Over the last few years I helped save enough nuclear plants from being replaced by fossil fuels to prevent a sharp increase in emissions

Fossils aren't used as fuel.

But until last year, I mostly avoided speaking out against the climate scare. Partly that’s because I was embarrassed. After all, I am as guilty of alarmism as any other environmentalist. For years, I referred to climate change as an “existential” threat to human civilization, and called it a “crisis.”

At least you are becoming more mellow in your religion.

But mostly I was scared. I remained quiet about the climate disinformation campaign because I was afraid of losing friends and funding.

Ain't censorship grand?

The few times I summoned the courage to defend climate science from those who misrepresent it I suffered harsh consequences. And so I mostly stood by and did next to nothing as my fellow environmentalists terrified the public.

Ain't censorship grand?

I even stood by as people in the White House and many in the news media tried to destroy the reputation and career of an outstanding scientist, good man, and friend of mine, Roger Pielke, Jr., a lifelong progressive Democrat and environmentalist who testified in favor of carbon regulations. Why did they do that? Because his research proves natural disasters aren’t getting worse.

Personally, I think censorship stinks, particularly when it's done by the government.

But then, last year, things spiraled out of control.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said “The world is going to end in twelve years if we don’t address climate change.” Britain’s most high-profile environmental group claimed “Climate Change Kills Children.”
The world’s most influential green journalist, Bill McKibben, called climate change the “greatest challenge humans have ever faced” and said it would “wipe out civilizations.”

Mainstream journalists reported, repeatedly, that the Amazon was “the lungs of the world,” and that deforestation was like a nuclear bomb going off.

As a result, half of the people surveyed around the world last year said they thought climate change would make humanity extinct. And in January, one out of five British children told pollsters they were having nightmares about climate change.

Whether or not you have children you must see how wrong this is. I admit I may be sensitive because I have a teenage daughter. After we talked about the science she was reassured. But her friends are deeply misinformed and thus, understandably, frightened.

I thus decided I had to speak out. I knew that writing a few articles wouldn’t be enough. I needed a book to properly lay out all of the evidence.

You seem to be experiencing the same kind of regret the founder of Greenpeace did, when he saw the institution he created get taken over by radicals.

Scientific institutions including WHO and IPCC have undermined their credibility through the repeated politicization of science. Their future existence and relevance depends on new leadership and serious reform.
Facts still matter, and social media is allowing for a wider range of new and independent voices to outcompete alarmist environmental journalists at legacy publications.

Science is not a government agency or any institution. It is not a magazine, journal, paper, website, or book.

Nations are reverting openly to self-interest and away from Malthusianism and neoliberalism, which is good for nuclear and bad for renewables.
The evidence is overwhelming that our high-energy civilization is better for people and nature than the low-energy civilization that climate alarmists would return us to.

This is the desire of such tyrants...to keep the populace poor and too illiterate to revolt.

The invitations from IPCC and Congress are signs of a growing openness to new thinking about climate change and the environment.
Read more: https://environmentalprogress.org/b...nmentalists-i-apologize-for-the-climate-scare

Not really new thinking. The belief that the Earth is somehow warming is still there, despite that it's not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. The belief that a Magick Holy Gas can somehow create energy out of nothing is still there as well. The Church of Global Warming's ties to the Church of Karl Marx are still there as well.

The only thing that's different at all is that some are realizing people are rejecting The Message and a new way of presenting the scam is going to have to be thought up.

 

[Into the Night]

maggot;


Did anybody predict that capitalism would turn most of the western world into self-serving morons ?


Haw, haw.........................................haw.

It doesn't.

 

[Into the Night]

The only doomsday curse is when tRump was lawlessly hacked in there with the gutter help of ant-American Fox type media conspires of the gutter, dumbass voters who sold their hides to tRump after he called them all stupid, uneducated and easy to manipulate to their face and with a smirk and were not the majority. This includes repukes facilitating the hacking of this tyrant tRump that caused the COVID doom of millions of human beings on Earth. Its time to consider the blue wave effect against the repuke enemy from within and tRump and his gutter mob too who are a rancid and diseased liability on the integrity of humanity and its soul:

5 Ways the Trump Administration’s Policy Failures Compounded the Coronavirus-Induced Economic Crisis
Last week, the total coronavirus death toll in the United States surpassed 100,000—a grim milestone in a battle that the Trump administration was not adequately prepared to fight. The United States now accounts for more than a quarter of the world’s COVID-19 deaths despite only accounting for roughly 4 percent of its population. The Trump administration’s failed public health response is mirrored by its failure to respond to the economic crisis, which has led to an economic fallout that sets the United States apart from other high-income nations.

With some 37.6 million Americans filing for unemployment insurance since the beginning of March and the official unemployment rate reaching 14.7 percent in April—a level not seen since the Great Depression—the American economy is in a disastrous state, with repercussions expected for years to come. The level of economic and public health pain that Americans are now experiencing, however, was not inevitable, but rather the consequence of a series of policy failures that started well before the coronavirus outbreak. The Trump administration’s past actions weakened the United States’ ability to respond to the pandemic, and its current actions continue to exacerbate the dual public health and economic crises. Although Congress was able to pass a series of stimulus measures that have blunted the economic pain for families, this relief happened in spite of the Trump administration, not because of it.

The weakness of the Trump administration’s economic response to the coronavirus crisis—much like the failure of its public health response—can be seen in comparison with the United States’ international peers. As demonstrated by the experiences of peer nations, a rapid and coordinated public health response could have contained the pandemic more effectively and reduced the mounting economic losses. Instead, it seems as though the United States is getting the worst of both: the highest death toll of any country and what will likely be the sharpest economic contraction in American history."

https://www.americanprogress.org/ar...mpounded-coronavirus-induced-economic-crisis/

It was Democrats that shut down the economy, not Trump.
Inversion fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

The advanced nations of the world took action after 1970 to ensure those predictions didn't come true.

Almost all of the landmark environmental legislation in the USA was passed after 1970, and collectively they either averted disaster, or they made substantial improvements to environmental conditions.

...such as?

 

[Into the Night]

Not at all. I just do other stuff once in awhile. You know - living an actual life stuff.

Population is definitely a huge issue, as are our unsustainable practices w/ energy & development.

We need to start thinking in terms of sustainability. We're so far from that now.

People are not a liability. They are an asset.

More people means more folks building stuff, innovating new ideas, solving problems.

 

[Into the Night]

The link between cloud formation and cosmic rays is well established

Reference?

but the magnitude of the forcing has been poorly understood.

Reference?

Indeed the IPCC and CMIP6 climate models choose to ignore the effect completely.

Random number generators are meaningless.

Dr. Jasper Kirkby has been doing groundbreaking work as well at CERN to understand the mechanisms at work.

Irrelevant, since random number generators are meaningless. They are not data.

There have been a flurry of recently published studies on radiative forcing and its variation due to cloud changes.

Science isn't studies. There is no such thing as 'radiative forcing'. Buzzword fallacies.

The latest is a new study published in the journal Nature.

Meh. Science is not a magazine or a journal.

Climate scientists

No such branch of science.

Dr. Henrik Svensmark and colleagues have found that cosmic rays, or variations in ionization,

Cosmic rays are not variations of ionization.

are closely related to the formation of aerosols and clouds,

Nope. Clouds form simply by convection.

and that “low-liquid clouds

All clouds are liquid water or ice.

are mainly responsible for the change in net radiative forcing.”

No such thing. Buzzword fallacy.

The results are groundbreaking:

Buzzwords aren't groundbreaking.

The connection between cosmic rays, clouds and radiation budget is reaffirmed.

Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism).

The paper’s abstract:

Atmospheric ionization produced by cosmic rays has been suspected to influence aerosols and clouds,

Reference?

but its actual importance has been questioned.

Reference?

If changes in atmospheric ionization have a substantial impact on clouds, one would expect to observe significant responses in Earth’s energy budget.

Whataboutism. Earth doesn't have a budget of any kind. ALL the energy absorbed by Earth is radiated.

Here it is shown that the average of the five strongest week-long decreases in atmospheric ionization coincides with changes in the average net radiative balance of 1.7 W/m2 (median value: 1.2 W/m2) using CERES satellite observations.

Manufactured data. Random numbers. Argument from randU fallacy.

Simultaneous satellite observations of clouds show that these variations are mainly caused by changes in the short-wave radiation of low liquid clouds

There is no 'short wave radiation' of clouds. Clouds are liquid water or ice.

along with small changes in the long-wave radiation,

There is no 'long wave radiation' from a cloud.

and are almost exclusively located over the pristine areas of the oceans.

Clouds form there because of convection over a moist area (the ocean).

These observed radiation and cloud changes are consistent with a link in which atmospheric ionization modulates aerosol’s formation and growth,

Buzzword fallacy.

which survive to cloud condensation nuclei

Radiation is not nuclei. Clouds do not need nuclei to condense around.

and ultimately affect cloud formation

It can't.

and thereby temporarily the radiative balance of Earth.”

There is no such thing as a 'radiative balance' of Earth. You are discarding the Stefan-Boltzmann law again.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-99033-1

Junk science. If I were to grade this paper, I would flunk it.

 

[Celticguy]

is it any wonder nobody takes science seriously ?

 

[Into the Night]

While we are on the "doomsday" predictions, lets look at what Republicans Sean would never show that Republicans predicted would happen if Obama was ever elected:

Republican presidential hopeful Michelle Bachman said that Obama would be responsible for “punishing tax rates,

He was. Trump reversed these.

redistribution of wealth,

He was.

socialized medicine,

He was. Fortunately, this failed.

inputting censorship in the form of the un-Fairness Doctrine

He did. Now his sidekick, Biden has created the Ministry of Truth.

and taking away the secret ballot from the worker.”

He did. So did his sidekick Biden.

Republican candidate John McCain, in this video, claimed that Obama would change both the American flag and the national anthem.

He tried. He didn't get away with it.

Fox News speculated that Obama would forfeit the Gulf War and start a new one, and that race relations would transform “from a thorny issue to an explosive one.”

It did.

Right-wing think tank American Enterprise Institute was sure that “the Defense Department will be gutted, with cuts so deep that America will no longer be a superpower,”

It was correct.

Rick Santorum warned that freedom of religion would be under attack

It is.

Chuck Norris claimed America would face “1,000 years of darkness.”

Still counting.

And if you really want to ping pong, we could fill this forum with Trump's predictions that were either stupid or flat out lies from the jump

...such as?

 

[Into the Night]

is it any wonder nobody takes science seriously ?

The Church of Global Warming isn't science. It's a religion.

Science is a set of falsifiable theories. That's it. That's all. It has no religion. It has no politics. It is not any institution. It has no method or procedure. It does not use consensus. It does not use supporting evidence. It is not data. It is not an observation that produces data. It is not an experiment. It is not some guy in a white lab coat.

It is not even people at all.

It is just a set of falsifiable theories.

Among the theories ignored by the Church of Global Warming are the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. No gas or vapor has the capability of decreasing entropy. You cannot trap light. You cannot trap heat. You cannot trap thermal energy, there is always heat. You cannot create energy out of nothing.

Yes, I take science seriously. I am, after all, among other things, a scientist. I am also an engineer and use these theories regularly.

 

[cancel2 2022]

It's not possible. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You can't make energy out of nothing.

I may seem like a strange person to be saying all of this. I have been a climate activist for 20 years and an environmentalist for 30.
But as an energy expert asked by Congress to provide objective expert testimony, and invited by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to serve as Expert Reviewer of its next Assessment Report, I feel an obligation to apologize for how badly we environmentalists have misled the public.
Here are some facts few people know:

Humans are not causing a “sixth mass extinction”
The Amazon is not “the lungs of the world”
Climate change is not making natural disasters worse
Fires have declined 25% around the world since 2003
The amount of land we use for meat — humankind’s biggest use of land — has declined by an area nearly as large as Alaska

The build-up of wood fuel and more houses near forests, not climate change, explain why there are more, and more dangerous, fires in Australia and California
Brush mostly. These are brush fires. The other reasons include:
* more arsonists
* more careless people around ignition sources
* failure to clear away brush


I assume you mean carbon dioxide? Carbon is not carbon dioxide. Otherwise True.

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. The Netherlands drained lands to farm that were always underwater before. They are not famous just for their windmills, but also for their dike system.

Fossils aren't used as fuel. Fossils don't burn. Wood is certainly less efficient than gasoline or natural gas though. It is often burned in a sooty manner, leaving particulates in the air.

What pandemic?

It is still a belief in the Church of Global Warming. It is still ignoring the laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

Science isn't a study or a research.

Science is not a government agency.

Fossils aren't used as fuel.

At least you are becoming more mellow in your religion.

Ain't censorship grand?

Ain't censorship grand?

Personally, I think censorship stinks, particularly when it's done by the government.

You seem to be experiencing the same kind of regret the founder of Greenpeace did, when he saw the institution he created get taken over by radicals.

Science is not a government agency or any institution. It is not a magazine, journal, paper, website, or book.

This is the desire of such tyrants...to keep the populace poor and too illiterate to revolt.

Not really new thinking. The belief that the Earth is somehow warming is still there, despite that it's not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. The belief that a Magick Holy Gas can somehow create energy out of nothing is still there as well. The Church of Global Warming's ties to the Church of Karl Marx are still there as well.

The only thing that's different at all is that some are realizing people are rejecting The Message and a new way of presenting the scam is going to have to be thought up.

You've said the same fucking thing umpteen times, I've also said you need to do a thermodynamics 101 course and some basic physics and chemistry.

 

[cancel2 2022]

Reference?

Reference?

Random number generators are meaningless.

Irrelevant, since random number generators are meaningless. They are not data.

Science isn't studies. There is no such thing as 'radiative forcing'. Buzzword fallacies.

Meh. Science is not a magazine or a journal.

No such branch of science.

Cosmic rays are not variations of ionization.

Nope. Clouds form simply by convection.

All clouds are liquid water or ice.

No such thing. Buzzword fallacy.

Buzzwords aren't groundbreaking.

Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism).

Reference?

Reference?

Whataboutism. Earth doesn't have a budget of any kind. ALL the energy absorbed by Earth is radiated.

Manufactured data. Random numbers. Argument from randU fallacy.

There is no 'short wave radiation' of clouds. Clouds are liquid water or ice.

There is no 'long wave radiation' from a cloud.

Clouds form there because of convection over a moist area (the ocean).

Buzzword fallacy.

Radiation is not nuclei. Clouds do not need nuclei to condense around.

It can't.

There is no such thing as a 'radiative balance' of Earth. You are discarding the Stefan-Boltzmann law again.

Junk science. If I were to grade this paper, I would flunk it.

Ignorant twat, if you haven't heard of the CLOUD experiment at CERN then that's your fault not mine!

CERN’s colossal complex of accelerators is in the midst of a two-year shutdown for upgrade work. But that doesn’t mean all experiments at the Laboratory have ceased to operate. The CLOUD experiment, for example, has just started a data run that will last until the end of November.

The CLOUD experiment studies how ions produced by high-energy particles called cosmic rays affect aerosol particles, clouds and the climate. It uses a special cloud chamber and a beam of particles from the Proton Synchrotron to provide an artificial source of cosmic rays. For this run, however, the cosmic rays are instead natural high-energy particles from cosmic objects such as exploding stars.

“Cosmic rays, whether natural or artificial, leave a trail of ions in the chamber,” explains CLOUD spokesperson Jasper Kirkby, “but the Proton Synchrotron provides cosmic rays that can be adjusted over the full range of ionisation rates occurring in the troposphere, which comprises the lowest ten kilometres of the atmosphere. That said, we can also make progress with the steady flux of natural cosmic rays that make it into our chamber, and this is what we’re doing now.”

In its 10 years of operation, CLOUD has made several important discoveries on the vapours that form aerosol particles in the atmosphere and can seed clouds. Although most aerosol particle formation requires sulphuric acid, CLOUD has shown that aerosols can form purely from biogenic vapours emitted by trees, and that their formation rate is enhanced by cosmic rays by up to a factor 100.

Most of CLOUD’s data runs are aerosol runs, in which aerosols form and grow inside the chamber under simulated conditions of sunlight and cosmic-ray ionisation. The run that has just started is of the “CLOUDy” type, which studies the ice- and liquid-cloud-seeding properties of various aerosol species grown in the chamber, and direct effects of cosmic-ray ionisation on clouds.

The present run uses the most comprehensive array of instruments ever assembled for CLOUDy experiments, including several instruments dedicated to measuring the ice- and liquid-cloud-seeding properties of aerosols over the full range of tropospheric temperatures. In addition, the CERN CLOUD team has built a novel generator of electrically charged cloud seeds to investigate the effects of charged aerosols on cloud formation and dynamics.

“Direct effects of cosmic-ray ionisation on the formation of fair-weather clouds are highly speculative and almost completely unexplored experimentally,” says Kirkby. “So this run could be the most boring we’ve ever done – or the most exciting! We won’t know until we try, but by the end of the CLOUD experiment, we want to be able to answer definitively whether cosmic rays affect clouds and the climate, and not leave any stone unturned.”

https://home.cern/news/news/experiments/cosmic-rays-clouds

 

[BartenderElite]

is it any wonder nobody takes science seriously ?

Wow.

Yeah - it's much better to go w/ hunches & gut feelings & stuff like that.