From an Aarhus University press release:
Scientists at Aarhus University (AU) and the National Space Institute (DTU Space) show that particles from space create cloud cover
New input to the United Nations climate model: Ulrik Ingerslev Uggerhøj, Physics and Astronomy, AU, along with others including Jens Olaf Pepke Pedersen and Martin Bødker Enghoff, DTU Space, have directly demonstrated in a new experiment that cosmic radiation can create small floating particles – so-called aerosols – in the atmosphere. By doing so, they substantiate the connection between the Sun’s magnetic activity and the Earth’s climate.
With the new results just published in the recognised journal Geophysical Research Letters, scientists have succeeded for the first time in directly observing that the electrically charged particles coming from space and hitting the atmosphere at high speed contribute to creating the aerosols that are the prerequisites for cloud formation.
With the researchers’ new knowledge, it is now clear that here is a correlation between the Sun’s varying activity and the formation of aerosols in the Earth’s atmosphere. Initially, the researchers have demonstrated that there is a correlation, and they will therefore now carry out systematic measurements and modellings to determine how important it is to the climate. The new studies will be made at DTU Space in Copenhagen, with support that includes a new grant of DKK 2 million (approximately EUR 270,000) from the Danish National Research Councils.
Experiment in a climate chamber
Simply by comparing situations in the climate chamber with and without electron radiation, the researchers can directly see that increased radiation leads to more aerosols.
In the atmosphere, these aerosols grow into actual cloud nuclei in the course of hours or days, and water vapour concentrates on these, thus forming the small droplets the clouds consist of.
Background
Based on the correlation between the level of activity of the Sun and the global temperature of the Earth, the Danish climate researcher Henrik Svensmark proposed a controversial theory in the late 1990s: that there could be a correlation between the intensity of the cosmic radiation that hits the Earth – and which is affected by the activity of the Sun – and the number of clouds formed.
With the experiment in Aarhus, the research group has now taken one step closer to being able to demonstrate this relationship. There is much to indicate that climate models must hereby take cosmic radiation into consideration. In doing so, the new results provide hope for better climate models that can describe the Earth’s temperature and climate more accurately.
Comments from three of the scientists behind the experiment:
Senior Scientist Jens Olaf Pepke Pedersen, DTU Space, says:
“Aarhus University has outstanding facilities that enable us for the first time to carry out a very direct test of the theory on cosmic particles causing droplet formation in the atmosphere.”
Scientist Martin Bødker Enghoff, DTU Space, adds:
“Before we can say how great the effect is, it’s clear that our results must be verified – just as more measurements and model computations need to be made. However, we can already reveal with no doubt whatsoever that there is an effect.”
“It’s a pleasure to see these results in climate research being achieved at our accelerator. Actually, it’s only possible to do corresponding research at CERN – the joint European research centre,” says Associate Professor Ulrik Uggerhøj, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Aarhus University.
Facts about the experiment
A chamber contains air with precisely balanced amounts of sulphur dioxide, ozone and water vapour irradiated with electrons. Sunlight is a necessary ingredient for aerosol formation in the natural atmosphere, and it is imitated in the climate chamber by a lamp that emits ultraviolet light. Natural atmospheric processes such as the formation of sulphuric acid are thus imitated, and these are an important ingredient in the aerosols. When electrons from the accelerator irradiate the air mixture, an increase takes place in the production of aerosols, which act as nuclei for the production of cloud droplets. In previous SKY experiments conducted by DTU Space in Copenhagen, cosmic radiation was simulated by gamma radiation, and the scientists saw here that the gamma rays could also form aerosols. In the new experiment with the energy-rich electrons from the ASTRID accelerator, there is much more resemblance to the cosmic rays that occur in nature.
Competitors hot on their heels
A major international research group at the European Particle Research Centre (CERN) in Geneva, Switzerland, has worked for several years on demonstrating the correlation that the Danish researchers have found, and the group has announced that its members are also on the way with their first extensive results. Compared with the CERN project, the Danish scientists have an extremely modest budget, but when it comes to producing particles resembling cosmic ones, the facilities at Aarhus University are equal to the most advanced facilities in the world.
Associate Professor Ulrik Ingerslev Uggerhøj goes into more detail in the video interview below (in Danish only)
Here’s the abstract
GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 38, L09805, 4 PP., 2011
doi:10.1029/2011GL047036
Aerosol nucleation induced by a high energy particle beam
- Cosmic rays increase nucleation rate
- A particle beam is not needed for experiments
- Ions are important for atmospheric nucleation rate
Martin B. Enghoff
National Space Institute, Technical University of Denmark, Copenhagen, Denmark
Jens Olaf Pepke Pedersen
National Space Institute, Technical University of Denmark, Copenhagen, Denmark
Ulrik I. Uggerhøj
Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Aarhus, Aarhus, Denmark
Sean M. Paling
Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
Henrik Svensmark
National Space Institute, Technical University of Denmark, Copenhagen, Denmark
We have studied sulfuric acid aerosol nucleation in an atmospheric pressure reaction chamber using a 580 MeV electron beam to ionize the volume of the reaction chamber. We find a clear contribution from ion-induced nucleation and consider this to be the first unambiguous observation of the ion-effect on aerosol nucleation using a particle beam under conditions that resemble the Earth’s atmosphere. By comparison with ionization using a gamma source we further show that the nature of the ionizing particles is not important for the ion-induced component of the nucleation. This implies that inexpensive ionization sources – as opposed to expensive accelerator beams – can be used for investigations of ion-induced nucleation.
Received 8 February 2011; accepted 31 March 2011; published 12 May 2011.
Citation: Enghoff, M. B., J. O. P. Pedersen, U. I. Uggerhøj, S. M. Paling, and H. Svensmark (2011), Aerosol nucleation induced by a high energy particle beam, Geophys. Res. Lett., 38, L09805, doi:10.1029/2011GL047036.
“This implies that inexpensive ionization sources – as opposed to expensive accelerator beams – can be used for investigations of ion-induced nucleation.”
Bit of a smack for CERN, a big smack for the IPCC, NASA/GISS/Hansen. You do not need the biggest of boys with the biggest of toys to find out how some things work. The authority and skills you need are a reflection of what you are studying, and it ain’t all rocket surgery.
Perhaps some “citizen scientists” have something to offer …
In terms of gathering the empirical and observational evidence which might confirm or refute Svensmark’s GCR theory, the current prolonged solar minimum could not have come at a better time.
Over to you Mother Nature…….
This is great news!
Not one, but 2 experiments, independent of each other.
There is one caveat that might upset such simplicity: The natural supply of CRF not being homogenous, wherein a slackened solar wind lets in a naturally varying amount of excess Cosmic Rays.
A cloud chamber works in exactly this way and this has been known for … much longer than I’ve been alive at any rate. Hence the experiments with the accelerator were not really needed to confirm that cosmic ray triggered cloud formation occurred. We knew that already. What they did was more precisely quantify its expected rate.
Every word of it sounds just like science. What a relief. Finally, there are some scientists working on questions of global warming. My hat is off to Uggerhoj and crew as well as Svensmark and crew. And you know what is so cool about this work? They have actual physical hypotheses that are not Arrhenius’ CO2 hypotheses.
This could be a tipping point for Climate Hysteria. Just the fact that scientists are publishing about physical hypotheses in climate science could totally change the terms of the debate. Maybe some people who work in the MSM, aka journalists, will be motivated to learn about physical hypotheses and their role in scientific method.
Finally, these scientists are in a Win-Win situation. If their hypotheses are shown to be reasonably confirmed they will have created the first genuine climate science after the turn of the Nineteenth Century. If their hypotheses are shown to be false, they will have established that they are the first climate scientists to have put forward a falsifiable set of hypotheses. Either way they qualify as scientists and distinguish themselves from the Warmista. Win-Win.
And we all wonder why it took this long for the connection to be made since one of the first devices used in radiation research was present was the (curiously enough named) cloud chamber, developed in 1911 by Charles Wilson, that we all saw in action in about 7th grade science class or on a TV special to show “cloud tracks” formed by ionizing radiation in a cold saturated atmosphere.
I find it interesting that given the background of the cloud chamber that anyone would be surprised by this result, and more importantly that some in the Climate community would without experimental evidence summarily throw out the prospect that radiation might enhance cloud formation.
Larry
The statement that more cloud cover cools the earth is not that straight forward. This is in part to much disinformation regarding clouds and the effect of water vapour at high altitudes which is also a greenhouses gas with there effects.
There are critical layer in the atmosphere that play there part to confirm thermodynamic laws are at work. Anyone here can validate what I am saying at robust science web sites.
TROPOSPHERE
This is the layer of the atmosphere closest to the Earth’s surface, extending up to about 10-15 km above the Earth’s surface. It contains 75% of the atmosphere’s mass. The troposphere is wider at the equator than at the poles. Temperature and pressure drops as you go higher up the troposphere.
The Tropopause: At the very top of the troposphere is the tropopause where the temperature reaches a (stable) minimum. Some scientists call the tropopause a “cold trap” because this is a point where rising water vapour cannot go higher because it changes into ice and is trapped. If there is no cold trap, Earth would loose all its water!
The higher the cloud blanket the more effective the radiative bounce back to earth and not to the cold of space becomes. Even Roy Spencer backs this up with his own studies. Anyone making the above statement should at least abide to a pattern of logic within the science and applied laws of physics otherwise you are guilty by omission of the whole context of cloud interplay on climate via the sun’s energy both entering the earth’s atmosphere and also being potentially impeded in outliers to space. Laws of thermodynamics apply to energy conservation and loss here through water vapour, cloud formation and the ability of CO2 that keeps us from freezing at night by its greenhouse effect which has increased slightly the temperatures already by .5 to .7 degrees celsius since 1850.
Clouds (both low and high level) are also more effective at holding in days energy (earth’s surface heat by sun during day) rather then escaping into higher altitudes at night. Hence the theory of greenhouse applies also. Roy Spencer also confirms the same.
Conversely – the LOWER the cloud coverage the more they blanket the earth from incoming RADIATION.
Latest studies indicate that the trend will go to higher altitude cloud cover then lower cloud cover in a warming globe context.
Even if cosmic rays contribute to serious cloud cover in strange ways the net result will to increase global warming – not protect us from global warming as they are created at HIGH altitudes.
Isn’t real science grand! Of course this will not end the warmists’ slobbering love affair for far out theories and wacked out models.
To form aerosols they need SO2.
Where does SO2 come from? Volcanoes.
What happens when a massive eruption like pinatubo sends lots of SO2 into Stratosphere? Cloud nuclei form in the stratosphere, causing cooling on the ground initially, but subsequently lead to the stripping of water vapour from the Stratosphere.
What happens when the Stratosphere looses water vapour? It cools and the troposphere warms!
So did volcano induced water stripping from the Stratosphere cause the recent bout of global warming? Of course not, everybody know volcanoes cause global cooling!
rbateman says:
May 17, 2011 at 4:38 pm
“The natural supply of CRF not being homogenous, wherein a slackened solar wind lets in a naturally varying amount of excess Cosmic Rays.”
____________________________________________________________
Galactic Supernovae are the number one suspect as to the likely source of excess Cosmic Rays, but we’ll have to wait until one explodes before we have the chance to confirm this with modern instruments.
It is worth noting that the last 2 Galactic Supernovae occurred in 1572 and 1604.
A really good question, for which we don’t have an answer is : Were they still emitting excess Gamma Rays during the Maunder Minimum (1645-1715)?
“Compared with the CERN project, the Danish scientists have an extremely modest budget, but when it comes to producing particles resembling cosmic ones, the facilities at Aarhus University are equal to the most advanced facilities in the world.”
That’s the best part. Science can only be rescued from Big Theories when it stops using Big Facilities.
When you have to beg for a few minutes of time in the Emperor’s Lab, you inevitably conform to the Emperor’s Rules.
Gee, scientists doing a real experiment and taking real measurements…did they not hear the John Mitchell’s quote in yesterday’s post regarding “Observational evidence is not very useful”?
Ross Brisbane says:
May 17, 2011 at 4:52 pm
The statement that more cloud cover cools the earth is not that straight forward. This is in part to much disinformation regarding clouds and the effect of water vapour at high altitudes which is also a greenhouses gas with there [sic] effects.
Ross is known for laying out on cloudy days ‘sun’ bathing.
The Tropopause: At the very top of the troposphere is the tropopause where the temperature reaches a (stable) minimum. Some scientists call the tropopause a “cold trap” because this is a point where rising water vapour cannot go higher because it changes into ice and is trapped. If there is no cold trap, Earth would loose all its water!
Your reasoning is backward. The heat input at the equator is high therefore the instability of warm wet air is highest. The convection in the Inter-Tropical Convergence Zone is extreme – updrafts of 100kts or more carrying liquid rain above 30,000 feet. The force of this convection bubbles high into the atmosphere and normally tops out at 60,000 feet or so raising the tropopause. Tropopause literally means the place where movement stops. Supercell convective storms boil upwards at extreme speeds, there isn’t a physical boundary to the stratosphere at 60.000ft and 1 inch. The ICAN lapse rate does not apply within supercell storms. So – much as mathematicians would like the tropopause to be a nice flat line – it is not: it is something between watching the surface of boiling water and a lava lamp. Large waves run and break along the tropopause its not a nice neat surface.
Clouds (both low and high level) are also more effective at holding in days energy (earth’s surface heat by sun during day) rather then escaping into higher altitudes at night. Hence the theory of greenhouse applies also. Roy Spencer also confirms the same.
Its absolutely true that a layer of cloud that forms at night will reduce radiation of ‘the days input radiation’ and the night will be warm. However, if the cloud is there by day but not at night – the reverse is true – the surface will cool. Moreover, if the cloud layer remains for days on end — the ‘days energy’ being held in is less each day as the cloud albedo is reflecting back much of that days input energy. After many days of cloud – the surface will be much colder. This is straight forward observational meteorology.
“It is possible that GCRs do have an effect on climate through the modulation of clouds, but I don’t think it is very strong.”
–Rasmus E. Benestad at RealClimate 2007
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/cosmoclimatology-tired-old-arguments-in-new-clothes/
Isn’t this the big question? Now that we know it does, the question is how much.
Mars warms when the earth warms. What do they have in common?
The sun.
It is that simple.
Ross Brisbane says:
May 17, 2011 at 4:52 pm The statement that more cloud cover cools the earth is not that straight forward.
Agreed, but it is not disinformation, as you say.
The Umbrella was invented even before the cloud chamber. Everyone knows that it is used to make the person cooler than in sunlight. If the person become cooler, what is the fate of the heat that would otherwise have made the person warmer? Of course, the matter is one of the redistribution of heat energy. The experimenters in Denmark, on a very modest budget, have shown the possibility of a natural device like an umbrella, but they have not yet proceedd to investigate and explain the whole heat energy redistribution of the globe resulting from their initial findings. They modestly propose the next couple of systematic experimental steps that they have in mind.
You are being prematurely critical. Do examine your motivation for criticising this work in the way you did.
“There is much to indicate that climate models must hereby take cosmic radiation into consideration.”
It’s going to be darned tricky modeling the sun’s behavior.
In reply to
“Ross Brisbane says:
May 17, 2011 at 4:52 pm
The statement that more cloud cover cools the earth is not that straight forward. This is in part to much disinformation regarding clouds and the effect of water vapour at high altitudes which is also a greenhouses gas with there effects.”
Increased GCR reduces high altitude clouds and increases low level clouds. The low level cloud formation is different than high altitude cloud formation.
The number of cloud forming ions is affected by solar wind bursts. The solar wind bursts create a space charge differential in the ionosphere which in turn creates a potential difference. The global warming post 1994 correlates with solar wind bursts. The regions of the planet that warm also correlate with the regions that are most affected by the solar wind mechanism electroscavenging. Attached is a review paper that discusses the different mechanisms.
See section 5a) Modulation of the global circuit in this review paper, by solar wind burst and the process electroscavenging where by increases in the global electric circuit remove cloud forming ions.
The same review paper summarizes the data that does show correlation between low level clouds and GCR.
http://www.utdallas.edu/physics/pdf/Atmos_060302.pdf
http://sait.oat.ts.astro.it/MSAIt760405/PDF/2005MmSAI..76..969G.pdf
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009JA014342.shtml
If the Sun is so quiet, why is the Earth ringing? A comparison of two solar minimum intervals.
Observations from the recent Whole Heliosphere Interval (WHI) solar minimum campaign are compared to last cycle’s Whole Sun Month (WSM) to demonstrate that sunspot numbers, while providing a good measure of solar activity, do not provide sufficient information to gauge solar and heliospheric magnetic complexity and its effect at the Earth. The present solar minimum is exceptionally quiet, with sunspot numbers at their lowest in 75 years and solar wind magnetic field strength lower than ever observed. Despite, or perhaps because of, a global weakness in the heliospheric magnetic field, large near-equatorial coronal holes lingered even as the sunspots disappeared. Consequently, for the months surrounding the WHI campaign, strong, long, and recurring high-speed streams in the solar wind intercepted the Earth in contrast to the weaker and more sporadic streams that occurred around the time of last cycle’s WSM campaign.
Ross Brisbane says:
May 17, 2011 at 4:52 pm
Even if cosmic rays contribute to serious cloud cover in strange ways the net result will to increase global warming – not protect us from global warming as they are created at HIGH altitudes.
==========================================
Ross, what happens when there’s constant cloud cover?
Ross Brisbane;
So, let us agree arguendo, that the cosmic rays will inevitably increase global warming, at least on robust science websites.
With that assumption, would the variation of (solar) energetic flux be expected to have any effect?
Have the GCM’s already included this mechanism?
RR
I wouldn’t think it would be that hard to monitor the total hemispheric cloud cover to compare it to the CGRs impacting Earth. The GOES (Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellites) have been in continuous operation since the 1970s & the imagery is archived at UWisc-Madison SSEC facility. Just take the daily full disk visible image taken at satellite noon (for full disk illumination-minus polar shadow, depending on the season) of each day (or week or month…depending on resources), create a histogram of the image, and track that over time. Compare how the histogram modulates to the recorded GCRs and see if they correlate. Shouldn’t that work as a fairly close real-world observation?
Jeff
…more importantly that some in the Climate community would without experimental evidence summarily throw out the prospect that radiation might enhance cloud formation.
Hi Larry, it’s easy to understand if you posit a context in which the Climate community operates for a political end, rather than a scientific one. In a political context, contrary evidence is ignored, discredited, or hidden.
The disconnect between the intellectually corrupt reliance on computer models that are not validated against empirical evidence by the climate community, and the robust testing of theories against empirical evidence that has served society so well over the last 400 years is getting larger every day.
My understanding of Svensmark’s theory is that Gamma rays cause lower level cloud formation. It would be interesting to see a vertical profile of particle nucleation, but I am not sure that we are at that level in the research. As stated above, particle nucleation in a saturated atmosphere is well established, it is what particles in what quantity at what location, in the real atmosphere, that needs to be established.
Count down 4 3 2 1 …. They’re all funded by Big Oil…
James Hansen, a globally famous (notorious?) science denier, will not like this: real scientists doing real experiments on real atmosphere , investigating real climatic effects.
Horrible!
They might find real facts!
Ross Brisbane.
I thought this was a robust science website. I’m sorry to learn otherwise. I presume you mean websites which don’t challenge your views.
Can someone comment on cold downdrafts and rain from large thunderstorms and how this makes for additional surface cooling.
The Chilling Stars, reading this book when it was first published was a royal treat. Rarely does one get to witness science history of this significance, our weather and climate tied to the cosmos, a revolutionary theory indeed.
Makes the whole man made CO2 political hypothesis look like anti-science.
Gavin Schmitt has already spoken in a very conclusive way on cosmic rays.
“There is no connection between global warming and cosmic rays. That’s because there’s no trend in cosmic rays. It’s completely bogus,”
You can’t discount relativistic effects in calculating the ability of particles to penetrate the atmosphere. See http://cosmic.lbl.gov/SKliewer/Cosmic_Rays/Muons.htm
Now can we expect the warmistas to start beaming x-rays upward to make clouds? And how much fossil fuel will we burn to accomplish that?
DJ, we have a pretty good idea:
http://sciencebits.com/calorimeter
JKrob,
You would also probably want to get a base-line image of the earths average aerosol cover, determine a threshold (a level of optical depth) and subtract out areas where aerosol concentrations are high and therefore won’t be affected by CRF. You would want to just look at areas that normally have low amounts of aerosols. Then, you want to look a those areas albedos.
Hah! The plot… er, cloud thickens! Independent experiments converging towards common support of the Svensmark hypothesis.
Details to follow, film at eleven… Stay tuned for news!
You missed a “[sic]”: “Earth would loose [sic] all its water”. Rhymes with “goose”.
Use “lose”!
HankHenry says:
May 17, 2011 at 8:23 pm
Gavin Scmitt never looked at the output of the Neutron Monitors. The counts all agree, and they are not always tied to the SSN, 10.7cm or the TSI. They stood out during the 70’s cooling period, and they might just do that again.
Maybe Hansen is on to something with his lingering Pinatubo aerosol thesis. Could the cosmic ray generated so2 based aerosols end up in the stratosphere without becoming condensation nuclei?
In Jasper Kirkby’s recent SFU IRMACS presentation, he discusses aerosols around time-index 35:40 to 35:50. He contrasts continental aerosols with Southern Ocean wind/salt aerosols. If anyone can point to the article from which he got the graph’s right panel, please do. It was immediately apparent that he was drawing attention to a key missing link.
There is much to indicate that climate models must hereby take cosmic radiation into consideration.
I can hear the gnashing of teeth in the ivory towers of East Anglia University, NASA Goddard Institute etc.!
Now lets hear you all try to pronounce Ulrik Ingerslev Uggerhøj, and say it three times quickly.
(I can, of course.)
HankHenry says:
May 17, 2011 at 8:23 pm
Gavin Schmitt has already spoken in a very conclusive way on cosmic rays.
“There is no connection between global warming and cosmic rays. That’s because there’s no trend in cosmic rays. It’s completely bogus,”
==========================
OOOOH AHHHH “Gavin Schmitt [SIC] has spoken.”
Big deal. Inconsequential. Nobody cares.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
William says:
May 17, 2011 at 6:14 pm
If the Sun is so quiet, why is the Earth ringing? A comparison of two solar minimum intervals. Observations from the recent Whole Heliosphere Interval (WHI) solar minimum campaign are compared to last cycle’s Whole Sun Month (WSM) to demonstrate …
The WHI was not even at solar minimum. And the Earth rings at every solar minimum: http://www.leif.org/research/Historical%20Solar%20Cycle%20Context.pdf
Slide 18 shows that the solar wind has a high-speed stream leading up to every minimum.
Keith Minto says:
May 17, 2011 at 7:04 pm
My understanding of Svensmark’s theory is that Gamma rays cause lower level cloud formation.
How many times is it necessary to say that Cosmic Rays and Gamma Rays are not the same things.
——
The study shows that an electron beam can increase aerosol nucleation, and that it doesn’t matter what the ionizing agent is: electrons, gamma rays, perhaps even cosmic rays, or whatever. Ions lead to nucleation. Wilson got the Nobel Prize in 1927 for showing this. The study does not show that this has anything to do with solar activity. To show this, one has to show that the nucleation is efficient enough and that the climate has varied the same way as solar activity. And those two issues are still the stumbling blocks.
With the new results just published in the recognised journal Geophysical Research Letters, scientists have succeeded for the first time in directly observing that the electrically charged particles coming from space and hitting the atmosphere at high speed contribute to creating the aerosols that are the prerequisites for cloud formation.
I should have been more precise: the study shows that gamma rays are as good at electron beams: http://www.leif.org/EOS/2011GL047036.pdf
“[14] An important result from this work is (as seen from Figure 1) that nucleation induced with the ionization from the gamma source experiments are indistinguishable from those using the electron beam. Compared to the 580 MeV electrons the gamma rays have rather low energies and the electrons emitted through Compton scattering will ionize very locally, whereas the 580 MeV electrons have a mean energy loss rate close to the minimum (minimum ionizing) and will ionize along their path”\
The paper does NOT show that cosmic rays are involved. Nowhere in the paper [except in some references] are cosmic rays even mentioned.
REPLY: This is quite possibly the strongest argument I’ve seen that the science paper should be included with press releases, because those who write the press releases often don’t explain it in the same way the paper does. – Anthony
Leif Svalgaard says:
May 17, 2011 at 10:09 pm
You are correct, my error in haste.
First they just need to test their theory with a climate model – it would need to be one that accounts for the long equilibrium times of the deep ocean that can correctly represent cloud behavior – seems they are about to hit a wall!
Something wrong with the “Enlarge” link for the graph. Does nothing in Opera or Firefox.
😕
‘have directly demonstrated in a new experiment that cosmic radiation can create small floating particles – so-called aerosols – in the atmosphere. By doing so, they substantiate the connection between the Sun’s magnetic activity and the Earth’s climate.’
The principle was more or less accepted as realistic possibility for some time now. The problem with this hypothesis (and eventually theory) is quantity over quality, i.e. is number of such particles large enough to make any difference, particularly in the Equatorial areas, where GCR are deflected towards the magnetic poles. Contribution of albedo change at the poles for two good reasons (angle of incidence and area) is significantly lower.
If there is any magnetic effect on cloud formation and albedo than it is the:
‘Solar activity – geomagnetic storms – equatorial electro-jet- troposphere’
(tenuous) relationship which needs further investigation:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC20.htm
Same here, but click the graph to isolate, then Ctrl with + to enlarge in FF.
REPLY: Nothing wrong. That’s the AGU, graph is only 350 pix wide, which is all they provided, taking the link out so people don’t waste time. – Anthony
RoHa says:
May 17, 2011 at 9:56 pm
Now lets hear you all try to pronounce Ulrik Ingerslev Uggerhøj, and say it three times quickly.
———-
I tried it. But I think it sounded like what DSK said to that maid in the hotel room.
A change in cloud quantities can occur in more than one way.
My main problem with the Svensmark hypothesis is that there is no shortage of the necessary aerosols in the first place so more of them does not necessarily result in more clouds.
The Svansmark idea suggests that the extra aerosols being added would have a pretty even effect on cloudiness across the globe with perhaps a slight bias towards the polar regions where some charged particles are directed in along the magnetic field lines.
However we don’t see changes in cloudiness occurring in a pattern which would comply with that proposition.
Instead we see changes in the surface pressure distribution affecting the size and positions of the various blocks of polar and equatorial air masses as they ebb and flow and interact with one another around the world all the time.
Where those air masses interact we see more clouds and the solar effect seems to work by causing more (or less) meridional jets, more (or less) air mass mixing and therefore longer (or shorter) lines of air mass interaction across the globe resulting in more (or less) clouds.
So generally we see zonal jets and less clouds (warming) when the sun is active and meridional jets and more clouds (cooling) when the sun is less active.
The recent combination of a very quiet sun and a record negative Arctic Oscillation with increasing global albedo in contrast to the late 20th century active sun with a weak Arctic Oscillation and decreasing global albedo is an example in point.
Also the Svensmark idea would require the creation of more clouds first then some sort of reorganisation process over time as the additional clouds became incorporated into the background weather patterns. The clouds would have to come first and then the weather patterns would change.
In reality we see the weather patterns change first by way of a change in the meridionality/zzonality of the jets then the cloud quantity changes follow.
To get that change in meridionality/zonality we first need a change in the atmospheric heights and as far as I know Svensmark’s idea does not deal with that.
Thus we are back to solar induced ozone linked chemical reactions in the atmospheric column altering the heights in line with the level of solar activity.
@anything can happen,
There has been at least one recent Supernova – SN1987A, I spent a couple of nights watching this event on our low southern horizon (in Australia).
Supernova 1987A was discovered in the Large Magellanic cloud Feb 1987, originating 168,000 light years away.
Evidence of the solar-GCR link can be seen by a recent event ~17th Feb 2011, if you look back at what happened on the Moscow Neutron counter, where the count dropped significantly when there was a medium class solar flare, showing the mechanism for a Forbush event. This flare wasn’t even directly orientated towards the Earth.
Aren’t we overdue for another large solar flare or CME as the Sun’s activity increases ?
JT
Scientist Martin Bødker Enghoff, DTU Space, adds:
“Before we can say how great the effect is, it’s clear that our results must be verified
Now there’s something you won’t hear a lot of climate scientists who rely on models say that they will look forward to others going over their work.
James Bull
http://www.climate4you.com/Sun.htm#Cosmic ray intensity and sunspot activity
All the current research seems to be showing Svensmark to be correct. It is also proving that observation and measurement are superior to model output.
It’s a darn good thing that Gamma Rays and Cosmic Rays aren’ t the same thing.
The former is quite deadly stuff and we wouldn’t be here if our atmosphere wasn’t opaque to it.
How wonderful to see real science being done, the conclusions written and peer-reviewed then published and all without massive budgets, huge facilities and supercomputers such as the one on the UK Met Office’s wish list!
Gavin who???
HankHenry says:
May 17, 2011 at 8:23 pm
Gavin Schmitt has already spoken in a very conclusive way on cosmic rays.
“There is no connection between global warming and cosmic rays. That’s because there’s no trend in cosmic rays. It’s completely bogus,”
Hasn’t he always said the same thing about the Sun? (CO2 is a sky god.)
JeffT and Anything is possible:
There have been many observed supernovae over recent years. SN2005 as observed from Hubbell is a spectacular example. See http://www.hubblesite.org/gallery/album/pr2004010f/
Robert Quimby and group at the McDonald Observatory have found 35 supernovae to date. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Supernova_Search for a short article about their work.
One of the questions that would need to be answered is how close to earth would a supernova need to be in order to produce some effect ala the Svensmark hypothesis.
Well, Congrats to Dr Svensmark, he appears to have been right. I wonder if these results coming from CERN and others will cause some of the derision directed at Dr Svensmark and his theory to lessen. Na, probably not. I guess the Team follows the trial lawyers code, “If the law is on your side argue the law, if the law is not on your side attack the person.”
Stephen Wilde, see Kirkby around time-index 35:40 to 35:50 in the video to which I linked. He’s clearly suggesting heterogeneity and a role for circulation. It might be interesting to hear Svensmark comment on aspects of zonality/meridionality that you often discuss.
@ HankHenry says:
May 17, 2011 at 8:23 pm
Gavin Schmitt has already spoken in a very conclusive way on cosmic rays.
“There is no connection between global warming and cosmic rays. That’s because there’s no trend in cosmic rays. It’s completely bogus,”
==================
Gavin Schmidt walks a dangerous line using trend (correlation?) to attempt to falsify a theory. The correlation between CO2 level and global temperature is almost non-existent (< .3 ), so, given that you could also make the following statement relative to CO2 & 'Global Warming'
—
There is no connection between global warming and CO2. That's because the correlation between CO2 level and global temperature is very weak. It's completely bogus.
Paul Hull says:
May 18, 2011 at 6:01 am
JeffT and Anything is possible:
There have been many observed supernovae over recent years. SN2005 as observed from Hubbell is a spectacular example. See http://www.hubblesite.org/gallery/album/pr2004010f/
Robert Quimby and group at the McDonald Observatory have found 35 supernovae to date. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Supernova_Search for a short article about their work.
One of the questions that would need to be answered is how close to earth would a supernova need to be in order to produce some effect ala the Svensmark hypothesis.
==========
Pick up a copy of Svensmark’s book, “The Chilling Stars”. I think it would answer a lot of your questions.
As per the most recent UV satellites, the Sun is NOT a constant producer of UV. Why didn’t they vary the simulated UV?
Again, the constant energy output of the Sun BIAS rears its ugly head. Even Leif Svalgaard admits that there is an energy difference between a Sunspot Maximum and a Sunspot Minimum.
Carla says:
1992 solar min. dominate species of Cosmic Rays were Anomalous Cosmic Rays..
Anomalous cosmic rays are singly charged..
what does this do to the global electric potential..
like does it stall weather systems..like we have been seeing lately..does it prevent the jetstream from moving north..does it create those humpy looking jetstreams??
..SAMPEX — major discoveries published in refereed journals
Anomalous Cosmic Rays
Discovery of the precise location of trapped anomalous cosmic rays in the magnetosphere.
Measurement of the elemental composition of trapped ACR, including C, N, 0, and Ne.
“Early” return of the anomalous cosmic ray component in the 1992 solar minimum period, well before the relativistic ions. LI>Discovery that trapped anomalous cosmic rays are the dominant component of high energy (>10 MeV/nuc) ions heavier than He in the magnetosphere.
.. Magnetospheric Physics
Discovery that magnetospheric electrons are globally accelerated in association with the impact of high speed solar wind streams.
.. SAMPEX–major discoveries reported at scientific meetings but not yet published in refereed journals
.. Anomalous Cosmic Rays
Determination that ACR nitrogen, oxygen, and neon are singly charged.
Determination that the upper limit of ACR O2+ is less than 10% of the total ACR oxygen, thus limiting acceleration time scales in the heliosphere.
Discovery that the interplanetary spectrum of anomalous oxygen extends to at least 100 MeV/nucleon, implying that the ACR acceleration mechanism (termination shock?) accelerates particles to at least 1.6 GeV..
http://sunland.gsfc.nasa.gov/smex/sampex/mission/
Time-variability in the Interstellar Boundary Conditions
of the Heliosphere: Effect of the Solar Journey on the
Galactic Cosmic Ray Flux at Earth
Priscilla C. Frisch • Hans-Reinhard Mueller
rev. 3 Feb. 2011
“””The interpretation of the geological record of cosmogenic isotopes relies on accurate
models of the cosmic ray spectra. One factor that is not included in
the interpretation of the geological record of cosmogenic isotopes is that the cosmic ray
spectrum incident on the Earth consists of two components that behave differently as
the Sun travels through space. Galactic cosmic rays dominate at high energies, > 500
MeV, and are subject to heliospheric modulation as the Sun travels through space.
However a second cosmic ray component at lower energies is formed inside of the
heliopause from interstellar neutrals that penetrate and are ionized inside of the heliosphere,
forming pickup ions. These are subsequently accelerated to form lower-energy
anomalous cosmic rays (ACRs) with a composition derived from neutral interstellar
atoms in the CISM (Fisk et al. 1974).
The local interstellar cosmic ray spectrum that
creates the geological radio-isotope record is thus composed of two components that
vary differently over time and space, the higher energy galactic cosmic rays (GCRs)
that are modulated by a variable heliosphere, and the ACRs that also depend on the
density and fractional ionization of the surrounding interstellar cloud.
In this paper we present the overall picture of the ISM characteristics that result
from the motion of the Sun and interstellar clouds through space. Observations of interstellar
absorption lines towards nearest stars show that spatial variations in velocity,
temperature, and ionization of the circumheliospheric ISM create temporal variations
in the heliosphere boundary conditions. These then cause temporal variations in the
spectrum and fluxes of cosmic rays at Earth. We also draw possible connections between
interstellar cloud transitions and the geological radio isotope record.”””
GCR dependent on supernovae, location direction, fallout time, decay, gal. magnetic field trapping..
ACR dependent upon cloud denisity of ISM etc..in the very local vicinity of our solar system at any given time.
Leif:
from my reading it seems that you are critical of the Svensmark hypothesis.
If…
an energetic electron beam (high energy, very light charged particles) and gamma rays (electromagnetic radiation, no charge, no mass) do cause aerosol formation, would you expect something different from cosmic rays (high energy, very heavy, charged particles)?
I agree that empirical evidence needs to be pursued, but are you discounting the theory until it is proven in the lab with heavy nuclei?
Should we not also discount the CO2 theory since it is not proven?
Carla says:
May 18, 2011 at 7:02 am
1992 solar min. dominate species of Cosmic Rays were Anomalous Cosmic Rays..
Carla, you really have to get your stuff straight. The article talks about ACRs heavier than Helium. These make up a minute portion of the cosmic rays [1% or less] and have very little energy and therefore cannot penetrate into the atmosphere.
Jim G says:
May 18, 2011 at 7:21 am
I agree that empirical evidence needs to be pursued, but are you discounting the theory until it is proven in the lab with heavy nuclei?
There is no doubt that ions [no matter how produced] can produce clouds [Wilson got a Nobel Prize in 1927 exploiting that]. The real issue is if the effect to large enough to explain climate change [and calculations indicate that it is not] and if the changes in the ionization produced by cosmic rays matches that of the climate [and they do not].
@-Bill Marsh says:
May 18, 2011 at 6:30 am
“Well, Congrats to Dr Svensmark, he appears to have been right.”
Right about what ???
This research indicates that ionizing radiation can generate the PRECURSERS of cloud condensation nuclei. It does nothing to show that those precursers can actually combine to form active cloud condensation nuclei and it does nothing to show that those CCNs are quantitativly significant.
That is there is no evidence I am aware of that indicates that actual cloud cover is correlated with changes in GCR flux. There is evidence that organic sources of sulphur compounds ARE a modulating factor for CCNs. Unfortunately the empirical observations of cloud cover are inadequate to determine any correlation with solar/GCR changes.
And as others have pointed out there have not been any significant solar/GCR changes for decades, while global temperatures and sea levels and snow/ice melt continues to increase.
These folks and CERN could get into some interesting cross replication of experiment runs.
Two competing hypothesis:
– CO2 feedback forcing – present, but not to a degree to produce the effect attributed to it.
– GCR nucleation – present, but not to a degree to produce the effect attributed to it.
We were taught in school in the 50’s and 60’s that the Milankovitch cycles were not responsible for the ice ages. That scientists had done the calculations and shown that the effects were too small.
Then a decade latter, ocean cores provided the proof that Milankovitch was correct. This was a much discussed topic at the time, as there were real fears that we were heading into another ice age. There was talk about taking action to prevent the cooling.
Good thing we didn’t panic 50 years ago and spend billions of dollars to warm the planet up, because some scientists didn’t get the math right. It isn’t by accident that the older generations are skeptical. Like night follows day, every 30 years we switch from warming to cooling and back. Since the models can’t predict it, the observations must be wrong.
A river on its way to the ocean wanders all over the place, and changes course all the time on its own without any external “forcings”. Why should climate be any different?
Why should we expect global temperature to follow a straight line year to year when a river doesn’t? Like a river, perhaps the meaner in climate has nothing to do with external forcings. It is simply the nature of climate to change from time to time, for reasons that are not well understood. Thus, the correlation with external forcings may be weak at best, and too small to explain what is observed.
Consider the solar cycle. The solar cycle changes year to year without any external forcings of sufficient magnitude to explain the change. Why should the climate on earth be any more constant? If anything the sun should be much more constant than the earth, because of intertia, yet the length of the solar cycle is not constant.
It’s okay, they won’t add cosmic rays into the climate models, so the pridiction of doom and gloom will remain. They’ll just claim that, since the models have a high level of skill at recreating the current climate, the cosmic rays have already been accounted for in parameterizations of cloud formation. As my Britt friends might say: Easy Peasy Lemon Squeezy!!!!
sorry for the double post, but I just saw this and had to respond because I don’t think anyone else has really pointed out where Ross is tripping up.
Ross Brisbane says:
May 17, 2011 at 4:52 pm The statement that more cloud cover cools the earth is not that straight forward
The key reason you are wrong is because you are confusing clouds and water vapor. Water vapor in the air will hold warmth at night but will not shade the surface in the day. If cosmic rays turn some of that water vapor into clouds then they are still opaque to IR at night, but they now provide shade in the day. The net result will be cooling relative to what the conditions would have been if the water vapor remained uncondensed in the atmosphere.
I hope that helps sort out the confusion.
Gary Swift says:
May 18, 2011 at 10:28 am
The key reason you are wrong is because you are confusing clouds and water vapor. Water vapor in the air will hold warmth at night but will not shade the surface in the day. If cosmic rays turn some of that water vapor into clouds then they are still opaque to IR at night, but they now provide shade in the day.
Svensmark’s hypothesis has nothing to do with shade in the day or water vapor, etc. But simply that cloud cover changes the albedo, i.e. what doesn’t even get to the Earth in the first place.
@Fred 9:58
In general, the solar cycle is very constant. The 22 year cycle (reversal in magnetic field) is usually more stable than the (consistant) 11 year cycle.
Leif Svalgaard says:
May 18, 2011 at 10:33 am
Svensmark’s hypothesis has nothing to do with shade in the day or water vapor, etc. But simply that cloud cover changes the albedo, i.e. what doesn’t even get to the Earth in the first place.
Yes, but I was addressing Ross’s theory that the clouds would also warm the earth at night. I was pointing out that the water vapor is still in the air either way and will warm the night whether it is cloudy or not. The change in albedo in the day (i.e. creating shade by reflecting sunlight back out to space. The difference between what you said and what I said is just symantics.) combined with the exact same nighttime conditions either way, results in a net cooling if cosmic rays create clouds.
Here is a chance for Svensmark:
Denmark wants to claim North Pole
May 18, 2011 16:12 Moscow Time
Denmark plans to lay claims to the North Pole. According to Danish media, Copenhagen plans to make public its Northern Strategy next month. This document contains the demands for the continental shelf in 5 zones around the Faroe Islands and Greenland, including the North Pole. The Arctic countries’ applications to shelf sections will be considered by the United Nations, and they must be submitted to the organization before 2014.
http://english.ruvr.ru/2011/05/18/50475000.html
vukcevic says:
May 18, 2011 at 11:09 am
Denmark wants to claim North Pole
We are the country nearest to the pole.
Oh no! Now we will have to make sacrifices to the Sun to safe the planet – ah la Aztecs.
What nice news. I await the response from the Annointed Ones.
Leif Svalgaard says:
We are the country nearest to the pole.
Not the magnetic North 🙂
We are the country nearest to the pole.
Greenland takes step toward independence from Denmark
The Arctic territory of Greenland has begun a new era of self-rule after 300 years under Danish authority, moving closer to independence with a potential oil bonanza below its icecap.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/greenland/5594140/Greenland-takes-step-toward-independence-from-Denmark.html
Leif Svalgaard says:
May 18, 2011 at 12:01 pm
We are the country nearest to the pole.
Heh, because the Danish have stolen Greenland from Norway (just kidding)… But is it still right, now that Greenland has more Home Rule?
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
May 18, 2011 at 12:43 pm
But is it still right, now that Greenland has more Home Rule?
We are doing this on behalf of Greenland. An oil-bonanza would make their home-rule more viable.
NO! THINK!
Cosmic Rays and solar activity are inverse proxies of each other so seeing one does not mean the other causes anything. An observed relation between solar activity and any earth atmospheric variable does NOT need Cosmic rays as the agency. The agent can be (AND IS!) solar particles themselves which have 300 times the energy flux on average of cosmic rays. Cosmic Rays are a side show.
The clincher is that if Cosmic Rays are the agents linking solar activity to the earth’s atmosphere then since they follow the suns’ 11 year cycle then world temperatures should mainly follow the 11 yr cycle BUT THEY DO NOT. They follow the 22 year magnetic cycle which guides solar particles in magnetically sensitive ways. Please see the Climate Realist thread on this http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=3307
And let us be clear when, using predicable aspects of solar activity, we at WeatherAction.com forecast extreme weather events with high skill we OBSERVE the chain of being:
solar activity (eg X flares, fast solar wind proton bursts etc) =>ionospheric/magnetic effects=> jet stream shifts / tornadoes / weather.
THERE ARE NO OBSERVED MODULATIONS OF COSMIC RAYS ON THESE SHORT TIME SCALES SO THEY CANNOT BE THE AGENTS OF WEATHER CHANGE OR CLIMATE CHANGE. (climate being the sum of weather over a long time)
THINK!!! For Cosmic Rays (which arrive essentially isotropically) to be modulated by solar activity, the magnetic flux (irrespective of direction) filling a large part of the solar system has to change – that takes weeks or months (the slow solar wind and magnetic flux takes typically 4 days to reach Earth for example and its got to go way beyond that to have a major effect), NOT half a day or so.
For a good Video link example of solar action driving changes in the jet stream see:-
=> Links at the bottom of slide 38 of the PDF in our submission to the UK Parliamentary Inquiry into December 2010 coldest for 100 years crisis. This shows a very dramatic double sunspot eruption driving the jet stream shift we predicted which ended the West Russia heat wave and Pakistan superfloods http://www.weatheraction.com/displayarticle.asp?a=318&c=1
=> http://www.weatheraction.com/docs/WANews11No3.pdf – Forecasted simultaneous blizzards in USA and Tropical Cyclone Yasi devastating Queensland preceded by fast solar wind from a very large coronal hole.
=> http://www.weatheraction.com/docs/WANews11No4.pdf – Similar pair of forecasted events eb 18/19 preceded by largest (X2) solar flare for 4 years
JET STREAM SHIFTS ARE THE STUFF OF CLIMATE CHANGE AND COSMIC RAYS ARE NOTHING TO DO WITH THEM.
So, the Cosmic Ray agency is a nice idea but doesn’t work (beyond perhaps a very minor effect of about 0.3%). It is a dangerous diversion to promote it as THE MAIN agent of sun-earth links because as it is shown on a regular basis that it doesn’t work the CO2 delusional sect just use their “Not a dog so it must be a cat logic, ie “Ah it’s not the Sun therefore it must be CO2”.
Thanks, Piers Corbyn, astrophysicist WeatherAction.com long range weather & Climate Forecasters
I have gone by the assumption for many years now that GCR’s do impact the formation of clouds, and this, more than simple Total Solar Irradiance, goes a long way to explaining how solar cycles and deep solar minimums can affect the climate in ways that are currently not included in global climate models.
My question, for those truly qualified to answer, is how our understanding of the GCR/cloud formation mechanism might translate into getting a more accurate picture of how this might relate to the role of anthropogenic GH gases. Some warmists it seems would seem to make the claim that it is true that sun WAS the biggest influencer of climate prior to the rapid build up of anthropogenic GH gases, but not so anymore. So the upshot of all this would seem to be that yes, GCR’s modulate the climate to some extent through the effect on cloud formation, but that’s all trumped by human greenhouse gas emissions.
I’d love to get a nice honest and unbiased discussion about this specfic point by some of the knowledgable people on this site…
All a cover for Geoengineering already taking place. Wake UP and Please LOOK UP.
Try taking a rain water sample to your local lab and having it tested for aluminum. Explain THAT.
“but that’s all trumped by human greenhouse gas emissions.”
How do you know that ?
R. Gates says:
May 18, 2011 at 4:57 pm
I’d love to get a nice honest and unbiased discussion
I don’t think you’ll get one. As I see it the equation is Climate = X * internal fluctuation + Y * sun + Z * man. The discussion should be about how large X, Y, and Z are. As long as some people claim X =1, Y = Z = 0 [1,0,0] others [0,1,0] and the rest [0,0,1], no progress can be made.
Leif Svalgaard says:
May 18, 2011 at 7:56 pm
R. Gates says:
May 18, 2011 at 4:57 pm
I’d love to get a nice honest and unbiased discussion
I don’t think you’ll get one. As I see it the equation is Climate = X * internal fluctuation + Y * sun + Z * man. The discussion should be about how large X, Y, and Z are. As long as some people claim X =1, Y = Z = 0 [1,0,0] others [0,1,0] and the rest [0,0,1], no progress can be made.
————-
I suppose you are correct, as sad as that is. I personally have always valued the open minded individual above the dogmatic. I think your trying to put true values on x,y, and z in the formula you give above is the honest approach and certainly that exactly what the honest climate scientist try’s to do. It is exciting to me that now we are getting closer to be able to quantify another aspect of the sun’s role on climate via the GCR modulation/cloud connection. What is depressing to me is that certain people will take this to an absurd extreme and insist it means that the human role must therefore be 0, or stop looking for other solar/climate connections that have nothing to do with the modulation of GCR’s or total solar irradiance.
Dr. Corbin
I agree with your assessment on the GCR, as I posted above:
– CO2 feedback forcing – present, but not to a degree to produce the effect attributed to it.
– GCR nucleation – present, but not to a degree to produce the effect attributed to it.
I also think geomagnetic storms have important effect on the Arctic polar vortex.
However, there are external factors not related to the solar activity, but apparently at the root of long term changes in AMO and PDO:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CD.htm
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/PDO.htm
Often referred to as the internal fluctuation by climate experts, but again that may be due to the lack of understanding of full picture.
If this effect were to cause more cloud at night time in the lower atmosphere than during daylight, global warming would result. Night cloud traps more heat, daytime cloud can cause cooling by re radiating more of the suns rays, but not night cloud.
Apologies to Dr. Corbyn for misspelling the name.
R. Gates
There are outside factors not related either to solar or human input, such as volcanic eruption and some others, in no way could be considered to be (climate/ temperature) internal fluctuations
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CD.htm
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/PDO.htm
Piers Corbyn says:
May 18, 2011 at 4:50 pm
JET STREAM SHIFTS ARE THE STUFF OF CLIMATE CHANGE AND COSMIC RAYS ARE NOTHING TO DO WITH THEM.
~
Nothing personal Piers..I do think you have got it..a part of it..for weather prediction.
BUT YOU THINK NOW..if interPLANETARY space or interplanetary atmosphere becomes polluted with interstellar neurtals and Anomalous cosmic rays, those planets orbiting in the variable pollution rates will have that pushed into their terrestrial atmospheres by the mechanisms you have shown here.. The Van Allen cosmic radiation belts “bloated” Piers..most dominate species ACR..being pushed from their trapped locations within Earth’s magnetic field..being freeeeeeeeed..instead of anilihation..
Carla says:
May 19, 2011 at 5:46 am
most dominate species ACR..being pushed
You still don’t get it: ACRs have much too low energy to do anything and their flux is 100 times lower than GCRs.
One of the basic questions has been answered, congrats to the team.
But so many more unanswered.
Why does the outgoing radiation values follow the ENSO cycle?
Is UV important, if so there is an anti correlation.
Does the process only work during daylight hours?
Is there compensatory actions that oppose cloud formation..ie show me the extra clouds where they matter.
Perhaps the PDO and solar enhanced bending jetstreams have more power? As for major hurricanes fueled by the solar wind….this should not be happening during a solar grand mimimum. The Neg PDO plus extra strong La Nina influenced by low solar more likely.
“As I see it the equation is Climate = X * internal fluctuation + Y * sun + Z * man. The discussion should be about how large X, Y, and Z are. As long as some people claim X =1, Y = Z = 0 [1,0,0] others [0,1,0] and the rest [0,0,1], no progress can be made.”
Well internal fluctuation (X) would be mainly oceanic but could well be substantial over 500 years if there is a larger low frequency oscillation in the background beyond PDO and ENSO. That does seem to be the case otherwise oceanic resistance would have stopped the MWP and LIA from happening at all.
Nominally the solar effect (Y) is only 0.1C from single cycle peak to trough unless amplified somehow such as by GCRs producing more clouds or by ozone based chemical reactions altering the vertical temperature profile of the atmosphere. That process appears to involve cloudiness and albedo changes which have the potential to alter energy received by the oceans to far more than the equivalent of a 0.1C temperature change. We have observed such cloudiness and albedo changes.
Man’s effect (Z) then has to be put in context.
Now the mechanism for climate effects from X and Y seems to be via an effect on the surface pressure distribution from above AND from below with an effect on jetstream behaviour which reorganises the energy flow through the atmosphere to cause a net cooling or a net warming.
We see from the MWP to LIA to date that the change in the surface pressure distribution from X and Y is substantial.
Z also needs to operate via a change in the surface pressure distribution but by how much ?
If X and Y can shift the jets latitudinally by 1000 miles or so how much am I bid for the effect of more CO2 ?
My guess would be something less than a mile. We wouldn’t notice it and couldn’t even measure it.
Leif Svalgaard says:
May 19, 2011 at 6:57 am
Carla says:
May 19, 2011 at 5:46 am
most dominate species ACR..being pushed
You still don’t get it: ACRs have much too low energy to do anything and their flux is 100 times lower than GCRs.
~
Ok .. lots that I don’t know..we all know that.. lol
So went scouting and wow.. ACR higher last solar min and GCR higher this solar min. HCS tilt angle is sited in the following abstract as to why that is. Maybe you might share something about the solar magnetic cycle relationship in all this.
Man o Man the cosmic radio isotope data screwed..
Anomalous and Galactic Cosmic Rays at 1 AU During the Cycle 23/24 Solar Minimum
R. A. Leske, A. C. Cummings, R. A. Mewaldt and E. C. Stone
Abstract
Anomalous cosmic ray (ACR) intensities at 1 AU at solar minimum generally track galactic cosmic ray (GCR) intensities such as those measured by neutron monitors, albeit with differences between solar polarity cycles. The unusual cycle 23/24 solar minimum was long-lasting with very low sunspot numbers and significantly reduced interplanetary magnetic field strength and solar wind dynamic pressure and turbulence, but also featured a heliospheric current sheet tilt that remained high for an extended period. Peak ACR intensities did not recover to the maximum values reached during the last two A>0 solar minima and just barely reached the last A<0 levels. However, GCR intensities in 2009 (neutron monitor rates and also at ∼200 MeV/nucleon) were the highest recorded during the last 50 years, indicating their intensities were not as heavily modulated during their transport from the outer heliosphere. This unexpected difference in the behavior of ACRs and GCRs remains unexplained, but suggests that either the ACR source intensity may have weakened since the last A<0 epoch, or perhaps that ACR intensities at 1 AU in the ecliptic may be more sensitive than GCRs to the higher tilt angle. This seems plausible if the ACR source intensity is greater at low latitudes during A<0 cycles, while the GCR distribution at the heliospheric boundary is more uniform in latitude. Shortly after an abrupt increase in the current sheet tilt angle in late 2009, both ACR and GCR intensities showed dramatic decreases, marking the end of solar minimum modulation conditions for this cycle.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/v471577130j58696/
vukcevic and carla, thanks
Vukcevic: I agree there are INTERNAL MATTERS in Earth as well – tectonic plate movement (very long term) and shorter term internal magnetic changes which affect at minimum the earth’s magnetic cross section, and we have noted it appears a stronger earth’s magnetic field is associated with a warmer world. This is in line with our general smoothed out observation that more solar particles => warming.
The GCR theory is either no effect or cooling because a larger magnetosphere might capture a few more Cosmic Rays and that theory’s general line is such cause cloud nucleation and cooling.
Carla. We do NOT know everything or even claim to know more than a drop of what needs to be known but I didnt quite understand your point.
All My comment above has also been posted on weatheraction.com where comments on it specifically can be made. short link = http://bit.ly/mQhihD
Thanks, Piers
Thanks Dr S. this article is explaining the solar magnetic cycle involvement just fine..
Unusual time histories of galactic and anomalous cosmic rays
at 1 AU over the deep solar minimum of cycle 23/24
Frank B. McDonald,1 William R. Webber,2 and Donald V. Reames1
Received 7 June 2010; revised 12 July 2010; accepted 26 July 2010; published 18 September 2010.
Carla says:
May 19, 2011 at 11:37 am
Peak ACR intensities did not recover to the maximum values reached
So even less reason to worry about ACRs. The ACRs have much lower energy that the GCRs and are thus modulated very differently [relatively more, in fact] than the GCRs. The different modulations will teach us about the mechanism and the conditions for the modulation. But since the intensity and energy of ACRs are so much smaller than that of GCRs we don’t need to consider the ACRs important factors.
Carla says:
May 19, 2011 at 11:37 am
Shortly after an abrupt increase in the current sheet tilt angle in late 2009, both ACR and GCR intensities showed dramatic decreases, marking the end of solar minimum modulation conditions for this cycle.
As we expected, ever since we first figured out long ago how important the HCS is for modulation of cosmic rays: http://www.leif.org/research/HCS-Nature-1976.pdf
The Galactic cosmic ray mystery continues..but sign and tilt angles questions answered nicely, even has a reference to .. our good friend Dr. S..and company..
Unusual time histories of galactic and anomalous cosmic rays
at 1 AU over the deep solar minimum of cycle 23/24
Frank B. McDonald,1 William R. Webber,2 and Donald V. Reames1
Received 7 June 2010; revised 12 July 2010; accepted 26 July 2010; published 18 September 2010.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/current/si/links/2010GL044218.pdf
[11] The three cosmic ray intensities in Figure 2 increase
rapidly after the “Halloween Events” in late 2003 which
marked the end of the solar maximum of cycle 23. This
initial increase is followed by an ∼1.5 year plateau region
centered about 2004.7. Since that time, the GCR and ACR
intensities increased continuously over the following 3 years
(except for a brief decrease associated with a small transient
increase of 5.5° in the tilt angle) reaching a broad minimum
between 2009.5 and 2009.85 followed by a sharp decrease
beginning in ∼2009.9. The relative changes compared to
cycle 21 can be seen more clearly in Figure 3 where the
cycle 21 data has been shifted forward 20 years.
[20] The more sharply peaked time history of all cosmic
ray ions over the solar minimum of cycles 19 and 21 show
the important role of drift effects in qA < 0 epochs. While
the 2008.7 transient decreased in tilt angle produces a larger
percentage change at low energies, it should be noted that
the relative change from the onset of cycle 23 in 1997 to the
2001.5 maximum is much larger at lower energies. The ratio
of the 5° change in tilt angle to the % change from solar
minimum to solar maximum (1997.7–2001.5) is 3% of the
SANAE solar cycle decrease, 0.7% for 200 MeV/n GCR He
and 0.2% for 8–18 MeV/n 0, indicating that the tilt angle
plays a significant role at the higher energies.
Carla says:
May 19, 2011 at 12:44 pm
The Galactic cosmic ray mystery continues..but sign and tilt angles questions answered nicely, even has a reference to .. our good friend Dr. S..and company..
John Wilcox and myself are the originators of the theory that the tilt angle [which is a misnomer as the HCS is not tilted at all, but warped] controls the cosmic ray flux: http://www.leif.org/research/HCS-Nature-1976.pdf
In addition to that there are much smaller effects having to do with drifts of the GCRs in the different polarities which causes a slight alternation in sizes between cycles. But since the ACRs have much less energy and intensity that the GCRs they wouldn’t in the climate debate.
Carla says:
May 19, 2011 at 12:44 pm
“Unusual time histories of galactic and anomalous cosmic rays at 1 AU over the deep solar minimum of cycle 23/24”
One is ‘supposed’ to say something like that [to get a paper accepted these days], but there was really nothing ‘unusual’ about that minimum, see: http://www.leif.org/research/Historical%20Solar%20Cycle%20Context.pdf
We probably had the same situation around 1965 when the polar fields were also weak.
Holgate (2007) shows a steady rise of sea-level throughout the 20 Century (mean rate = 1.74 mm/yr), with no increase in rate during recent decades (Fig.4). Sea level rise is mainly due to thermal expansion of the oceans, plus some land ice melting.
It also shows that the rate of sea level rise over the 20th Century is strongly modulated. Interestingly, the modulation has a good association with the sun spot cycle, however there is currently no established mechanism to explain such association. Variations in Solar Irradiance are too small to account for the modulation.
What an outrageous comment.
Just what do you think high albedo clouds cause on the surface, Leif? I’d think “shade” would be a fair description. Blocked/bounced/intercepted light, y’know?
Jeez.
Brian H says:
May 22, 2011 at 3:34 am
What an outrageous comment.
Let me try again: Leif Svalgaard says:
“cloud cover changes the albedo, i.e. what doesn’t even get to the Earth in the first place.”