
Reblogged from Calder’s Updates
In the climax to the Danes’ experiments, cloud seeds flout the theories
Near to the end of the story that starts with stars exploding in the Galaxy and ends with extra clouds gathering, a small but important paragraph was missing till now. From experiments in Copenhagen reported in 2006 and reconfirmed in 2011 in Aarhus and Geneva (CERN, CLOUD), cosmic rays coming from old supernovas can indeed make molecular clusters a few millionths of a millimetre wide, floating in the air. But can these aerosols really grow nearly a million times in mass to be large enough to become “cloud condensation nuclei” on which water droplets can form – as required by Henrik Svensmark’s cosmic theory of climate change?
Opponents pointed out that theoretical models said No, the growth of additional aerosols would be blocked by a resulting shortage of condensable gases like sulphuric acid in the atmosphere.
Now for the first time, an unexpected trick that Mother Nature had up her sleeve is revealed by experiment. The discovery is elegantly explained by a new way in which sulphuric acid forms in the atmosphere, as announced in a paper by Svensmark and two of his colleagues in Denmark’s National Space Institute in Copenhagen, Martin Enghoff and Jens Olaf Pepke Pedersen. They have submitted it to Physical Review Letters. A preprint is available on arXiv here http://arxiv.org/abs/1202.5156v1
A brief history.
Last year’s attempts to dismiss the Aarhus and CERN results as inconsequential for climate change didn’t dismay the Danes. They knew there was something wrong with the current understanding because they had observational support for the whole chain from solar activity to cosmic rays to aerosols to clouds in the real atmosphere (Svensmark, Bondo and Svensmark 2009). In order to dig into the physics, they decided to rebuild, in the basement of the Space Institute, the 8 cubic metre experimental chamber SKYII which six years ago was used as the CLOUD prototype chamber at CERN,
In the limelight of the atmospheric drama, sulphuric acid is one of the commonest of trace gases and very important for both the formation and the growth of aerosols. When the Sun rises in the morning, its ultraviolet rays convert sulphur dioxide, ozone and water vapour in the air into sulphuric acid molecules. These are continuously lost as they club together with further water and a little ammonia into very small molecular clusters. Nevertheless, the concentration of sulphuric acid rises to a peak and then diminishes as the Sun goes down in the evening.
A clue that something more is going on comes from the persistence all through the night of sulphuric acid at about 10 per cent of the daytime maximum. If these molecules too are continuously lost, they must be replenished by a chemical reaction that doesn’t need ultraviolet light.
What did the new experiment called SKY2 show? Without going into technical details that you’ll find in the paper, let’s just say that the primary result flatly contradicts the theoretical prediction that the infant aerosols couldn’t grow up into cloud condensation nuclei. Here’s a figure from the paper.
Molecular clusters grow over time, in the SKY2 experiment in Copenhagen. The horizontal axis is scaled in nanometres (millionths of a millimetre) and each blue point shows the relative number of clusters of that size before and after the experimental runs. Anything over 1.0 means that growth has continued. In contrast, the red points illustrate a pessimistic prediction of previous theories, that growth should cease when the size passes 50 nanometres. On the other hand, the black curve running through the blue points shows what is to be expected if there is a continual supply of sulphuric acid. The persistent growth of clusters occurs only in the presence of gamma rays that simulate cosmic rays and set electrons free to influence the chemistry.
So what’s the explanation? What new pathway supplies the sulphuric acid needed to keep the growth going? The Danes recall a suggestion in their 2006 SKY report that electrons can act like catalysts, being used over and over again to promote chemical action. In the new paper they say: A possible explanation could be that the charged clusters are producing additional [sulphuric acid] molecules from reactions involving negative ion chemistry of [ozone, sulphur dioxide and water], where a negative ion can be reused in a catalytic production of several [sulphuric acid molecules].
Depending on the concentrations of trace gases, several may mean dozens. And where do the electrons come from? They are liberated by cosmic rays raining down by night as well as by day. If the results of the experiment and these ideas are confirmed, there’s an amazing pay-off. The cosmic rays help to make the extra sulphuric acid that allows (1) a number of additional aerosols to form and (2) a larger number of aerosols to grow into cloud condensation nuclei. Without this second effect the aerosols would grow slowly and most of the extra aerosols would be lost before becoming large enough to seed clouds.
That ions liberated by cosmic rays promote a second pathway for forming sulphuric acid was already known from an experiment performed in Copenhagen in a collaboration with the University of Copenhagen and the Technical University of Tokyo (see the Enghoff et al. reference below). Depending on whether the sulphuric acid comes from ultraviolet action or is ion-induced, it has different signatures in the relative abundances of isotopes of sulphur. What’s more, the number of molecules made by the ion route greatly surpassed the number of ions available, again implying reuse of the electrons in a catalytic fashion.
To summarize the latest paper, the Svensmark, Enghoff and Pepke Pedersen abstract reads:
In experiments where ultraviolet light produces aerosols from trace amounts of ozone, sulphur dioxide, and water vapour, the number of additional small particles produced by ionization by gamma sources all grow up to diameters larger than 50 nm, appropriate for cloud condensation nuclei. This result contradicts both ion-free control experiments and also theoretical models that predict a decline in the response of larger particles due to an insufficiency of condensable gases (which leads to slower growth) and to larger losses by coagulation between the particles. This unpredicted experimental finding points to a process not included in current theoretical models, possibly an ion-induced formation of sulphuric acid in small clusters.
Scandals of a political character engulf climate physics these days, but future historians may shake their heads more sadly over scientific negligence. Isn’t it amazing that such a fundamental activity of sulphuric acid, going on over your head right now, has passed unnoticed since 1875 when cloud seeding was discovered, since 1996 when Svensmark found the link between cosmic rays and cloud cover, and since 2006 when the Danes suggested the catalytic role of electrons? Perhaps the experts were confused by the ever-present dislike of the role of the Sun in climate change.
So Svensmark and the small team in Copenhagen have had nearly all of the breakthroughs to themselves. And the chain of experimental and observational evidence is now much more secure:
Supernova remnants → cosmic rays → solar modulation of cosmic rays → variations in cluster and sulphuric acid production → variation in cloud condensation nuclei → variation in low cloud formation → variation in climate.
Svensmark won’t comment publicly on the new paper until it’s accepted for publication. But I can report that, in conversation, he sounds like a man who has reached the end of a very long trek in defiance of continual opposition and mockery.
References
Henrik Svensmark, Martin B. Enghoff and Jens Olaf Pepke Pedersen, “Response of Cloud Condensation Nuclei (> 50 nm) to changes in ion-nucleation”, submitted for publication 2012. Preprint available at http://arxiv.org/abs/1202.5156v1
H. Svensmark, T. Bondo and J. Svensmark, “Cosmic ray decreases affect atmospheric aerosols and clouds”, Geophysical Research Letters, 36, L15101, 2009
Henrik Svensmark, Jens Olaf Pepke Pedersen, Nigel Marsh, Martin Enghoff and Ulrik Uggerhøj, ‘Experimental Evidence for the Role of Ions in Particle Nucleation under Atmospheric Conditions’, Proceedings of the Royal Society A, Vol. 463, pp. 385–96, 2007 (online release 2006). This was the original SKY experiment in a basement in Copenhagen.
M. B. Enghoff, N. Bork, S. Hattori, C. Meusinger, M. Nakagawa, J. O. P. Pedersen, S. Danielache, Y. Ueno, M. S. Johnson, N. Yoshida, and H. Svensmark, “An isotope view on ionising radiation as a source of sulphuric acid”, Atmos. Chem. Phys. Discuss., 12, 5039–5064, 2012. See http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/12/5039/2012/acpd-12-5039-2012.html
Some relevant items on this blog
Aarhus experiment http://calderup.wordpress.com/2011/05/17/accelerator-results-on-cloud-nucleation-2/
CERN CLOUD experiment http://calderup.wordpress.com/2011/08/24/cern-experiment-confirms-cosmic-ray-action/
Observational evidence of aerosol growth http://calderup.wordpress.com/2010/05/03/do-clouds-disappear/
Summary of Svensmark’s theory http://calderup.wordpress.com/2010/05/01/nutshell/
=============================================================
Books by Nigel Calder http://calderup.wordpress.com/category/4-buy-the-chilling-stars/
h/t to Matthew Pearce
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Concratulation, Svensmark! So energy turns into mass?
If aerosol formation continues at night, then could cloud formation continue, too (presumably at a lower rate with less water vapor available from evaporation)? And maybe offset to some extent the cooling effect of daytime clouds by increasing “back radiation”?
If this holds up, will Svensmark be awarded a Noble Prize?
The main problem with Svensmark’s ideas is that the climate does not follow the cosmic ray intensity.
This has been an amazing story to follow…thanks for keeping us updated!
I would be very interested to know what would happen in this process if methane was added to the equation? Would hydrocarbons form?
One also has to assume that post-industrial releases of Sulphur Dioxide has an effect here – more SO2 available for seeding?
Among all the four papers Svensmark submitted to arXiv.org, only one finally gets published. Will this new paper rejected or accepted by PRL? What does the time tag of the paper (Received December 2011) and the upload date Feb 23, 2012 mean?
http://arxiv.org/find/physics/1/au:+Svensmark_H/0/1/0/all/0/1
“So Svensmark and the small team in Copenhagen have had nearly all of the breakthroughs to themselves. And the chain of experimental and observational evidence is now much more secure”
===================
I wish the best to Svensmark and his team.
Fortunately there were some funding that was not wasted on the CO2 scheme. Imagine other scientific / engineering solutions that may have been made with regards to reliable energy solutions if not for the waste on CO2 CAGW. Very sad. The USA is now a very minor player in real science. Very sad indeed.
Another sad result of the CO2 causes CAGW is the generational loss of true scientific minds which can be applied to real scientific and engineering research. 20 plus years of corruption in academia and politics will be difficult to remedy in the fields of science. But then we can always rely on the Chinese and other overseas institutions to pick up the slack. Very sad state of affairs in the US. I will leave judgement of the UK to others.
I see Leif S. got his $0.00002 in right away! That bodes well.
Leif downplays everything that comes out of Svensmarks hands as usual. Why don’t you read the paper as a start? You might find that this time Svensmark has made a significant scientific finding.
Game set and match to Svensmark, Kirby and Shaviv.
A good theory, supported by observation and now with clear experimental results to back it up. Proper science, a phenomenon unknown in that special field known as climate science where conjecture and alarm trump science every time.
Excellent news. The GCR theory is growing up in a very promising way. Amazing how many of these hitherto unexpected mechanisms Mother Nature has up her sleeve.
Very interesting. I await the outcome of the review process. I’m not certain that this is all of the story even yet, but it does sound like some details are being filled in.
rgb
As every day passes so we find out just how little we know about the processes and their interactions that govern what happens in our atmosphere, being as it is, ever more complex than anyone could ever guess.
No wonder its not accurately modelled or capable of being so, no wonder the climate crackpots can only resort to lies, deception and misdirection to explain it.
IF, and I mean IF, this stands up to peer review and the results are able to be reproduced, this work could bode very badly for the gravy train.
Leif is correct. If the results are confirmed, correlation will then need to be found, but how?
This is the conclusive evidence as far as I can see…
Leif says: “climate does not follow the cosmic ray intensity.”
Several dozen studies say otherwise. Two dozen are cited in the second section of my AR5 review here.
@leif
At least one thing GCRs have in common with CO2 then.
Science the way it ought to be done. Thank goodness for Svensmark and other real scientists hanging tough despite the long haul.
This is science following wherever the findings lead you even when you get told you’r a fool for going that way and the science is settled. They should all get a prise for their determination to follow the facts and find the answers.
Also like Heartland they are getting good results for what must be a tiny investment compared to the CO2 crowed.
James Bull
Leif Svalgaard said @ur momisugly March 1, 2012 at 11:08 pm
It doesn’t seem to follow CO2 concentration either.
There was a suggestion of a link (the NAO & AMO) with the intensity of heliospheric magnetic field at the Earth’s orbit (HMF), but that broke down in the early 1990s.
Fortunately there is still one more horse in the race which responds to the events of the solar system (second graph):
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GNAP.htm
Leif Svalgaard says:
March 1, 2012 at 11:08 pm
The main problem with Svensmark’s ideas is that the climate does not follow the cosmic ray intensity.
Are all cosmic rays are the same? When comparing total cosmic ray input with the negative charge catalysing cosmic ray input are we comparing like with like?
Serious question. I’m not an expert.
Many millions have been expended finding and modelling various corrections and supposed confounding factors in the hope of bolstering CO2 as a major climate driver.
Let’s see what happens when a fraction of that effort and budget is applied to looking for a GCR based climate “signal”