You’ve probably all heard of Svensmark and the Galactic Cosmic Ray (GCR) to cloud cover modulation theory by now. Lot’s of warmists say it is “discredited”. However, CERN in Switzerland isn’t following that thinking, and after getting some encouraging results in the CLOUD06 experiment, they have funded a much larger and more comprehensive CLOUD09 experiment. I figure if it is “discredited”, a bunch of smart guys and gals like CERN wouldn’t be ramping up the investigation. There’s also word now of a new correlation:
I get so many tips now it is hard to choose, but this one is a gem. If you look at nothing else this month, please take the time to download the slide show from CERN’s Jasper Kirkby at the end of this article.
He does a superb job of tying it all together. I found Kirkby’s slide show quite interesting, and I’ve grabbed some slides for our WUWT readers. He proposes a GCR to cloud droplet mechanism, which to me, makes sense meteorologically. He also touches on the possibility that the Inter-Tropical Convergence Zone (ITCZ) may have been shifted due to GCR modulation during the LIA/Maunder Minimum. This ties in with Willis Eschenbach’s theories of the ITCZ being a “thermostatic mechanism” for the planet with some amplification effects. – Anthony
Norm Potter writes in Tips and Notes for WUWT with this-
The end is near for the warmists, I suspect. This month, Jasper Kirkby of CERN explained the Centre’s CLOUD experiment, which is moving forward:
“The current understanding of climate change in the industrial age is that it is predominantly caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gases, with relatively small natural contributions due to solar irradiance and volcanoes. However, palaeoclimatic reconstructions show that the climate has frequently varied on 100-year time scales during the Holocene (last 10 kyr) by amounts comparable to the present warming – and yet the mechanism or mechanisms are not understood. Some of these reconstructions show clear associations with solar variability, which is recorded in the light radio-isotope archives that measure past variations of cosmic ray intensity. However, despite the increasing evidence of its importance, solar-climate variability is likely to remain controversial until a physical mechanism is established.
“Estimated changes of solar irradiance on these time scales appear to be too small to account for the climate observations. This raises the question of whether cosmic rays may directly affect the climate, providing an effective indirect solar forcing mechanism. Indeed recent satellite observations – although disputed – suggest that cosmic rays may affect clouds. This talk presents an overview of the palaeoclimatic evidence for solar/cosmic ray forcing of the climate, and reviews the possible physical mechanisms. These will be investigated in the CLOUD experiment which begins to take data at the CERN PS later this year.”
I found this side on page 29 to be plausible from a meteorological standpoint:
Here is a slide showing the ITCZ shift he’s proposing:
And here is the data and some conjectures, obviously more data is needed. However what is seen so far certainly seems far from “discredited” as some warmists say.
In the conclusions of his slide show, Kirkby outlines the state of knowledge and areas of investigation:
• Climate has continually varied in the past, and the causes are not well understood – especially on the 100 year timescalerelevant for today’s climate change
• Strong evidence for solar-climate variability, but no established mechanism. A cosmic ray influence on clouds is a leading candidate
• CLOUD at CERN aims to study and quantify the cosmic raycloud mechanism in a controlled laboratory experiment
• The question of whether – and to what extent – the climate is influenced by solar/cosmic ray variability remains central to our understanding of anthropogenic climate change
More info, see: http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1181073/ – the CERN Colloquium
Download Kirkby’s Slide show (Large 7.8 MB PDF, be patient)
http://indico.cern.ch/getFile.py/access?resId=0&materialId=slides&confId=52576
Backup Copy on WUWT server: Kirkby_CERN_slideshow09
Gino (10:32:11) :
GCR theory has more to do with the strength and activity of the sun’s magnetic field and how it interacts with the earths field. Am I off the mark?
Not on the first point, yes on the second. The modulation of cosmic rays takes place far from Earth, way out in interplanetary space. But the modulation is very small, only a few percent, depending on energy. The most energetic cosmic rays [that may be presumed to have the largest effect] are modulated the least.
Both the 14C and the 10Be records are influenced by climate so there is a certain amount of circular reasoning possible. See: http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009GL038004.pdf [form their conclusion: “The good long-term agreement between 10Be variations in both cores reflects a regional response to production [i.e. GCRs] and climate changes”.
@Annette (08:36:06) : “CO2 has increased from 280 ppm to 360ppm or so. That means that CO2 composition in the atmosphere has gone from .0028% to .0036%; a change in atmospheric composition of only .008%”
A change from 0.0028% to 0.0036% is an absolute change of 0.008 perctange points, but a relative change of 28.6%. That is, the number density of CO2 molecules has increased by 28.6% over it’s former value. That is the number to which you should compare the .1% change in TSI.
I’m still looking for evidence that supports Svensmark’s suggestion of:
solar changes/GCR changes/cloudiness changes/ changes in global air temperature trend.
as opposed to my suggestion which is:
Solar changes over centuries/oceanic energy release rate changes over decades/air temperature changes/air circulation changes/changes in global air temperature trend.
My description accommodates the observed 30 year ‘lag’ AND a latitudinal shift in ALL the air circulation systems.
It will be interesting to see how this pans out but in view of the quantity of particulates already in the air I rather doubt that the provision of more by increased GCRs would be of significance.
Additionally ocean SST changes would be a much more powerful driver than any cloudiness changes induced by GCRs.
After all, the water for the clouds comes from the oceans in the first instance so if the SSTs cool down with a reduction in overall evaporation there would not be much that a few more GCRs could do to counter it.
We shall see.
Eichler paper:
http://www.eawag.ch/organisation/abteilungen/surf/publikationen/2009_eichler.pdf
If you cook the 20th century global temperature record, no physical mechanism will ever agree with it. But models will!
Leif Svalgaard (10:47:49) :
Gino (10:32:11) :
GCR theory has more to do with the strength and activity of the sun’s magnetic field and how it interacts with the earths field. Am I off the mark?
Not on the first point, yes on the second. The modulation of cosmic rays takes place far from Earth, way out in interplanetary space. But the modulation is very small, only a few percent, depending on energy.
Except in Jupiter’s vicinity where the energetic electron flux is intense.
Flanagan (08:45:51) :
Si(o) although it is only 0.0028% of the atmosphere, it is responsible for almost 10% of the greenhouse effect, although the magnitude of this effect has been estimated through computer modeling and has not been substantiated with empirical evidence.
Bruce Stewart (10:43:02) :
… in Siberia, which (due to latitudinal variation) would correspond to a much smaller increase (perhaps one-tenth?) in global temperature (assuming this particular location is not anomalous).
Shows how one should not base sweeping statements of global properties on regional variations.
I feel for the CERN physicists. If they confirm Svenmark’s theory in even a minor way, AGW advocates will savage their reputations. They’ll be called denialists… enemies of science. They’ll be called tools of Big Oil if they so much as drive a car that uses gas. Their homes will be defaced by Hansen’s minions. They’ll be forced out of their current positions. And of course, their papers will never be published by prominent science mags.
While a Nature opinion piece a couple of years ago advocated quantifying whatever effect GCRs may have, anyone with a brain should know that that means “discredit this theory definitively”. The physicists are taking risking ruin.
I wonder why the AGW crowd says it is mans activities then tries to pin the blame on an innocent little trace gas. What they discount and seemingly everybody else as well is the direct emmissions as a result of mans activities in the form of BTUs. Being that life itself is a combustion process and that all of mans activities involve combustion processes of some sort and none of these combustion processes is anywhere near 100% efficient, that leaves us with an enormous amout of loose BTUs available to heat up the earth and its atmosphere. I just wonder why no one has ever addressed this?
What bothers me is the uncritical acceptance of contrary papers simply because they support one’s pet theories. The GCR theory and the various correlations that have been produced posit the there is no delay whatsoever between GCRs and climate [or is it weather], yet the Eichler paper here referred to finds a 30-year lag. Now, one could stretch the imagination and say: “OK, so the solar cycle variation reported by Svensmark is really not for the cycles he looked at, but for the cycles three cycles before”. This will be a very hard sell, because the mechanism sorta falls by the wayside: do the GCRs hang around for 30 years before doing their thing?
REPLY: no but ocean heat does have a long period, and if GCR >> clouds are modulating uptake/release of ocean energy, then I think there is reason to consider it.
– Anthony
Leif,
The steepest rise in the red curve occurred long before CO2 increases occured(pre-1900). In fact, almost all of the rise since 1850 occurred prior to 1950, while the biggest increases in CO2 occurred since 1950.
And then there’s that pesky period circa 1730-1800 showing a ~1.8 degree rise. CO2 can’t explain that.
If you actually read the Eichler paper, their conclusion states:
“However, during the industrial period (1850–2000) solar forcing became less important and only the CO2 concentrations show a significant correlation with the temperature record” how this can be interpreted as ‘the end is near for the Warmists’ beats me.
Tim Clark (11:22:20) :
And then there’s that pesky period circa 1730-1800 showing a ~1.8 degree rise. CO2 can’t explain that.
Neither can the Sun…
arch stanton (08:10:03) :
“Svensmark’s hypothesis faces the challenge of several papers that could not produce correlations similar to the ones he seemed to find. For this reason (and others) it is not widely accepted as a prominent driver of 20th century climate change. However there is a chance that it does have some minor influence on the climate. As pointed out in the Nature opinion piece on this topic (2007?) quantifying whatever effect it may have is a worthy endeavor.”
I think you should look at this by Nir Shaviv:
http://www.sciencebits.com/SloanAndWolfendale
Speaking of the “end” see:
The Extinction Oscillator
The Big Idea / by Adrian Melott / June 29, 2009
Hopefully Cloud-9 results will be published in time to get the word out, and, to get governments mobilized. I’ve done a serious search. There are almost no jurisdictions that have developed cold period contingencies, all effort over the past 20 years has gone into “killer AGW” contingencies. We are massively exposed.
The hypothesis of there being a cosmic ray connection doesn’t have to be correct, but it does show that there are still some very broad issues in the climate that are still open questions.
The warmists tried to preempt all this by foretelling that any disagreement which might arise was just oil companies seeding misinformation. That’s like claiming that British Petrolium would be able to convince the public that the sun doesn’t shine. Even if they are trying to seed disinformation, the fact that the issue is open to misinformation, is itself broadly speaking, “evidence” that the issue is still open to question.
It looks like the Little Ice Age should be expected to be regional. GCR might be forcing more clouds around the equator, forcing cooling and reducing heat transport (heat being carried into tropical ocean by increased rainfall, and a reduced Hadley circulation due to fewer high thunderstorms causing less heat to flow to mid-latitudes?). But does GCR reduce heat (reflection?) or trap it in the tropics? Wetter land doesn’t imply higher temperatures — maybe something like coral studies detected higher LIA temps around the equator?
GCR cause water vapor to form clouds. Could the Sun also produce these “particles” or something like GCR’s that would be part of the cause and affect?
Sorry if someone has already brought this connection up but there were already a bunch of posts.
The divergence of the temperature in the first graph could be the photoshopped temperature data manipulation by the biased scientists that have “corrected” it for the scientific community.
Leif Svalgaard (11:15:51) :
REPLY: no but ocean heat does have a long period, and if GCR >> clouds are modulating uptake/release of ocean energy, then I think there is reason to consider it.
– Anthony
But, their correlations were not with something lagged 20-30 years, but a here and now thing. You can’t have it both ways. And you must be assuming that the clouds modulate the temperature of the oceans and not of the land surface. Or perhaps that the GCR-generated clouds prefer the oceans, that is after all where the water is… The more of those special pleading one piles up, the less likely is it that there is anything.
So,
Do GCRs cause clouds that reduce energy input to the oceans and thereby cool the air ?
or
Do oceanic sea surface temperature reductions cool the air which causes more low level cloud ?
and
Do SST variations (from multidecadal phase shifts) arise from the internal circulations of the oceans or are they induced by variations in GCRs affecting cloudiness ?
I’m driven to the oceanic driver rather than the GCR driver for various reasons including the lack of a 30 year cycle in GCRs that could explain oceanic phase shifts at such intervals.
Is there really a shortage of particulates for cloud formation that would be resolved by more GCRs ?
Would changes in the air from extra GCRs really be powerful enough to disrupt ocean behaviour given the huge density difference between air and water and the thermal capacity of water ?
Wouldn’t the changes in GCR levels in the air be on too short a timescale to produce a measurable response in the oceans ?
Any other ideas ?
“whether – and to what extent – the climate is influenced by solar/cosmic ray variability remains central to our understanding of anthropogenic climate change”
As in: whether AGW is less of a factor than was thought, or is a non-factor.
Lol. Go Henrik!
Anthony, it looks like you could subtract the Be10 curve from the temperature record and get a pretty good handle on the ‘Hanslification’ of the temperature data over the C20th.
I’ll let the big brains debate the details of what factors influence climate. To me, the message I take from this and other reports such as those that Alan Carlin compiled, is that the science is most assuredly NOT settled. That is the message that seems to grate on the nerves of those who are apparently now being referred to as “Warmists” . It is also the message that should be sent to the various governments around the world who currently see a great deal of political power and money to made from wearing the cloak of “settled science”.
The objective here should be to convince those who would benefit from “settled science” that it is far more beneficial to them to adopt the view that it is NOT settled. How that might be accomplished, I don’t know, but it seems to me that a marketing approach might be useful. We have this wonderful tool called the Internet that can and has been used to great effect to influence governments and businesses. I suggest that it can be used far more effectively than it has to date.
Anthony, it looks like you could subtract the Be10 curve from the temperature record and get a pretty good handle on the ‘Hanslification’ of the temperature data over the C20th.
You have to admit that the difference between Be10 and the temperature starting right around the beginning of NWS readings starts to resemble the same amount as NOAA adjustments, although it is an apples/organges measurement comparison.