Svensmark has a new paper and it is a doozy: Cosmic ray decreases affect atmospheric aerosols and clouds (full text PDF).
The major conclusion: “A link between the Sun, cosmic rays, aerosols, and liquid-water clouds appears to exist on a global scale…”
This paper confirms 13 years of discoveries that suggest a key role for cosmic rays in climate change. It links observable variations in the world’s cloudiness to laboratory experiments in Copenhagen showing how cosmic rays help generate atmospheric aerosols.
This is important, because it confirms the existence of a sun-earth atmospheric modulation mechanism for clouds and aerosols. It is seen in an event called a Forbush Decrease, which A Forbush decrease is a rapid decrease in the observed galactic cosmic raycoronal mass ejection (CME). It occurs due to the magnetic field of the plasma solar wind sweeping some of the galactic cosmic rays away from Earth. Here is what the Oulu Neutron Monitor plot looked like during such and event on May15th, 2005:
When the CME hit Earth, the magnetic field of the CME deflects the Galactic Cosmic Rays and the secondary particle flux (Neutrons) decreases. In this graph there is also another Forbush decrease visible, which was caused by another, not that powerful flare, which CME passed Earth a few days before this event.
See more from CosmicRays.org Now at last, a linkage has been established on earth showing such events affect cloud cover and aerosols. Luboš Motl gives a good summary ina post from a few days ago, shown below.
Forbush decreases confirm cosmoclimatology
By Luboš Motl
Recall that cosmoclimatology of Henrik Svensmark and others postulates that the galactic cosmic rays are able to create “seeds” of low-lying clouds that may cool the Earth’s surface. A higher number of cosmic rays can therefore decrease the temperature. The creation of the cloud nuclei is caused by ionization and resembles the processes in a cloud chamber.
The fluctuations of the cosmic ray flux may occur due to the variable galactic environment as well as the solar activity: a more active Sun protects us from a part of the cosmic rays. It means that a more active Sun decreases the amounts of low-lying clouds, which means that it warms the Earth.
Because the low-lying clouds remove 30 Watts per squared meter in average (over time and the Earth) or so, one has to be very careful not only about the very existence of the clouds but also about the variations of cloudiness by 5% or so which translates to a degree of temperature change.
A systematic effect on the clouds – e.g. one of the cosmic origin – is a nightmare for the champions of the silly CO2 toy model of climatology because the cloud variations easily beat any effect of CO2. Two alarmists, Sloan and Wolfendale, wanted to rule out Svensmark’s theory by looking at the Forbush decreases, specific events of a solar origin named after Scott Forbush who studied them 6 decades ago, involving the plasma. However, their paper was incorrect.
In April 2008, this blog (The Reference Frame) published the following relevant article:
Sloan and Wolfendale complained that no cosmoclimatological signal could have been seen during the Forbush decreases, i.e. short episodes when the activity of our beloved star decreases the amount of cosmic rays reaching Earth. However, Nir Shaviv explained that it should be expected that such a signal is not seen in the averaged monthly data they had used.
In order to see the “tiger in the jungle”, using Svensmark’s words from a press release
that will be published tomorrow (I am allowed to read it now because my uncle lives in Melbourne which already has August), and in order to separate these clean effects from the huge meteorological noise, one needs to increase the temporal resolution to several days and also cover the whole globe to dilute the effects of local weather.
Newest paper
Tomorrow, on August 1st, 2009, Geophysical Research Letters will publish a new paper by Henrik Svensmark, Torsten Bondo, and Jacob Svensmark:
The People’s Voice (summary of the paper)
Cosmic ray decreases affect atmospheric aerosols and clouds (full text).
When you click the second link above and obtain an error message, press alt/d and enter to reload the URL: without a direct external link, the PDF file will be displayed correctly. Or open the Google cache as PDF-like HTML.
Svensmark and his collaborators have looked at 26 Forbush events since 1987 (those that were strong according to their impact on the spectrum seen in the low troposphere where it matters): most of them occur close to the solar maxima (in the middle of the 11-year cycles). The observations with a much better temporal resolution imply that the mass of water stored in clouds decreases by 4-7%, with the minimum reached after a nearly 1-week delay needed for the cloud nuclei to get mature. Roughly three billions of tons of water droplets suddenly disappear from the atmosphere (they remain there as vapor, which is more likely to warm the air than to cool it down).
An independent set of measurements has also shown that the amount of aerosols, i.e. potential nuclei of the new clouds, also decreases. All these “strength vs decrease” graphs display a lot of noise but the negative slopes are almost always significant at the 95% level (with one dataset being an exception, at 92%, which is still higher than the official IPCC confidence level that climate change is mostly man-made).
Each Forbush decrease can therefore warm up the Earth by the same temperature change as the effect of all carbon dioxide emitted by the mankind since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. While you might think that such an effect is temporary and lasts a few weeks only, it is important to notice that similar variations in the solar activity, the solar magnetic field, and the galactic cosmic rays take place at many different conceivable frequencies, so there are almost certainly many effects whose impact on the temperature – through the clouds – is at least equal to the whole effect of man-made carbon dioxide.
|
18 votes
|
thks molon, i figured out fd’s are singular events after leif pointed that out to me and what svensmark is saying that the big ones have a measurable effect….what i am trying to get an answer or learned opinion based on measurement of the variance in gcr’s during this “quiet” sun… assuming gcr’s were not measured during previous minimum’s, is the current amount of change in the “measured” gcr’s (change in energy from gcr ‘s reaching the earth’s atmosphere) enough to effect clouds that may control temperature/climate? …i understand svensmark hypothesis’s are exactly that, but what do the physics say?…perhaps you have some thoughts about this…
Molon Labe (15:20:10) :
And Leif’s suggestion that the FDs are selected based on magnitude of effect is I think incorrect.
I could go back and refresh my memory on this, but IIRC, the selection was based on the size of ionization [that is supposedly directly connected to the clouds], and not on the intensity of the GCRs. You might spare me that extra effort by checking that and perhaps find and post the exact statement describing the section criteria.
sammy k (19:32:26) :
Hopefully some of the enthusiasts on this might provide you with the encouraging answers you seek.
“Pamela Gray (08:10:46) :
I think that NASA report is a hoax.”
NASA wouldn’t fake anything, would they?
Leif,
The “size of the ionization” is directly related to the “intensity of the GCRs”. That’s not part of the hypothesis and I would think it’s apparent that GCRs cause ionization. The question – and the hypothesis – is whether this ionization affects observable quantities of clouds.
Maybe there’s an issue whether GCRs cause ionization below 3km.
The description of the FD “strength” metric is provided in Section 2 of the paper.
Molon Labe (22:10:59) :
The “size of the ionization” is directly related to the “intensity of the GCRs”.
Not entirely, it also depends on the amount of air in the path, i.e. on the pressure.
The description of the FD “strength” metric is provided in Section 2 of the paper.
What did they say?
The link discussed in article was minus aerosol what was the major part of the study in 1920’s presented in 1931 together with an awful lot of other factors known from oceanography and geology of the time. I believe they were right in their way of predicting the ungoing climate change back then, I belive the article of Svensmark.
The link was by the way so well known/assumed to exist that it’s mentioned in Swedish schoolbooks of ‘nature science’ for 4-5 graders back in 1920’s.
No kidding, huh? There is a connection between the sun, the radiation it emits, and heat on the earth which vaporizes water and forms clouds? Who would have thought that?
Leif Svalgaard (22:46:56) :
Not entirely, it also depends on the amount of air in the path, i.e. on the pressure.
Data from the Oulu Neutron Monitor is pressure corrected.
http://spaceweb.oulu.fi/projects/crs/ICRC_NMdb.pdf
What did they say?
Link at top of page. Section 2 is two paragraphs long.
The question seems to me to be: Does this article show a mechanism that could explain a solar influence, other than TSI, that could push variation over the 0.1% level.
The next question would be: How much?
intuitively, it seems to me that change in gcr’s ionization resultant from change in solar wind and magnetic field, in an otherwise remarkably constant solar output (svalgaard), could account (svensmark) for a change in weather/climate…as a professional involved in earth science, i know change in climate is the norm in earth’s geologic history….i guess at the end of the day the proof that gcr ionization is the mechanism for climatic change, we are back to the same age old proverb, that “size” matters…from the above article, that seems to be svensmarks next task…i have enjoyed the thread and thks to all…
Any change due to solar influences indeed has to either demonstrate a measureable additive or overwhelming nature to Earth’s own ability to greatly vary its weather patterns over a century. And I say century because it is a padded bet. Some oceanic oscillations have a periodicity of 60 years and more on occasion.
Molon Labe (02:45:32) :
“Not entirely, it also depends on the amount of air in the path, i.e. on the pressure.”
Data from the Oulu Neutron Monitor is pressure corrected.
(sigh) They don’t use data of GCRs from Oulu, but the ionization below 3 km. The title of section 2 is explicit: “2. Ranking Forbush decreases by their low-altitude effects”
This paper is an attempt to demonstrate cosmic rays making clouds. I recently read his book, “The Chilling Stars”. It shows an overall theory about how cosmic rays drive long term changes in climate. The sun plays a part in blocking them but the amount of cosmic rays vary due to many cycles and cosmic occurences – for instance:
The death of a close star.
Our solar system going through a sprial band of the qalaxy.
Our solar system movement above and below the plane of the qalaxy.
Many Many Solar Cycles of varying lengths.
The book showed how things like these explains climate over the short and long run.
Changes in low level clouds effect the Arctic region and the Antarctic region exactly the opposite. More low level clouds warms the Antarctic and cools the Arctic. This cloud (cosmic ray) explanation of climate change also explains why the Arctic and Antarctic climate seem to move in opposite directions.
Jim (09:22:25) :
“Cosmic rays penetrate the Earth to the point they can be detected in mines.”
This is true, but the neutrons do not. Despite their neutral charge, neutrons do not travel very far before thermalizing and subsequently interacting with matter in a myriad of reactions (ionization). Water and carbon are excellent moderators of neutron flux as well as absorbers.
Neutrino(s) on the other hand zip through the earth, virtually untouched, making them difficult to detect.
AztecBill (09:18:37)
“Changes in low level clouds effect the Arctic region and the Antarctic region exactly the opposite.”
Interesting. I would appreciate a reference.
“”” G. Karst (09:34:17) :
Jim (09:22:25) :
“Cosmic rays penetrate the Earth to the point they can be detected in mines.”
This is true, but the neutrons do not. Despite their neutral charge, neutrons do not travel very far before thermalizing and subsequently interacting with matter in a myriad of reactions (ionization). Water and carbon are excellent moderators of neutron flux as well as absorbers.
Neutrino(s) on the other hand zip through the earth, virtually untouched, making them difficult to detect. “””
Free neutrons are unstable; as in radioactive so they decay with a half life of around 12-14 minutes. In common materials such as organics, high energy Neutrons will often collide with a nucleus, and eject a Proton (so-called “knock-on” proton). These protons are highly ionising, and are the principal damage causing agent in tissue; from fast neutron exposure.
The decay of thermal Neutrons ralso results in a Proton and electron; probably plus a neutrino. It’s about like swallowing a hand grenade and having it go off inside of you.
I once built a tissue equivalent Neutron monitor to monitor neutron flux in an accelerator lab (Cockroft Walton). We made 14 MeV Neutrons by colliding Deuterons onto heavy ice targets. The polarisation of the resulting neutron beams was the area of study in that part of the Physics Department at the time.
George
“”” Eric (skeptic) (19:31:29) :
Hi cba,
That seems like an excessive focus on cloud cover percentage (62%). Wouldn’t cloud top heights (on average) have a more important role in climate, higher colder ones being cooling and lower warmer cloud tops being generally warming? And that’s just for outgoing IR, how do high and low cloud tops affect albedo (if at all)? Also I assume the cloud top height effect would be latitude dependent? The ice age discussion reminds me that it albedo depends on what is under the clouds if there are clouds.
Thanks for any answers,
Eric “””
Eric, I don’t understand how a fundamentally simple concept (cloud cover variation) can be so difficult to understand.
Clouds are optically visible because they interract with the incoming solar spectrum radiation. Water and ice (of which clouds are made) absorb parts of the visible and near IR spectrum as well as the long wave IR, Water drioplets also optically scatter sunlight; as is plainly visible via the rainbow. That scattering results in clouds being highly diffuse reflectors of solar energy; so the tops of clouds reflect solar energy back out into space (albedo). The energy lost to space by the earth’s albedo is basically solar spectrum radiation as a result of elastic scattering processes, and simple optical (Fresnel) reflection. That lost energy is not absorbed by earth’s surface so it results in cooling of the surface.
The clouds also absorb additional solar energy, and prevent it from reaching the surface, resulting in further surface cooling. The more water in the clouds, the more absorption and the cooler the surface below.
You don’t need a PhD in Climatology to understand that clouds are a major cooling influence on the earth. Svensmark’s work simply shows that the sun can influence earth temperatures other than through the TSI, and modulating the global cloud cover via a cosmic ray or charged particle effect; which is subject to the solar magnetic environment is such a mechanism.
I don’t think Svensmark claims that CRs explain the whole of earth climate variability.
You should read “How Much More Rain Will Global Warming Bring” by Wentz et al in SCIENCE July-7, 2007. They measured the link between global mean surface temperature, and global evaporation, total atmospheric water content, and total global precipitation; and report that a one deg C increase in temperature results in a 7% increase in each of those three measures. The Evap and the precip have to be equal, or else the oceans would end up over our heads.
Is it self evident to you that a 7% increase in total global precipitation must be accompanied by some sort of increase in (precipitable) cloud cover; try 7% as a starting guess. Ergo, warmer surface temperatures result in more clouds which means lower ground level solar insolation and hence surface cooling; i.e. strong negative feedback control of the surface temperature.
It isn’t really rocket science; nor is it just statistical prestidigitation; it’s plain common sense; which unfortunately isn’t too common.
George
Leif Svalgaard (09:00:39) :
(sigh) They don’t use data of GCRs from Oulu, but the ionization below 3 km.
“From responses to an FD in about 130 neutron monitors world-wide and the Nagoya muon detector, the changes in the primary cosmic
ray spectrum at 1 AU are derived.” They don’t say how ionization is measured. I assume it’s taken from neutron monitor data since that is the only measurement described either in Section 2 or the caption to Table 1.
At any rate, the point is that the FD strength is based on ionization, not in terms of the effect on the 4 observables (AERONET, SSM/I, MODIS, ISCPP) as you have implied.
Just a few quick questions from this: ” It links observable variations in the world’s cloudiness to laboratory experiments in Copenhagen showing how cosmic rays help generate atmospheric aerosols.”
Are these fairly complex experiments, or expensive to do? Or can they be done on smaller ‘school room’ science lab type setups in some fashion or another?
Are these experiments, (or ones like them), able to be filmed or recorded in some way as to make them watchable on youtube for example?
I think if they can be done small scale and cheaply that it would be a good deal to have done in high school labs or something… and if they can be documented in a visual manner that would be a big bonus.
Thank you.
Molon Labe (11:49:25) :
They don’t say how ionization is measured.
The ionization is not measured, but is calculated by a simulation of the expected response to a normalized GCR intensity, introducing yet another indirect step. My point was that the whole thing is not a straightforward analysis. Anyway, the number of cases is so small, that perhaps all these details are irrelevant.
Yes Leif, we know. Svensmark, Wilson, Scafetta, West, Hoyt, Schatten, Shaviv and the rest of their ilk and garbage….just blithering idiots, and so they are at CERN. Oh but Lean, Frohlich, Lockwood….brilliant scientists who must be correct because you say so. I suspect others have noticed the arrogance and disrespect you display but are too polite to say it.
It appears evidence is piling up that you’ve been saying for quite some time doesn’t exist.
DR (16:11:59) :
Svensmark, Wilson, Scafetta, West, Hoyt, Schatten, Shaviv and the rest of their ilk and garbage….just blithering idiots, and so they are at CERN. Oh but Lean, Frohlich, Lockwood….brilliant scientists
Move Schatten over in the ‘brilliant’ group, please.
“”” Shawn R. (12:41:00) :
Just a few quick questions from this: ” It links observable variations in the world’s cloudiness to laboratory experiments in Copenhagen showing how cosmic rays help generate atmospheric aerosols.”
Are these fairly complex experiments, or expensive to do? Or can they be done on smaller ’school room’ science lab type setups in some fashion or another?
Are these experiments, (or ones like them), able to be filmed or recorded in some way as to make them watchable on youtube for example?
I think if they can be done small scale and cheaply that it would be a good deal to have done in high school labs or something… and if they can be documented in a visual manner that would be a big bonus.
Thank you. “””
The Wilson Cloud Chamber is a very old laboratory demonstration of “cloud” formation; well at least water droplet formation due to charged particles.
Any 8th grade high school science class ought to be able to kluge one up.
You need to be able to saturate air with water vapor, and then suddenly drop the pressure, which will tend to cause water droplets to form; and if there are any charged particles going through the chamber at that time; you will get water droplet tracks. Various and sundry magnetic fields can be use to curve the charged pareticle tracks, and that can be sued to estimate energies and the like.
So it’s not a theory; it’s a fact; but whether it is enough of a phenomenon to cause a climate effect is a big part of the science argument.
I have built ethanol/dry ice cloud chambers. They can be a bit of a pain. I have wondered if a large speaker driven by slow saw tooth wave could be employed to manipulate the pressure?