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
|
AztecBill (09:18:37) :
“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.”
Not so
Abstract
In an attempt to test the validity of a relationship between Galactic cosmic rays (GCRs) and cloud cover, a range of past studies have performed composite analysis based around Forbush decrease (FD) events. These studies have produced a range of con5 flicting results, consequently reducing confidence in the existence of a GCR-cloud link.
A potential reason why past FD based studies have failed to identify a consistent relationship may be that the FD events themselves are too poorly defined, and require calibration prior to analysis. Drawing from an initial sample of 48 FD events taken from multiple studies this work attempts to isolate a GCR decrease of greater magnitude and coherence than has been demonstrated by past studies. After this calibrationcomposite analysis revealed increases in high level (10–180 mb) cloud cover (of _20%) occurred over the Antarctic plateau in conjunction with decreases in the rate of GCR flux during austral winter (these results are broadly opposite to those of past studies).
The cloud changes occurred in conjunction with locally significant surface level air temperature increases over the Antarctic plateau (_4 K) and temperature decreases over the Ross Ice Sheet (_8 K). These temperature variations appear to be indirectly linked to cloud via anomalous surface level winds rather than a direct radiative forcing. These results provide good evidence of a relationship between daily timescale GCR variations and Antarctic climate variability.
http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/9/10575/2009/
How does the GCR theory deal with the effect of low clouds on nighttime temps? In other words, if there are more low clouds, wouldn’t we see nighttime warming and daytime cooling?
I’m looking forward to seeing how Svensmark’s hypothesis pans out, roll on the next FD event.
Some other interesting ideas regarding solar climate influences in a paper by Erl Happ and Carl Wolk – “Solar warming – Solar cooling” here:-
http://climatechange1.wordpress.com/2009ow /04/05/solar-warming-solar-cooling/
Here’s their conclusion –
“Solar activity has weakened the [polar] vortex in both hemispheres. Periodic change in 200hPa temperature in response to changing ozone content and changing short wave radiation change ice cloud density and prevalence. This drives the Southern Oscillation. By and large it is the sea that stores energy and transports it to higher latitudes producing warmer winters. Ultimately sea surface temperature depends upon the Quasi Biennial Oscillation in ultraviolet radiation and the solar wind. The change in the solar QBO is responsible for the waxing and waning of the Southern Oscillation as it changes between El Nino and La Nina dominance.”
Quote: 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. Unquote
The experiment and the building of the cloud chamber is described in detail in The Chilling Stars – A New Theory of Climage Change by Henrik Svensmark & Nigel Calder from page 118 The box in the basement.
The whole dismal scam is starting to fall to pieces and any scientist who is not in thrall to the socio-political religion known as AGW is well aware of this . But when will the MSM stop pasting and copying reports which have themselves been pasted and copied from some press release from an acolyte of the AGW. Can journalist no longer be bothered to do any checking or is there a more sinister reason for their acquiescence.
Hi all-
The solar cosmic ray climate connection is largely irrelevant to the debate over climate change.
This is because solar activity occurs on a regular, eleven year cycle, or 22 years if you count polarity reversals.
To count on a sun climate connection to save us from AGW, you have to assume low solar activity in the future, as occurred during the Maunder Minimum several hundred years ago.
If the sun continues on its cycle of solar activity, the main effect from a sun climate connection is that during solar maxima, it would be hotter than predicted, while during solar sunspot minima, like right now, it would be colder.
So we can expect pauses in AGW, if the solar climate cosmic ray connection is correct.
But we can also expect accelerated AGW, during periods of high solar activity.
And the “elephant in the living room” is of course carbon dioxide increase, which is occurring at nearly one percent per year – and increasing methane concentrations as well.
So, for those that are counting on a solar cosmic ray climate connection to save us from AGW, as it may be doing right now (we are at a solar minimum, and so a cosmic ray maximum, right now), what happens when we reach a solar maximum about 5 or 6 years from now?
Leland, your statement is begging for proof. Go back to other solar maximums and minimums. How does the temperature correlation stand up? There have been equally high concentrations of CO2 in the past, and equally low or high cosmic rays in the past. If what you say is true, show us. Present statistics and graphs.
As for me I am not depending on solar influences to save me from AGW because I believe the connection is as weak as anthropogenic drivers are.
Thanks George. I really meant to ask how the GCR variations would affect the clouds, particularly cloud top heights and albedo. If the cloud variations due to GCR variations are much less significant than those due to (e.g. one degree) warming that you mention, then you have answered my question already. My own guess is that there are fairly significant effects from GCR to cloud characteristics, but those effects don’t affect global average temperature, but rather average temperatures for various latitudes (least in the tropics).
Leland Palmer,
There is an 11 year cycle for the sun but there is also many many other solar cycles. The major cycle that is in question right now is the 60 year cycle (30 years of cooling and 30 years of warming). That is why there was cooling from 1944 to 1975. That is why there was warming from 1975 to 1999. That is why we are again cooling. That is why NASA said we may be cooling until 2025. That solar cycle effects ocean cycles. That is why you will find tha the PDO and ADO coincides with the 60 year solar cycle.
We also are in a longer warming cycle that began in the mid 19th century. We have been warming since then at a semi- steady 0.5 degrees per 100 years. This can be masked by looking closely and seeing the 60 year cycle effects and the shorter effects of the 11 year cycles to which you refer. When that long cycle changes, we may move into another little ice age.
George E. Smith (11:27:56)
Another aspect to a 6.5% increase in absolute humidity and precipitation is the increase in water draining from the land areas. Hydroelectric generation becomes an increasing available energy source. Of course, it also means that those that recklessly built on flood plains (river and coastal), stand a good chance of losing their investments. Governments once recognized the futility of building infrastructure on flood plains and would not grant building permits easily. For many years, this policy has vanished.
Flood plains worldwide should be designated as agriculture only, and parkland or recreational areas, or wildlife conservation areas. As usual it is Man’s carelessness that causes suffering and loss. Not simply “climate change”. Greed and corruption has allowed building where there should be minimal. All for short term profit gain. This is prudent policy regardless of climate.
G. Karst:
“Greed and corruption has allowed building where there should be minimal.”
Wrong. The law allows building, within limits set by the building code, on one’s own property. What gives you the right to label an honest, law-abiding citizen’s actions with their own property as ‘greedy’ and ‘corrupt’?
If you want land to be used as parkland or farm land, you are free to buy some land and do whatever you want with it. But telling the owner how you think his land may be used is a little elitist, don’t you think? The source of a lot of our conflict comes from busybodies telling other people what they can or can’t do with their property.
Buy the land yourself, instead of presuming to tell others what’s OK with you and what isn’t. That’s the right way to do it.