It’s really rather sad that you can read about Svensmark’s climate research in an Iranian news outlet (FARS) but you won’t see any mention of it in American press, such as in the NYT. A search for Svensmark (and also cosmic rays) yields nothing. Maybe Andy Revkin just hasn’t gotten around to it yet, but if I were in his shoes, I wouldn’t enjoy being scooped by Iran. WUWT covered this story, complete with comments direct from Dr. Svensmark, nearly one month ago. See here.
Here’s the story from FARS:
===
TEHRAN (FNA)- New research by the National Space Institute in the Technical University of Denmark (DTU) validated 13 years of discoveries that point to a key role for cosmic rays in climate change.

Billions of tons of water droplets vanish from the atmosphere in events that reveal in detail how the Sun and the stars control our everyday clouds.
DTU Researchers have traced the consequences of eruptions on the Sun that screen the Earth from some of the cosmic rays – the energetic particles raining down on our planet from exploded stars.
“The Sun makes fantastic natural experiments that allow us to test our ideas about its effects on the climate,” lead author of a report newly published in Geophysical Research Letters Prof. Henrik Svensmark said.
When solar explosions interfere with the cosmic rays there is a temporary shortage of small aerosols, chemical specks in the air that normally grow until water vapor can condense on them, so seeding the liquid water droplets of low-level clouds.
Because of the shortage, clouds over the ocean can lose as much as 7 per cent of their liquid water within seven or eight days of the cosmic-ray minimum.
“A link between the Sun, cosmic rays, aerosols, and liquid-water clouds appears to exist on a global scale,” the report concludes.
This research, to which Torsten Bondo and Jacob Svensmark contributed, validates 13 years of discoveries that point to a key role for cosmic rays in climate change.
In particular, it connects observable variations in the world’s cloudiness to laboratory experiments in Copenhagen showing how cosmic rays help to make the all-important aerosols.
Other investigators have reported difficulty in finding significant effects of the solar eruptions on clouds, and Henrik Svensmark understands their problem.
“It’s like trying to see tigers hidden in the jungle, because clouds change a lot from day to day whatever the cosmic rays are doing,” he says.
The first task for a successful hunt was to work out when “tigers” were most likely to show themselves, by identifying the most promising instances of sudden drops in the count of cosmic rays, called Forbush decreases.
Previous research in Copenhagen predicted that the effects should be most notice-able in the lowest 3000 meters of the atmosphere. The team identified 26 Forbush decreases since 1987 that caused the biggest reductions in cosmic rays at low altitudes, and set about looking for the consequences.
The first global impact of the shortage of cosmic rays is a subtle change in the color of sunlight, as seen by ground stations of the aerosol robotic network AERONET.
By analyzing its records during and after the reductions in cosmic rays, the DTU team found that violet light from the Sun looked brighter than usual. A shortage of small aerosols, which normally scatter violet light as it passes through the air, was the most likely reason. The color change was greatest about five days after the minimum counts of cosmic rays.
Henrik Svensmark and his team were not surprised by it, because the immediate action of cosmic rays, seen in laboratory experiments, creates micro-clusters of sulphuric acid and water molecules that are too small to affect the AERONET observations.
Only when they have spent a few days growing in size should they begin to show up, or else be noticeable by their absence. The evidence from the aftermath of the Forbush decreases, as scrutinized by the Danish team, gives aerosol experts valuable information about the formation and fate of small aerosols in the Earth’s atmosphere.
Although capable of affecting sunlight after five days, the growing aerosols would not yet be large enough to collect water droplets. The full impact on clouds only becomes evident two or three days later.
It takes the form of a loss of low-altitude clouds, because of the earlier loss of small aerosols that would normally have grown into “cloud condensation nuclei” capable of seeding the clouds.
“Then it’s like noticing bare patches in a field, where a farmer forgot to sow the seeds,” Svensmark explains. “Three independent sets of satellite observations all tell a similar story of clouds disappearing, about a week after the minimum of cosmic rays.”
Averaging satellite data on the liquid-water content of clouds over the oceans, for the five strongest Forbush decreases from 2001 to 2005, the DTU team found a 7 per cent decrease, as mentioned earlier.
That translates into 3 billion tons of liquid water vanishing from the sky. The water remains the-re in vapor form, but unlike cloud droplets it does not get in the way of sunlight trying to warm the ocean. After the same five Forbush decreases, satellites measuring the extent of liquid-water clouds revealed an average reduction of 4 per cent. Other satellites showed a similar 5 per cent reduction in clouds below 3200 meters over the ocean.
“The effect of the solar explosions on the Earth’s cloudiness is huge,” Henrik Svensmark comments.
“A loss of clouds of 4 or 5 per cent may not sound very much, but it briefly increases the sunlight reaching the oceans by about 2 watt per square meter, and that’s equivalent to all the global warming during the 20th Century.”
The Forbush decreases are too short-lived to have a lasting effect on the climate, but they dramatize the mechanism that works more patiently during the 11-year solar cycle.
When the Sun becomes more active, the decline in low-altitude cosmic radiation is greater than that seen in most Forbush events and the loss of low cloud cover persists for long enough to warm the world.
That explains, according to the DTU team, the alternations of warming and cooling seen in the lower atmosphere and in the oceans during solar cycles.
The director of the Danish National Space Institute, DTU, Eigil Friis-Christensen, was co-author with Svensmark of an early report on the effect of cosmic rays on cloud cover, back in 1996.
Commenting on the latest paper he said, “The evidence has piled up, first for the link between cosmic rays and low-level clouds and then, by experiment and observation, for the mechanism involving aerosols. All these consistent scientific results illustrate that the current climate models used to predict future climate are lacking important parts of the physics”.


Let me correct my last statement: 13 -4 does equal 9, but -4 is 17 C below normal, not 9 below. I blame cognitive dissonance.
OT: get ready for “hottest Sept in …years” . GISS is out at +65. I know its flawed but the warmers will be touting it as vindication of models etc…
blondieBC (13:45:45) :
How much does a 2 Watt forcing of solar radation change the temperature?
In dry mixed air? You won’t believe it:
2 W*s = 2 J/s
ΔT = q/m (Cp) = 2 W / 1.18 Kg (1005.7 W/kg*K) = 0.002 °C
You need water vapor for an “anomalous” increase of temperature:
For 3.5% RH, ΔT = 0.04 °C
Gerard Harbison (14:41:42) :
Yes, the Media should be all over this long solar minimum. Instead, we learn of a dust torus around Saturn, and NASA’s plan to bomb for water on the Moon.
NASA has issued thier warnings about the Sun, but the Media is so far out to lunch they’ll never make it back to the office before quitting time.
I posted a topic on the issue of arguing the science behind Cap-and-Trade.
Make Them Argue the Science of Current Global Cooling and Solar Minimum!
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/110245#comment-1200999
Here in Saskatoon, we have snow on the ground today, and snow forecast for the next three days at least. We rarely have a Halloween here without snow, but it usually has the decency to wait at least until the leaves are off the trees. There’s going to be some tree damage in the days ahead, as leaves catch more snow than branches do, and make the branches heavier than they can manage without breaking. Global warming my fat Canadian behind.
“blondieBC (13:45:45) :
How much does a 2 Watt forcing of solar radation change the temperature?
In dry mixed air? You won’t believe it:
2 W*s = 2 J/s
ΔT = q/m (Cp) = 2 W / 1.18 Kg (1005.7 W/kg*K) = 0.002 °C
You need water vapor for an “anomalous” increase of temperature:
For 3.5% RH, ΔT = 0.04 °C
”
So why is this impact big enough to cause a noticeable difference in temperature?
Not surprised that NYT didn’t publish the story, since I have learned at RC that Dr. Svensmark is not an “expert”.
Surprising, or not anymore since “climate science” has become a religion. He seems to be a member of the wrong church.
I am watching this for years now and being an engineer, not an expert at all, I found my position by watching how the parties act and express themselves.
The hysterics have lost years ago already, they became more and more bizarre, but start to prepare fallback positions slowly, not without rearing up.
I can’t wait to see how this turns around.
~snip~
[Reply: If you dislike this site that much why visit? ~dbstealey, moderator]
More ‘weather not climate’ from the Southern Hemisphere.
A late snow dump in mid-Canterbury, including (last time I looked) 22 cm of fresh powder on Mount Hutt skifield.
Guess I’ll be climbing into the Salomons tomorrow, and heading up there. Most of the other local skifields have closed for the season.
Wheee! Global Warming is such Fun….
“”” Nasif Nahle (15:35:32) :
blondieBC (13:45:45) :
How much does a 2 Watt forcing of solar radation change the temperature?
In dry mixed air? You won’t believe it:
2 W*s = 2 J/s
ΔT = q/m (Cp) = 2 W / 1.18 Kg (1005.7 W/kg*K) = 0.002 °C
You need water vapor for an “anomalous” increase of temperature:
For 3.5% RH, ΔT = 0.04 °C “””
Can’t figure your method Nasif.
So what’s wrong with this stick in the sand apprach.
“mean global temperature” = 288K. BB radiation at 288 K =390 W/m^2.
So 2W/m^2 change (forcing) =2/390 = 1/2% change in radiation. Since emittance goes as T^4, then 0.5% change in emittance = 0.125% change in Temperature
0.125% of 288 = 0.36 K
Now the official NOAA Trenberth energy budget says that average solar influx = 342 W/m^2, so 2/342 =0.585% =4 x .1462% = 0.42K
So I believe the effect of 2W/m^2 is considerably more than 0.002 deg C.
What say you Nasif ?
George
blondieBC (16:24:15) :
So why is this impact big enough to cause a noticeable difference in temperature?
The real source of the energy… AGWers are digging in the wrong driver that it is not a primary source of energy and are impeding the advancement of science on that issue.
CLOUD 9 at the CERN!
Another study unlikely to be seen in NYT:
“Greens more likely thieves and liars, says shock study”
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/10/08/greens_are_thieves_and_liars_say_trick_cyclists/
I don’t know how valid, but supposedly in press at ‘Psychological Science’
“With a citation ranking/impact factor placing it in the top ten psychology journals worldwide, Psychological Science is a leader in the field.”
No spots on the sun today
Same as no spots of yesterday
I thought it was ramping up?
It’s good to see man put in his place when he thinks he knows something……
We know nothing.
George E. Smith (17:01:49):
Can’t figure your method Nasif.
So what’s wrong with this stick in the sand apprach.
“mean global temperature” = 288K. BB radiation at 288 K =390 W/m^2.
So 2W/m^2 change (forcing) =2/390 = 1/2% change in radiation. Since emittance goes as T^4, then 0.5% change in emittance = 0.125% change in Temperature
0.125% of 288 = 0.36 K
My method is classical. Convert the energy, 2 W in this case, to change of temperature of a medium, dry air in this case, taking into account the mass and the specific heat capacity of the substance, dry air in this case, towards which the amount of energy was transferred, 2 W in this case.
As the dry air is not a black body because it doesn’t absorb the total amount of energy it receives and it doesn’t radiate the total amount of energy it receives, i.e. not all the energy absorbed is converted into thermal energy, the change of temperature of that mass at 300.15 K, which is the standard temperature for room conditions, is quite low.
Now the official NOAA Trenberth energy budget says that average solar influx = 342 W/m^2, so 2/342 =0.585% =4 x .1462% = 0.42K
So I believe the effect of 2W/m^2 is considerably more than 0.002 deg C.
What say you Nasif ?
George
Here goes what I say:
If the total influx of solar radiation is 342 W/m^2 the surface, in general, absorbed ~174.42 W/m^2, and the air absorbed ~20.52 W/m^2; the sensible heat transfer was ~23.94 W/m^2 and the latent heat transfer was ~82.08 W/m^2.
Then, 174.42 W/m^2 + 20.52 W/m^2 + 23.94 W/m^2 + 82.08 W/m^2 = 300.96 W/m^2.
30.78 W/m^2 is radiated from the atmosphere to the cold, 3d, unbounded space.
10.26 W/m^2 are reflected by the surface and radiated to the cold, 3d, unbounded space.
But… 342 W/m^2 would cause a temperature of the mixed air of 300.44 K
20.52 W/m^2 of energy absorbed by the air would cause a change of temperature of 0.02 K.
Following your logics:
2 (W/m^2)/20.52 (W/m^2) = 0.1
Thus, ΔT = 0.02 K (0.1) = 0.002 K
A forcing of 2 W/m^2 would cause 0.002 K, as I had said in my answer to blondieBC.
That is the result by applying the heat transfer science without misguided modifications.
Hey, I’d like to hear more “expert” opinion here on the CLOUD Project as well. Particle physicists are “big boy” scientists, are they not? Just how good does your stuff have to be to swing this large of an experiment at CERN? Kind of dwarfs the peer review required for the latest phony reconstruction by The Team, doesn’t it?
What exactly are they trying to accomplish with this new cloud chamber that the Danes haven’t already shown? Anyone care to predict the spin upon successful completion of the experiment? I mean, Svensmark is routinely looked down upon, disparaged, and dismissed by the Alarmists. I would assume that means he is onto something! Or is Arydale the only one who knows what I’m getting at?
Winter more than a month ahead of schedule this year? Whatts up with that?
Chances for an Indian summer this year are slim to none.
“A very cold air mass that is more than 30 days ahead of its time will come down along the east slopes of the Rockies Friday and Saturday.”
http://www.accuweather.com/news-story.asp?partner=forecastbar&traveler=1&article=2
Now we in NE Oregon are getting that Arctic air this weekend.Maybe some snow,but lows are going to be in the teens and single digits F. Got my wood in, and planting like crazy,this is the 1950’s 60’s and 70’s all over again.
Pardon me while I bring the Brass Monkey in….
Me too Douglas. Just called my pasture renter to shut the valves off on the barnyard outdoor spigots to prevent pipes from busting. I’m hoping this freeze will bring down the leaves on the maples. That last snow broke major branches off all around the house. When the branches are bare, snow is no problem.
Do you know the story of Brass Monkeys? It is a seafaring wartime term.
Today a staff member was eating a lunch of spaghetti squash and tomato topping. The squash was about the size of my arm (and at 4’11” in heels that is not saying much). At least she got to eat it before it froze. And so much for the pumpkin patch again this year. By the time Halloween comes round, the pumpkins will be nothing but squishy piles of frozen goo. If you have squash fruit, pick now and they might ripen in the house in a cool area.
Sometimes i think you have to travel out of the US world of news to get the truth! I catch myself reading the commie daily out of Russia once in awhile.
Wait. Aren’t Iranians Persians? Not Arabs? Or did i just misunderstand Rick Steves 🙂 when he went to Tehran (in High Def no less!). Here in Wisconsin its been gloom, gloom, gloom. Lots of rain this month and very cool temps, a huge flip from September when it was warm (2F above normal) and very, very dry (almost a month without rain).
I don’t know if the previous person was kidding, but Al Gore will be speaking in Milwaukee on Friday morning.
http://forecast.weather.gov/product.php?site=MKX&issuedby=MKX&product=AFD&format=CI&version=1&glossary=1
Now that’s a discussion. “will let next shift…”
Steven Hill (17:56:45) :
Why isn’t the Sun ramping up?
Because last rotation, it had an active side and a dead side.
We’re looking at the dead side, spotless and faculess.
We went through this early July.
So.
If the active side which rotated out of view holds on, there’s light at the end of the tunnel.
If not, it’s back to 2 dead sides.
Al Gore must have come on down to NZ
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/2947353/Snow-falls-as-new-cold-snap-hits-the-country