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”.


Don’t feel bad, all you Pumpkin growers out there. Here, in one of the warmest places in NW Cailf, we got 2 pumpkins this year. 3 years ago we had 2 dozen. Last year, the vines took off in Sept. and made a half-dozen small pumpkins. The frost came this week and killed the vine.
Monday we have a big rain coming.
Batten down your hatches, Leif, the forecast shows off-the-scale rain headed straight for you.
You stay high & dry, you hear?
——————————————————–
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
——————————————————–
It’s been a long time since I’ve done psychrometry, but enthalpy of “air” increases with moisture content, therefore requiring more energy per degree temperature increase.
Does water vapor effect transmission and emissivity of air enough to over come the the increase?
Or am I totally off base?
I envy the Iranian their free press.
Gino (20:17:37) :
It’s been a long time since I’ve done psychrometry, but enthalpy of “air” increases with moisture content, therefore requiring more energy per degree temperature increase.
Does water vapor effect transmission and emissivity of air enough to over come the the increase?
Or am I totally off base?
No, you’re on base, I mean, you are correct. When air receives water vapor and the temperature of the air is constant, air’s enthalpy increases by 2.56 kJ/Kg per each gram of water vapor that is added to one kilogram of air.
US exporter of oil? I did not know that!
http://masterresource.org/?p=5129
Boris is under the delusion that he is “doing it for the children”, …
@Gino…
I like psychrometry. This afternoon (16:00 hrs-CST), the temperature in my location was 32 °C and the dewpoint was 24 °C. The relative humidity reached 62.7% (which means a mixing ratio of 18.9 g/Kg). The enthalpy of air was 48.3 kJ/Kg on pure latent energy. I have not make the calculations on sensible energy.
Regards,
Nasif Nahle
Nasif Nahle (20:44:21) :
Thanks, 20 yrs can mess with your memory pretty well. So what am I missing with regard to humidity increasing the temperature change per unit of energy?
No NY Times coverage? Pinchy Sulzberger is still living in the past. Seems like everything that is politically correct, including global warming, is spawn of the 60’s.
“Without any censorship in the West, fashionable trends of thought and ideas are fastidiously separated from those that are not fashionable, and the latter, without ever being forbidden, have little chance of finding their way into periodicals or books or being heard in colleges. Your scholars are free in the legal sense, but they are hemmed in by the idols of the prevailing fad.”
~~Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn,
Harvard 1978 commencement address
“The ruling class has the schools and press under its thumb. This enables it to sway the emotions of the masses.”
~~Albert Einstein
It’s very curious. This website frequently nails its colours to the mast with anti-government, anti-tax, pro-business, laissez-faire attitudes. People who hold these kind of views are very rarely pro-Iran.
If you want to place your faith in the Iranian media, that’s fine. The reason your more widely read “western” media haven’t covered this story is because it’s scientifically groundless.
RW
The reason your more widely read “western” media haven’t covered this story is because it’s scientifically groundless.
That’s a relief. If it was acceptable to warmers chances are that it would be another utterly useless theory.
RW
“The reason your more widely read “western” media haven’t covered this story is because it’s scientifically groundless.”
Truth and knowledge are where you find them RW. You should know that. But I thought we were discussing an article on climate. Most here at WUWT are pro-climate. Aren’t you? What’s your beef? You don’t have the flu do you?
“Boris (16:57:28) :
~snip~
[Reply: If you dislike this site that much why visit? ~dbstealey, moderator]”
Please moderator, let’s hear him out. You don’t have to protect us from harsh criticism. We can handle it.
Good article!
Gino (21:44:47) :
Thanks, 20 yrs can mess with your memory pretty well. So what am I missing with regard to humidity increasing the temperature change per unit of energy?
I don’t think you have missed something, it’s just my explanation was too short. The portion that I didn’t write concerns to the emissivity of water vapor, which is around 0.75. To know the amount of energy transferred by radiation, it is preferable to use the next formula:
Q = e σ A (Tf^4 – Tc^4)
As for the carbon dioxide absorptivity and emissivity, at its current concentration in the atmosphere, they are very, very low, so the amount of energy transferred to and from a molecule of carbon dioxide is ridiculously small, compared with the energy absorbed and emitted by the molecule of water vapor and other materials.
We have a temperature gradient to be considered into any calculation of heat transfer, that is, an initial temperature and a final temperature. The amount of heat transferred from a hot system to another colder system by radiation depends absolutely on the capacity of the two systems to absorb and emit the energy, i.e. absorptivity and emissivity respectively.
RW (02:30:27) :
If you want to place your faith in the Iranian media, that’s fine
This cheap shot reveals something about you RW not the readers of WUWT.
After the uprisings of the last Iranian election, the mullahs have dictated that universities move to concentrate on natural sciences and move away from the social sciences (political science, economics, etc). Encouraging debates in climate science serves their purposes well. The noise in the system means that there isn’t just one school of thought. The arguments go round and round and people are distracted from their day-to-day problems.
I would expect the Iranian media to continue to report both sides of the climate debate.
Unless I completely misunderstand Nasif Nahle his calculations are contain an error. Nasif Nahle wrote in reply to a the question of how much will 2 W/sqm raise the temperature of air
” 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”
The problem is that watts are not energy, watt are power or a rate of energy. Joules are energy. As noted by Nahle watts are joules per second. Nahle’s answer shouldn’t be .002 C, it should be .002 C per second.
This will continue until the air has warmed to the point where it radiates away as much heat as it is taking in or until the sun goes down, whichever comes first.
However, this assumes that the air absorbs all of the radiant heat and that none of it reaches the ground thereby raising the surface temperature. At best such a calculation could only serve as a maximum upper limit to the temperature change.
Bob Meyer (09:14:22) :
Unless I completely misunderstand Nasif Nahle his calculations are contain an error. Nasif Nahle wrote in reply to a the question of how much will 2 W/sqm raise the temperature of air
” 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”
Yes, you are correct and I stand corrected. The correct conversion is as follows:
2 W*s = 2 J.
So the corrected procedure is as follows:
ΔT = q/m (Cp) = 2 J / 1.18 Kg (1005.7 J/kg*K) = 0.002 K = 0.002 °C
Thanks for noticing the error.
Sorry 🙂
Bob Meyer (09:14:22) :
However, this assumes that the air absorbs all of the radiant heat and that none of it reaches the ground thereby raising the surface temperature. At best such a calculation could only serve as a maximum upper limit to the temperature change.
For radiative heat transfer I use the next formula:
q = e (σ) (A) [(Ts) ^4 – (Ta) ^4]
Or simply q = e (σ) (A) (T^4)
The result is also power (W). For obtaining the load of energy (J) one should multiply by time (t).
Oher formulas must to be applied if you wish to know the total of energy transferred from the surface to the air.
Regarding the heat transfer from the air to the surface, warming the latter up, it’s not feasible in the real world:
http://www.biocab.org/Induced_Emission.html
FWIW, I regularly watch Al Jazeera on the Direct TV satellite system (ch 375 on LINK tv as part of a show called “Mosaic – News from the Middle East” that also includes the Israeli news IBA.)
Other than a blatantly political one sided coverage of anything to do with Israel, the various Islamic news programs (it also has Jordanian, Dubai, Iranian and some others) are generally well done. As long as it is not a story about Israel or the Great Satan (ie. the U.S.A.) or “muslim issues”, the rest of Mosaic channels seem to be pretty straight news. It also does give an interesting counterpoint on the “muslim issues” and it gives an interesting insight into the way the Muslim World views anything about Israel through a very warped lens… Then you get to look back through the Israeli lens… “Two different worlds, we live in two different worlds”…
Fair Warning: LINK is from the far looney left politically. They occasionally have some interesting shows, but don’t leave it running with the kids in the room while you go make lunch 😉 (They are running a blurb admiring Michael Moore as cultural icon at the moment…) You do also get very interesting visuals some times. The Iranian coverage of the ‘failed coup’ showed a squad or three of motorcycles with a rider in military uniform on the back with a shoulder launched missile. A bit surreal in a way. “Ride a soft bike and carry a big rocket stick?” I can’t imagine us having a squad like that. It doesn’t pass the “giggle” test 😉
Why do I watch this? I trade oil. If you would predict OPEC and military adventures in the Middle East, you need to go to their news, not ours. Ours is useless sanitized pap for selling shampoo. Their news will show tensions building long before the violence starts. Ours will show the “action” after the war has been engaged for a few days and something “interesting” is available in the visuals. Useless for trading.
Sidebar: I also get BBC news on the satellite as well. Interesting perspective from the other side of the puddle. Nice counterpoint to FOX that tends to the radical right on political issues (and Hannity with his nightly moment of rant. Rant is not news. The “Red Eye” metrosexual hour isn’t news either. Whatever happened to 24 hour NEWS?…)
Also, FWIW, the best straight news comes as the little ‘blurbs’ on Bloomberg and CNBC. They know it MUST be “straight” and “fast” or you will have a busted trade. Just the facts, accurate and quick. Unfortunately, not much depth behind it. Sigh.
I just wish there was some “straight news” somewhere. An average of the left and right is not the middle… (Hmmm… nor is an average of the high and low the integrated area under the curve… )
Nasif Nahle (07:26:31) :
that’s what I thought. For no reason other than curiosity, do you have a link to any reference material on Absorptivity and Emissivity coefficients for moist air? This topic is now going to drive me to dig out my old thermo books.
The heat of a 90 degree day in Honolulu is not the same as a 90 day in Phoenix. This global average temp stuff really bothers me because the issue is heat transfer. If they can’t model clouds, how can they model moisture content?
RW (02:30:27) : It’s very curious. This website frequently nails its colours to the mast with anti-government, anti-tax, pro-business, laissez-faire attitudes. People who hold these kind of views are very rarely pro-Iran.
If you want to place your faith in the Iranian media, that’s fine.
Let me ‘splain it to you: It is called adherence to the truth.
And, IMHO, Anthony mostly covers weather, climate, and science stuff in a largely non-political way. I see no “color nailing” here in the postings. That the government screws up a lot is not a political statement. (And deserves to be advertized by any political side). That some of what it does is vitally important is also clear. What temperature record quality would we have to criticize were the Government not providing one?
Oh, and I hope you have a nice time getting your food, fuel, housing, clothing, and medical care without all those nasty businesses getting in the way. (Wonder where he gets his antibiotics and washing soap?…) Business is not evil. Business is not “right wing” (see Russia and COMMUNIST China as examples). Most of the world, including, now, the USA, run on a type of government / business relationship called ‘Lang Type Socialism’. See that last word? Socialism. Hardly a right wing concept and up to it’s eyeballs in ‘business’. So methinks your biases and bigotries are showing…
Oh, and per lower taxes as a right wing agenda item: you will need to take that up with the iconic Radical Right Winger who proposed them, got them passed, and improved the economy greatly in the process. I lived through his time and it worked very well. His name was John Kennedy.
The AGW crowd seems to think that the messenger is the message and loves to attack the messenger. The AGW crowd loves to stereotype, then attack the messaged based on such profiling. (See your post for an example of such “profiling” via stereotype …)
What the sceptic tends to do is search for truth, no matter who carries it and no matter what they may think on some other topic. (For example, Einstein believed in an” invisible man in the sky who liked to count hairs on people’s heads, but did not like playing dice”… Yet his science is stellar. So we hold his science up as an example of greatness, despite is other beliefs. Ditto Newton. Even Darwin had a few lines devoted to God in the original publications of his work on evolution, something that is often forgotten when holding him up as a reason to suppress a religious viewpoint… )
So all you have here is someone looking at the quality and bias of both the eastern and western news and finding an interesting disconnect on truthfulness depending on topic covered.
Much as i watch Mosaic to see what is really happening in the middle eastern mind, but do not look to the Muslim stations for valid Israeli news; or listen to the BBC for the “English – European” viewpoint, but any of their climate change news is simply propaganda; or watch FOX for a decent critique of the Looney Left and their political agenda, but would not expect them to give a valid appraisal of the merits of bringing back Glass-Steagall.
ALL news must be run through the Truth Test. And truth is where you find it, not where your biases tell you to look for confirmation.
Nasif Nahle said “Regarding the heat transfer from the air to the surface, warming the latter up, it’s not feasible in the real world:”
I agree. Now, if only we could get the IPCC to agree.