What climate news you aren't seeing in the American press but can in Iran

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.

NYT-svensmark-search

FARS-iran

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”.

Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
0 0 votes
Article Rating
106 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Editor
October 9, 2009 4:24 pm

Funny, in the late 70’s and early 80’s in Taiwan, under a right-wing authoritarian regime, I realized I was getting better news coverage of world events from the local media than I was getting from American sources. Nothing new here, and it certainly isn’t any better. C’a plus change, toujours les meme choses.

Editor
October 9, 2009 4:40 pm

September and October have been great temperature-wise here in Southern New England, which makes up for the miserable June and July… but the leaves started turning three weeks ago and those miserable rats-with-wings (the Canada Goose, of course) are nowhere to be seen. Do you suppose they’ve moved further north to get away from the intolerably warm New England winter?

Sergio da Roma
October 10, 2009 3:43 am

There are good evidences for forbush decrease events. But the low cloud variations occurred (as reported by IPCC) in the last 20 years are not in accordance with the CR trend. Now we should observe a strong increase in low clouds over the oceans, as the CR have reached the highest values from the earliest monitoring. May the author give us any explanation about this apparent discepance with the long term observations?
Thank you in advance

alphajuno
October 10, 2009 9:51 am

Maybe it’s the extra clouds that made September warmer than usual. The NH should be cooling off faster but the clouds blanket the heat in. I do astrophotography at night and there have been a lot more cloudy nights this year than last in my small part of the world.

October 11, 2009 12:27 pm

Robert E. Phelan (16:40:48) :
…and those miserable rats-with-wings (the Canada Goose, of course) are nowhere to be seen. Do you suppose they’ve moved further north to get away from the intolerably warm New England winter?
My guess is they went *south* — according to a friend in Princeton, NJ, the Canada Honker population around Carnegie Lake suddenly doubled back in mid-September.

November 9, 2009 3:46 pm

Careful what you tell them. Next they probably say global cooling is coming, and we should throw away all our compact fluorescent lamps, further polluting our oceans with mercury.

1 3 4 5