New study links cosmic rays to aerosols/cloud formation via solar magnetic activity modulation

From an Aarhus University press release:

Scientists at Aarhus University (AU) and the National Space Institute (DTU Space) show that particles from space create cloud cover

New input to the United Nations climate model: Ulrik Ingerslev Uggerhøj, Physics and Astronomy, AU, along with others including Jens Olaf Pepke Pedersen and Martin Bødker Enghoff, DTU Space, have directly demonstrated in a new experiment that cosmic radiation can create small floating particles – so-called aerosols – in the atmosphere. By doing so, they substantiate the connection between the Sun’s magnetic activity and the Earth’s climate.

With the new results just published in the recognised journal Geophysical Research Letters, scientists have succeeded for the first time in directly observing that the electrically charged particles coming from space and hitting the atmosphere at high speed contribute to creating the aerosols that are the prerequisites for cloud formation.

Clouds, which are drops of water, occur more easily when water vapour in the atmosphere can condense around particles – dust or large clusters of molecules. Researchers have now shown that electrons caused by cosmic radiation can create small particles that can grow in the atmosphere into such cloud condensation nuclei. This is interesting in the light of the controversial theory proposed by Henrik Svensmark, DTU Space, who postulates a correlation between solar activity and the Earth’s temperature: when the Sun’s activity increases – and thereby magnetic fields (seen as more sunspots) – more of the cosmic particles deflect and fewer therefore reach the Earth’s atmosphere, whereupon there is less cloud formation and the temperature rises on the Earth’s surface. And conversely: when the magnetic field is weakened, the temperature drops. (Graphics: DTU Space)

The more cloud cover occurring around the world, the lower the global temperature – and vice versa when there are fewer clouds. The number of particles from space vary from year to year – partly controlled by solar activity. An understanding of the impact of cosmic particles – consisting of electrons, protons and other charged particles – on cloud formation and thereby the number of clouds, is therefore very important as regards climate models.

With the researchers’ new knowledge, it is now clear that here is a correlation between the Sun’s varying activity and the formation of aerosols in the Earth’s atmosphere. Initially, the researchers have demonstrated that there is a correlation, and they will therefore now carry out systematic measurements and modellings to determine how important it is to the climate. The new studies will be made at DTU Space in Copenhagen, with support that includes a new grant of DKK 2 million (approximately EUR 270,000) from the Danish National Research Councils.

Experiment in a climate chamber

Section of ASTRID – Denmark’s largest particle accelerator – at Aarhus University, from which scientists have sent electrons into a climate chamber and created conditions similar to the atmosphere at the height where clouds are formed. Simply by comparing situations in the climate chamber with and without electron radiation, researchers can directly see that increased radiation leads to more aerosols. These aerosols are interesting because they can make water vapour in the atmosphere condense into drops of water – i.e. clouds. (Photo: AU)

In a climate chamber at Aarhus University, scientists have created conditions similar to the atmosphere at the height where low clouds are formed. By irradiating this artificial atmosphere with fast electrons from ASTRID – Denmark’s largest particle accelerator – they have also created conditions that resemble natural ones on this point.

Simply by comparing situations in the climate chamber with and without electron radiation, the researchers can directly see that increased radiation leads to more aerosols.

In the atmosphere, these aerosols grow into actual cloud nuclei in the course of hours or days, and water vapour concentrates on these, thus forming the small droplets the clouds consist of.

Background

Based on the correlation between the level of activity of the Sun and the global temperature of the Earth, the Danish climate researcher Henrik Svensmark proposed a controversial theory in the late 1990s: that there could be a correlation between the intensity of the cosmic radiation that hits the Earth – and which is affected by the activity of the Sun – and the number of clouds formed.

With the experiment in Aarhus, the research group has now taken one step closer to being able to demonstrate this relationship. There is much to indicate that climate models must hereby take cosmic radiation into consideration. In doing so, the new results provide hope for better climate models that can describe the Earth’s temperature and climate more accurately.

Comments from three of the scientists behind the experiment:

Senior Scientist Jens Olaf Pepke Pedersen, DTU Space, says:

“Aarhus University has outstanding facilities that enable us for the first time to carry out a very direct test of the theory on cosmic particles causing droplet formation in the atmosphere.”

Scientist Martin Bødker Enghoff, DTU Space, adds:

“Before we can say how great the effect is, it’s clear that our results must be verified – just as more measurements and model computations need to be made. However, we can already reveal with no doubt whatsoever that there is an effect.”

“It’s a pleasure to see these results in climate research being achieved at our accelerator. Actually, it’s only possible to do corresponding research at CERN – the joint European research centre,” says Associate Professor Ulrik Uggerhøj, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Aarhus University.

Facts about the experiment

A chamber contains air with precisely balanced amounts of sulphur dioxide, ozone and water vapour irradiated with electrons. Sunlight is a necessary ingredient for aerosol formation in the natural atmosphere, and it is imitated in the climate chamber by a lamp that emits ultraviolet light. Natural atmospheric processes such as the formation of sulphuric acid are thus imitated, and these are an important ingredient in the aerosols. When electrons from the accelerator irradiate the air mixture, an increase takes place in the production of aerosols, which act as nuclei for the production of cloud droplets. In previous SKY experiments conducted by DTU Space in Copenhagen, cosmic radiation was simulated by gamma radiation, and the scientists saw here that the gamma rays could also form aerosols. In the new experiment with the energy-rich electrons from the ASTRID accelerator, there is much more resemblance to the cosmic rays that occur in nature.

Competitors hot on their heels

A major international research group at the European Particle Research Centre (CERN) in Geneva, Switzerland, has worked for several years on demonstrating the correlation that the Danish researchers have found, and the group has announced that its members are also on the way with their first extensive results. Compared with the CERN project, the Danish scientists have an extremely modest budget, but when it comes to producing particles resembling cosmic ones, the facilities at Aarhus University are equal to the most advanced facilities in the world.

Associate Professor Ulrik Ingerslev Uggerhøj goes into more detail in the video interview below (in Danish only)

Here’s the abstract

GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 38, L09805, 4 PP., 2011

doi:10.1029/2011GL047036

Aerosol nucleation induced by a high energy particle beam

Key Points

  • Cosmic rays increase nucleation rate
  • A particle beam is not needed for experiments
  • Ions are important for atmospheric nucleation rate

Martin B. Enghoff

National Space Institute, Technical University of Denmark, Copenhagen, Denmark

Jens Olaf Pepke Pedersen

National Space Institute, Technical University of Denmark, Copenhagen, Denmark

Ulrik I. Uggerhøj

Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Aarhus, Aarhus, Denmark

Sean M. Paling

Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK

Henrik Svensmark

National Space Institute, Technical University of Denmark, Copenhagen, Denmark

We have studied sulfuric acid aerosol nucleation in an atmospheric pressure reaction chamber using a 580 MeV electron beam to ionize the volume of the reaction chamber. We find a clear contribution from ion-induced nucleation and consider this to be the first unambiguous observation of the ion-effect on aerosol nucleation using a particle beam under conditions that resemble the Earth’s atmosphere. By comparison with ionization using a gamma source we further show that the nature of the ionizing particles is not important for the ion-induced component of the nucleation. This implies that inexpensive ionization sources – as opposed to expensive accelerator beams – can be used for investigations of ion-induced nucleation.

Received 8 February 2011; accepted 31 March 2011; published 12 May 2011.

Citation: Enghoff, M. B., J. O. P. Pedersen, U. I. Uggerhøj, S. M. Paling, and H. Svensmark (2011), Aerosol nucleation induced by a high energy particle beam, Geophys. Res. Lett., 38, L09805, doi:10.1029/2011GL047036.

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2011GL047036.shtml

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Doug Proctor

“This implies that inexpensive ionization sources – as opposed to expensive accelerator beams – can be used for investigations of ion-induced nucleation.”
Bit of a smack for CERN, a big smack for the IPCC, NASA/GISS/Hansen. You do not need the biggest of boys with the biggest of toys to find out how some things work. The authority and skills you need are a reflection of what you are studying, and it ain’t all rocket surgery.
Perhaps some “citizen scientists” have something to offer …

Anything is possible

In terms of gathering the empirical and observational evidence which might confirm or refute Svensmark’s GCR theory, the current prolonged solar minimum could not have come at a better time.
Over to you Mother Nature…….

Dan[NO]

This is great news!

rbateman

Not one, but 2 experiments, independent of each other.
There is one caveat that might upset such simplicity: The natural supply of CRF not being homogenous, wherein a slackened solar wind lets in a naturally varying amount of excess Cosmic Rays.

Ian H

A cloud chamber works in exactly this way and this has been known for … much longer than I’ve been alive at any rate. Hence the experiments with the accelerator were not really needed to confirm that cosmic ray triggered cloud formation occurred. We knew that already. What they did was more precisely quantify its expected rate.

Theo Goodwin

Every word of it sounds just like science. What a relief. Finally, there are some scientists working on questions of global warming. My hat is off to Uggerhoj and crew as well as Svensmark and crew. And you know what is so cool about this work? They have actual physical hypotheses that are not Arrhenius’ CO2 hypotheses.
This could be a tipping point for Climate Hysteria. Just the fact that scientists are publishing about physical hypotheses in climate science could totally change the terms of the debate. Maybe some people who work in the MSM, aka journalists, will be motivated to learn about physical hypotheses and their role in scientific method.
Finally, these scientists are in a Win-Win situation. If their hypotheses are shown to be reasonably confirmed they will have created the first genuine climate science after the turn of the Nineteenth Century. If their hypotheses are shown to be false, they will have established that they are the first climate scientists to have put forward a falsifiable set of hypotheses. Either way they qualify as scientists and distinguish themselves from the Warmista. Win-Win.

hotrod (Larry L)

And we all wonder why it took this long for the connection to be made since one of the first devices used in radiation research was present was the (curiously enough named) cloud chamber, developed in 1911 by Charles Wilson, that we all saw in action in about 7th grade science class or on a TV special to show “cloud tracks” formed by ionizing radiation in a cold saturated atmosphere.
I find it interesting that given the background of the cloud chamber that anyone would be surprised by this result, and more importantly that some in the Climate community would without experimental evidence summarily throw out the prospect that radiation might enhance cloud formation.
Larry

Ross Brisbane

The statement that more cloud cover cools the earth is not that straight forward. This is in part to much disinformation regarding clouds and the effect of water vapour at high altitudes which is also a greenhouses gas with there effects.
There are critical layer in the atmosphere that play there part to confirm thermodynamic laws are at work. Anyone here can validate what I am saying at robust science web sites.
TROPOSPHERE
This is the layer of the atmosphere closest to the Earth’s surface, extending up to about 10-15 km above the Earth’s surface. It contains 75% of the atmosphere’s mass. The troposphere is wider at the equator than at the poles. Temperature and pressure drops as you go higher up the troposphere.
The Tropopause: At the very top of the troposphere is the tropopause where the temperature reaches a (stable) minimum. Some scientists call the tropopause a “cold trap” because this is a point where rising water vapour cannot go higher because it changes into ice and is trapped. If there is no cold trap, Earth would loose all its water!
The higher the cloud blanket the more effective the radiative bounce back to earth and not to the cold of space becomes. Even Roy Spencer backs this up with his own studies. Anyone making the above statement should at least abide to a pattern of logic within the science and applied laws of physics otherwise you are guilty by omission of the whole context of cloud interplay on climate via the sun’s energy both entering the earth’s atmosphere and also being potentially impeded in outliers to space. Laws of thermodynamics apply to energy conservation and loss here through water vapour, cloud formation and the ability of CO2 that keeps us from freezing at night by its greenhouse effect which has increased slightly the temperatures already by .5 to .7 degrees celsius since 1850.
Clouds (both low and high level) are also more effective at holding in days energy (earth’s surface heat by sun during day) rather then escaping into higher altitudes at night. Hence the theory of greenhouse applies also. Roy Spencer also confirms the same.
Conversely – the LOWER the cloud coverage the more they blanket the earth from incoming RADIATION.
Latest studies indicate that the trend will go to higher altitude cloud cover then lower cloud cover in a warming globe context.
Even if cosmic rays contribute to serious cloud cover in strange ways the net result will to increase global warming – not protect us from global warming as they are created at HIGH altitudes.

Gator

Isn’t real science grand! Of course this will not end the warmists’ slobbering love affair for far out theories and wacked out models.

RobJM

To form aerosols they need SO2.
Where does SO2 come from? Volcanoes.
What happens when a massive eruption like pinatubo sends lots of SO2 into Stratosphere? Cloud nuclei form in the stratosphere, causing cooling on the ground initially, but subsequently lead to the stripping of water vapour from the Stratosphere.
What happens when the Stratosphere looses water vapour? It cools and the troposphere warms!
So did volcano induced water stripping from the Stratosphere cause the recent bout of global warming? Of course not, everybody know volcanoes cause global cooling!

Anything is possible

rbateman says:
May 17, 2011 at 4:38 pm
“The natural supply of CRF not being homogenous, wherein a slackened solar wind lets in a naturally varying amount of excess Cosmic Rays.”
____________________________________________________________
Galactic Supernovae are the number one suspect as to the likely source of excess Cosmic Rays, but we’ll have to wait until one explodes before we have the chance to confirm this with modern instruments.
It is worth noting that the last 2 Galactic Supernovae occurred in 1572 and 1604.
A really good question, for which we don’t have an answer is : Were they still emitting excess Gamma Rays during the Maunder Minimum (1645-1715)?

“Compared with the CERN project, the Danish scientists have an extremely modest budget, but when it comes to producing particles resembling cosmic ones, the facilities at Aarhus University are equal to the most advanced facilities in the world.”
That’s the best part. Science can only be rescued from Big Theories when it stops using Big Facilities.
When you have to beg for a few minutes of time in the Emperor’s Lab, you inevitably conform to the Emperor’s Rules.

artw

Gee, scientists doing a real experiment and taking real measurements…did they not hear the John Mitchell’s quote in yesterday’s post regarding “Observational evidence is not very useful”?

Ian W

Ross Brisbane says:
May 17, 2011 at 4:52 pm
The statement that more cloud cover cools the earth is not that straight forward. This is in part to much disinformation regarding clouds and the effect of water vapour at high altitudes which is also a greenhouses gas with there [sic] effects.

Ross is known for laying out on cloudy days ‘sun’ bathing.
The Tropopause: At the very top of the troposphere is the tropopause where the temperature reaches a (stable) minimum. Some scientists call the tropopause a “cold trap” because this is a point where rising water vapour cannot go higher because it changes into ice and is trapped. If there is no cold trap, Earth would loose all its water!
Your reasoning is backward. The heat input at the equator is high therefore the instability of warm wet air is highest. The convection in the Inter-Tropical Convergence Zone is extreme – updrafts of 100kts or more carrying liquid rain above 30,000 feet. The force of this convection bubbles high into the atmosphere and normally tops out at 60,000 feet or so raising the tropopause. Tropopause literally means the place where movement stops. Supercell convective storms boil upwards at extreme speeds, there isn’t a physical boundary to the stratosphere at 60.000ft and 1 inch. The ICAN lapse rate does not apply within supercell storms. So – much as mathematicians would like the tropopause to be a nice flat line – it is not: it is something between watching the surface of boiling water and a lava lamp. Large waves run and break along the tropopause its not a nice neat surface.
Clouds (both low and high level) are also more effective at holding in days energy (earth’s surface heat by sun during day) rather then escaping into higher altitudes at night. Hence the theory of greenhouse applies also. Roy Spencer also confirms the same.
Its absolutely true that a layer of cloud that forms at night will reduce radiation of ‘the days input radiation’ and the night will be warm. However, if the cloud is there by day but not at night – the reverse is true – the surface will cool. Moreover, if the cloud layer remains for days on end — the ‘days energy’ being held in is less each day as the cloud albedo is reflecting back much of that days input energy. After many days of cloud – the surface will be much colder. This is straight forward observational meteorology.

DJ

“It is possible that GCRs do have an effect on climate through the modulation of clouds, but I don’t think it is very strong.”
–Rasmus E. Benestad at RealClimate 2007
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/cosmoclimatology-tired-old-arguments-in-new-clothes/
Isn’t this the big question? Now that we know it does, the question is how much.

Paul Westhaver

Mars warms when the earth warms. What do they have in common?
The sun.
It is that simple.

Geoff Sherrington

Ross Brisbane says:
May 17, 2011 at 4:52 pm The statement that more cloud cover cools the earth is not that straight forward.
Agreed, but it is not disinformation, as you say.
The Umbrella was invented even before the cloud chamber. Everyone knows that it is used to make the person cooler than in sunlight. If the person become cooler, what is the fate of the heat that would otherwise have made the person warmer? Of course, the matter is one of the redistribution of heat energy. The experimenters in Denmark, on a very modest budget, have shown the possibility of a natural device like an umbrella, but they have not yet proceedd to investigate and explain the whole heat energy redistribution of the globe resulting from their initial findings. They modestly propose the next couple of systematic experimental steps that they have in mind.
You are being prematurely critical. Do examine your motivation for criticising this work in the way you did.

Yngvar

There is much to indicate that climate models must hereby take cosmic radiation into consideration.
It’s going to be darned tricky modeling the sun’s behavior.

William

In reply to
“Ross Brisbane says:
May 17, 2011 at 4:52 pm
The statement that more cloud cover cools the earth is not that straight forward. This is in part to much disinformation regarding clouds and the effect of water vapour at high altitudes which is also a greenhouses gas with there effects.”
Increased GCR reduces high altitude clouds and increases low level clouds. The low level cloud formation is different than high altitude cloud formation.
The number of cloud forming ions is affected by solar wind bursts. The solar wind bursts create a space charge differential in the ionosphere which in turn creates a potential difference. The global warming post 1994 correlates with solar wind bursts. The regions of the planet that warm also correlate with the regions that are most affected by the solar wind mechanism electroscavenging. Attached is a review paper that discusses the different mechanisms.
See section 5a) Modulation of the global circuit in this review paper, by solar wind burst and the process electroscavenging where by increases in the global electric circuit remove cloud forming ions.
The same review paper summarizes the data that does show correlation between low level clouds and GCR.
http://www.utdallas.edu/physics/pdf/Atmos_060302.pdf
http://sait.oat.ts.astro.it/MSAIt760405/PDF/2005MmSAI..76..969G.pdf
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009JA014342.shtml
If the Sun is so quiet, why is the Earth ringing? A comparison of two solar minimum intervals.
Observations from the recent Whole Heliosphere Interval (WHI) solar minimum campaign are compared to last cycle’s Whole Sun Month (WSM) to demonstrate that sunspot numbers, while providing a good measure of solar activity, do not provide sufficient information to gauge solar and heliospheric magnetic complexity and its effect at the Earth. The present solar minimum is exceptionally quiet, with sunspot numbers at their lowest in 75 years and solar wind magnetic field strength lower than ever observed. Despite, or perhaps because of, a global weakness in the heliospheric magnetic field, large near-equatorial coronal holes lingered even as the sunspots disappeared. Consequently, for the months surrounding the WHI campaign, strong, long, and recurring high-speed streams in the solar wind intercepted the Earth in contrast to the weaker and more sporadic streams that occurred around the time of last cycle’s WSM campaign.

Latitude

Ross Brisbane says:
May 17, 2011 at 4:52 pm
Even if cosmic rays contribute to serious cloud cover in strange ways the net result will to increase global warming – not protect us from global warming as they are created at HIGH altitudes.
==========================================
Ross, what happens when there’s constant cloud cover?

Ruhroh

Ross Brisbane;
So, let us agree arguendo, that the cosmic rays will inevitably increase global warming, at least on robust science websites.
With that assumption, would the variation of (solar) energetic flux be expected to have any effect?
Have the GCM’s already included this mechanism?
RR

I wouldn’t think it would be that hard to monitor the total hemispheric cloud cover to compare it to the CGRs impacting Earth. The GOES (Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellites) have been in continuous operation since the 1970s & the imagery is archived at UWisc-Madison SSEC facility. Just take the daily full disk visible image taken at satellite noon (for full disk illumination-minus polar shadow, depending on the season) of each day (or week or month…depending on resources), create a histogram of the image, and track that over time. Compare how the histogram modulates to the recorded GCRs and see if they correlate. Shouldn’t that work as a fairly close real-world observation?
Jeff

Graeme

…more importantly that some in the Climate community would without experimental evidence summarily throw out the prospect that radiation might enhance cloud formation.
Hi Larry, it’s easy to understand if you posit a context in which the Climate community operates for a political end, rather than a scientific one. In a political context, contrary evidence is ignored, discredited, or hidden.

Graeme

The disconnect between the intellectually corrupt reliance on computer models that are not validated against empirical evidence by the climate community, and the robust testing of theories against empirical evidence that has served society so well over the last 400 years is getting larger every day.

Keith Minto

My understanding of Svensmark’s theory is that Gamma rays cause lower level cloud formation. It would be interesting to see a vertical profile of particle nucleation, but I am not sure that we are at that level in the research. As stated above, particle nucleation in a saturated atmosphere is well established, it is what particles in what quantity at what location, in the real atmosphere, that needs to be established.

Graeme

Count down 4 3 2 1 …. They’re all funded by Big Oil…

sophocles

James Hansen, a globally famous (notorious?) science denier, will not like this: real scientists doing real experiments on real atmosphere , investigating real climatic effects.
Horrible!
They might find real facts!

Ian MacDonald

Ross Brisbane.
I thought this was a robust science website. I’m sorry to learn otherwise. I presume you mean websites which don’t challenge your views.

Tom in Florida

Can someone comment on cold downdrafts and rain from large thunderstorms and how this makes for additional surface cooling.

Sun Spot

The Chilling Stars, reading this book when it was first published was a royal treat. Rarely does one get to witness science history of this significance, our weather and climate tied to the cosmos, a revolutionary theory indeed.
Makes the whole man made CO2 political hypothesis look like anti-science.

HankHenry

Gavin Schmitt has already spoken in a very conclusive way on cosmic rays.
“There is no connection between global warming and cosmic rays. That’s because there’s no trend in cosmic rays. It’s completely bogus,”

Hoser

You can’t discount relativistic effects in calculating the ability of particles to penetrate the atmosphere. See http://cosmic.lbl.gov/SKliewer/Cosmic_Rays/Muons.htm
Now can we expect the warmistas to start beaming x-rays upward to make clouds? And how much fossil fuel will we burn to accomplish that?

DJ, we have a pretty good idea:
http://sciencebits.com/calorimeter

JKrob,
You would also probably want to get a base-line image of the earths average aerosol cover, determine a threshold (a level of optical depth) and subtract out areas where aerosol concentrations are high and therefore won’t be affected by CRF. You would want to just look at areas that normally have low amounts of aerosols. Then, you want to look a those areas albedos.

Mac the Knife

Hah! The plot… er, cloud thickens! Independent experiments converging towards common support of the Svensmark hypothesis.
Details to follow, film at eleven… Stay tuned for news!

Brian H

Ian W says:
May 17, 2011 at 5:43 pm

You missed a “[sic]”: “Earth would loose [sic] all its water”. Rhymes with “goose”.
Use “lose”!

rbateman

HankHenry says:
May 17, 2011 at 8:23 pm
Gavin Scmitt never looked at the output of the Neutron Monitors. The counts all agree, and they are not always tied to the SSN, 10.7cm or the TSI. They stood out during the 70’s cooling period, and they might just do that again.

richcar 1225

Maybe Hansen is on to something with his lingering Pinatubo aerosol thesis. Could the cosmic ray generated so2 based aerosols end up in the stratosphere without becoming condensation nuclei?

Paul Vaughan

In Jasper Kirkby’s recent SFU IRMACS presentation, he discusses aerosols around time-index 35:40 to 35:50. He contrasts continental aerosols with Southern Ocean wind/salt aerosols. If anyone can point to the article from which he got the graph’s right panel, please do. It was immediately apparent that he was drawing attention to a key missing link.

CRS, Dr.P.H.

There is much to indicate that climate models must hereby take cosmic radiation into consideration.
I can hear the gnashing of teeth in the ivory towers of East Anglia University, NASA Goddard Institute etc.!

RoHa

Now lets hear you all try to pronounce Ulrik Ingerslev Uggerhøj, and say it three times quickly.
(I can, of course.)

savethesharks

HankHenry says:
May 17, 2011 at 8:23 pm
Gavin Schmitt has already spoken in a very conclusive way on cosmic rays.
“There is no connection between global warming and cosmic rays. That’s because there’s no trend in cosmic rays. It’s completely bogus,”
==========================
OOOOH AHHHH “Gavin Schmitt [SIC] has spoken.”
Big deal. Inconsequential. Nobody cares.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA

William says:
May 17, 2011 at 6:14 pm
If the Sun is so quiet, why is the Earth ringing? A comparison of two solar minimum intervals. Observations from the recent Whole Heliosphere Interval (WHI) solar minimum campaign are compared to last cycle’s Whole Sun Month (WSM) to demonstrate …
The WHI was not even at solar minimum. And the Earth rings at every solar minimum: http://www.leif.org/research/Historical%20Solar%20Cycle%20Context.pdf
Slide 18 shows that the solar wind has a high-speed stream leading up to every minimum.
Keith Minto says:
May 17, 2011 at 7:04 pm
My understanding of Svensmark’s theory is that Gamma rays cause lower level cloud formation.
How many times is it necessary to say that Cosmic Rays and Gamma Rays are not the same things.
——
The study shows that an electron beam can increase aerosol nucleation, and that it doesn’t matter what the ionizing agent is: electrons, gamma rays, perhaps even cosmic rays, or whatever. Ions lead to nucleation. Wilson got the Nobel Prize in 1927 for showing this. The study does not show that this has anything to do with solar activity. To show this, one has to show that the nucleation is efficient enough and that the climate has varied the same way as solar activity. And those two issues are still the stumbling blocks.

With the new results just published in the recognised journal Geophysical Research Letters, scientists have succeeded for the first time in directly observing that the electrically charged particles coming from space and hitting the atmosphere at high speed contribute to creating the aerosols that are the prerequisites for cloud formation.
I should have been more precise: the study shows that gamma rays are as good at electron beams: http://www.leif.org/EOS/2011GL047036.pdf
“[14] An important result from this work is (as seen from Figure 1) that nucleation induced with the ionization from the gamma source experiments are indistinguishable from those using the electron beam. Compared to the 580 MeV electrons the gamma rays have rather low energies and the electrons emitted through Compton scattering will ionize very locally, whereas the 580 MeV electrons have a mean energy loss rate close to the minimum (minimum ionizing) and will ionize along their path”\
The paper does NOT show that cosmic rays are involved. Nowhere in the paper [except in some references] are cosmic rays even mentioned.
REPLY: This is quite possibly the strongest argument I’ve seen that the science paper should be included with press releases, because those who write the press releases often don’t explain it in the same way the paper does. – Anthony

Keith Minto

Leif Svalgaard says:
May 17, 2011 at 10:09 pm

How many times is it necessary to say that Cosmic Rays and Gamma Rays are not the same things.

You are correct, my error in haste.

stumpy

First they just need to test their theory with a climate model – it would need to be one that accounts for the long equilibrium times of the deep ocean that can correctly represent cloud behavior – seems they are about to hit a wall!

P. Solar

Something wrong with the “Enlarge” link for the graph. Does nothing in Opera or Firefox.
😕

‘have directly demonstrated in a new experiment that cosmic radiation can create small floating particles – so-called aerosols – in the atmosphere. By doing so, they substantiate the connection between the Sun’s magnetic activity and the Earth’s climate.’
The principle was more or less accepted as realistic possibility for some time now. The problem with this hypothesis (and eventually theory) is quantity over quality, i.e. is number of such particles large enough to make any difference, particularly in the Equatorial areas, where GCR are deflected towards the magnetic poles. Contribution of albedo change at the poles for two good reasons (angle of incidence and area) is significantly lower.
If there is any magnetic effect on cloud formation and albedo than it is the:
‘Solar activity – geomagnetic storms – equatorial electro-jet- troposphere’
(tenuous) relationship which needs further investigation:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC20.htm

Keith Minto

P. Solar says:
May 17, 2011 at 11:01 pm
Something wrong with the “Enlarge” link for the graph. Does nothing in Opera or Firefox.
😕

Same here, but click the graph to isolate, then Ctrl with + to enlarge in FF.
REPLY: Nothing wrong. That’s the AGU, graph is only 350 pix wide, which is all they provided, taking the link out so people don’t waste time. – Anthony

Al Gored

RoHa says:
May 17, 2011 at 9:56 pm
Now lets hear you all try to pronounce Ulrik Ingerslev Uggerhøj, and say it three times quickly.
———-
I tried it. But I think it sounded like what DSK said to that maid in the hotel room.