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.
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
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
- 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.
A change in cloud quantities can occur in more than one way.
My main problem with the Svensmark hypothesis is that there is no shortage of the necessary aerosols in the first place so more of them does not necessarily result in more clouds.
The Svansmark idea suggests that the extra aerosols being added would have a pretty even effect on cloudiness across the globe with perhaps a slight bias towards the polar regions where some charged particles are directed in along the magnetic field lines.
However we don’t see changes in cloudiness occurring in a pattern which would comply with that proposition.
Instead we see changes in the surface pressure distribution affecting the size and positions of the various blocks of polar and equatorial air masses as they ebb and flow and interact with one another around the world all the time.
Where those air masses interact we see more clouds and the solar effect seems to work by causing more (or less) meridional jets, more (or less) air mass mixing and therefore longer (or shorter) lines of air mass interaction across the globe resulting in more (or less) clouds.
So generally we see zonal jets and less clouds (warming) when the sun is active and meridional jets and more clouds (cooling) when the sun is less active.
The recent combination of a very quiet sun and a record negative Arctic Oscillation with increasing global albedo in contrast to the late 20th century active sun with a weak Arctic Oscillation and decreasing global albedo is an example in point.
Also the Svensmark idea would require the creation of more clouds first then some sort of reorganisation process over time as the additional clouds became incorporated into the background weather patterns. The clouds would have to come first and then the weather patterns would change.
In reality we see the weather patterns change first by way of a change in the meridionality/zzonality of the jets then the cloud quantity changes follow.
To get that change in meridionality/zonality we first need a change in the atmospheric heights and as far as I know Svensmark’s idea does not deal with that.
Thus we are back to solar induced ozone linked chemical reactions in the atmospheric column altering the heights in line with the level of solar activity.
@anything can happen,
There has been at least one recent Supernova – SN1987A, I spent a couple of nights watching this event on our low southern horizon (in Australia).
Supernova 1987A was discovered in the Large Magellanic cloud Feb 1987, originating 168,000 light years away.
Evidence of the solar-GCR link can be seen by a recent event ~17th Feb 2011, if you look back at what happened on the Moscow Neutron counter, where the count dropped significantly when there was a medium class solar flare, showing the mechanism for a Forbush event. This flare wasn’t even directly orientated towards the Earth.
Aren’t we overdue for another large solar flare or CME as the Sun’s activity increases ?
JT
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
Now there’s something you won’t hear a lot of climate scientists who rely on models say that they will look forward to others going over their work.
James Bull
http://www.climate4you.com/Sun.htm#Cosmic ray intensity and sunspot activity
All the current research seems to be showing Svensmark to be correct. It is also proving that observation and measurement are superior to model output.
It’s a darn good thing that Gamma Rays and Cosmic Rays aren’ t the same thing.
The former is quite deadly stuff and we wouldn’t be here if our atmosphere wasn’t opaque to it.
How wonderful to see real science being done, the conclusions written and peer-reviewed then published and all without massive budgets, huge facilities and supercomputers such as the one on the UK Met Office’s wish list!
Gavin who???
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,”
Hasn’t he always said the same thing about the Sun? (CO2 is a sky god.)
JeffT and Anything is possible:
There have been many observed supernovae over recent years. SN2005 as observed from Hubbell is a spectacular example. See http://www.hubblesite.org/gallery/album/pr2004010f/
Robert Quimby and group at the McDonald Observatory have found 35 supernovae to date. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Supernova_Search for a short article about their work.
One of the questions that would need to be answered is how close to earth would a supernova need to be in order to produce some effect ala the Svensmark hypothesis.
Well, Congrats to Dr Svensmark, he appears to have been right. I wonder if these results coming from CERN and others will cause some of the derision directed at Dr Svensmark and his theory to lessen. Na, probably not. I guess the Team follows the trial lawyers code, “If the law is on your side argue the law, if the law is not on your side attack the person.”
Stephen Wilde, see Kirkby around time-index 35:40 to 35:50 in the video to which I linked. He’s clearly suggesting heterogeneity and a role for circulation. It might be interesting to hear Svensmark comment on aspects of zonality/meridionality that you often discuss.
@ur momisugly 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,”
==================
Gavin Schmidt walks a dangerous line using trend (correlation?) to attempt to falsify a theory. The correlation between CO2 level and global temperature is almost non-existent (< .3 ), so, given that you could also make the following statement relative to CO2 & 'Global Warming'
—
There is no connection between global warming and CO2. That's because the correlation between CO2 level and global temperature is very weak. It's completely bogus.
Paul Hull says:
May 18, 2011 at 6:01 am
JeffT and Anything is possible:
There have been many observed supernovae over recent years. SN2005 as observed from Hubbell is a spectacular example. See http://www.hubblesite.org/gallery/album/pr2004010f/
Robert Quimby and group at the McDonald Observatory have found 35 supernovae to date. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Supernova_Search for a short article about their work.
One of the questions that would need to be answered is how close to earth would a supernova need to be in order to produce some effect ala the Svensmark hypothesis.
==========
Pick up a copy of Svensmark’s book, “The Chilling Stars”. I think it would answer a lot of your questions.
As per the most recent UV satellites, the Sun is NOT a constant producer of UV. Why didn’t they vary the simulated UV?
Again, the constant energy output of the Sun BIAS rears its ugly head. Even Leif Svalgaard admits that there is an energy difference between a Sunspot Maximum and a Sunspot Minimum.
Carla says:
1992 solar min. dominate species of Cosmic Rays were Anomalous Cosmic Rays..
Anomalous cosmic rays are singly charged..
what does this do to the global electric potential..
like does it stall weather systems..like we have been seeing lately..does it prevent the jetstream from moving north..does it create those humpy looking jetstreams??
..SAMPEX — major discoveries published in refereed journals
Anomalous Cosmic Rays
Discovery of the precise location of trapped anomalous cosmic rays in the magnetosphere.
Measurement of the elemental composition of trapped ACR, including C, N, 0, and Ne.
“Early” return of the anomalous cosmic ray component in the 1992 solar minimum period, well before the relativistic ions. LI>Discovery that trapped anomalous cosmic rays are the dominant component of high energy (>10 MeV/nuc) ions heavier than He in the magnetosphere.
.. Magnetospheric Physics
Discovery that magnetospheric electrons are globally accelerated in association with the impact of high speed solar wind streams.
.. SAMPEX–major discoveries reported at scientific meetings but not yet published in refereed journals
.. Anomalous Cosmic Rays
Determination that ACR nitrogen, oxygen, and neon are singly charged.
Determination that the upper limit of ACR O2+ is less than 10% of the total ACR oxygen, thus limiting acceleration time scales in the heliosphere.
Discovery that the interplanetary spectrum of anomalous oxygen extends to at least 100 MeV/nucleon, implying that the ACR acceleration mechanism (termination shock?) accelerates particles to at least 1.6 GeV..
http://sunland.gsfc.nasa.gov/smex/sampex/mission/
Time-variability in the Interstellar Boundary Conditions
of the Heliosphere: Effect of the Solar Journey on the
Galactic Cosmic Ray Flux at Earth
Priscilla C. Frisch • Hans-Reinhard Mueller
rev. 3 Feb. 2011
“””The interpretation of the geological record of cosmogenic isotopes relies on accurate
models of the cosmic ray spectra. One factor that is not included in
the interpretation of the geological record of cosmogenic isotopes is that the cosmic ray
spectrum incident on the Earth consists of two components that behave differently as
the Sun travels through space. Galactic cosmic rays dominate at high energies, > 500
MeV, and are subject to heliospheric modulation as the Sun travels through space.
However a second cosmic ray component at lower energies is formed inside of the
heliopause from interstellar neutrals that penetrate and are ionized inside of the heliosphere,
forming pickup ions. These are subsequently accelerated to form lower-energy
anomalous cosmic rays (ACRs) with a composition derived from neutral interstellar
atoms in the CISM (Fisk et al. 1974).
The local interstellar cosmic ray spectrum that
creates the geological radio-isotope record is thus composed of two components that
vary differently over time and space, the higher energy galactic cosmic rays (GCRs)
that are modulated by a variable heliosphere, and the ACRs that also depend on the
density and fractional ionization of the surrounding interstellar cloud.
In this paper we present the overall picture of the ISM characteristics that result
from the motion of the Sun and interstellar clouds through space. Observations of interstellar
absorption lines towards nearest stars show that spatial variations in velocity,
temperature, and ionization of the circumheliospheric ISM create temporal variations
in the heliosphere boundary conditions. These then cause temporal variations in the
spectrum and fluxes of cosmic rays at Earth. We also draw possible connections between
interstellar cloud transitions and the geological radio isotope record.”””
GCR dependent on supernovae, location direction, fallout time, decay, gal. magnetic field trapping..
ACR dependent upon cloud denisity of ISM etc..in the very local vicinity of our solar system at any given time.
Leif:
from my reading it seems that you are critical of the Svensmark hypothesis.
If…
an energetic electron beam (high energy, very light charged particles) and gamma rays (electromagnetic radiation, no charge, no mass) do cause aerosol formation, would you expect something different from cosmic rays (high energy, very heavy, charged particles)?
I agree that empirical evidence needs to be pursued, but are you discounting the theory until it is proven in the lab with heavy nuclei?
Should we not also discount the CO2 theory since it is not proven?
Carla says:
May 18, 2011 at 7:02 am
1992 solar min. dominate species of Cosmic Rays were Anomalous Cosmic Rays..
Carla, you really have to get your stuff straight. The article talks about ACRs heavier than Helium. These make up a minute portion of the cosmic rays [1% or less] and have very little energy and therefore cannot penetrate into the atmosphere.
Jim G says:
May 18, 2011 at 7:21 am
I agree that empirical evidence needs to be pursued, but are you discounting the theory until it is proven in the lab with heavy nuclei?
There is no doubt that ions [no matter how produced] can produce clouds [Wilson got a Nobel Prize in 1927 exploiting that]. The real issue is if the effect to large enough to explain climate change [and calculations indicate that it is not] and if the changes in the ionization produced by cosmic rays matches that of the climate [and they do not].
@-Bill Marsh says:
May 18, 2011 at 6:30 am
“Well, Congrats to Dr Svensmark, he appears to have been right.”
Right about what ???
This research indicates that ionizing radiation can generate the PRECURSERS of cloud condensation nuclei. It does nothing to show that those precursers can actually combine to form active cloud condensation nuclei and it does nothing to show that those CCNs are quantitativly significant.
That is there is no evidence I am aware of that indicates that actual cloud cover is correlated with changes in GCR flux. There is evidence that organic sources of sulphur compounds ARE a modulating factor for CCNs. Unfortunately the empirical observations of cloud cover are inadequate to determine any correlation with solar/GCR changes.
And as others have pointed out there have not been any significant solar/GCR changes for decades, while global temperatures and sea levels and snow/ice melt continues to increase.
These folks and CERN could get into some interesting cross replication of experiment runs.
Two competing hypothesis:
– CO2 feedback forcing – present, but not to a degree to produce the effect attributed to it.
– GCR nucleation – present, but not to a degree to produce the effect attributed to it.
We were taught in school in the 50’s and 60’s that the Milankovitch cycles were not responsible for the ice ages. That scientists had done the calculations and shown that the effects were too small.
Then a decade latter, ocean cores provided the proof that Milankovitch was correct. This was a much discussed topic at the time, as there were real fears that we were heading into another ice age. There was talk about taking action to prevent the cooling.
Good thing we didn’t panic 50 years ago and spend billions of dollars to warm the planet up, because some scientists didn’t get the math right. It isn’t by accident that the older generations are skeptical. Like night follows day, every 30 years we switch from warming to cooling and back. Since the models can’t predict it, the observations must be wrong.
A river on its way to the ocean wanders all over the place, and changes course all the time on its own without any external “forcings”. Why should climate be any different?
Why should we expect global temperature to follow a straight line year to year when a river doesn’t? Like a river, perhaps the meaner in climate has nothing to do with external forcings. It is simply the nature of climate to change from time to time, for reasons that are not well understood. Thus, the correlation with external forcings may be weak at best, and too small to explain what is observed.
Consider the solar cycle. The solar cycle changes year to year without any external forcings of sufficient magnitude to explain the change. Why should the climate on earth be any more constant? If anything the sun should be much more constant than the earth, because of intertia, yet the length of the solar cycle is not constant.
It’s okay, they won’t add cosmic rays into the climate models, so the pridiction of doom and gloom will remain. They’ll just claim that, since the models have a high level of skill at recreating the current climate, the cosmic rays have already been accounted for in parameterizations of cloud formation. As my Britt friends might say: Easy Peasy Lemon Squeezy!!!!