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.
sorry for the double post, but I just saw this and had to respond because I don’t think anyone else has really pointed out where Ross is tripping up.
Ross Brisbane says:
May 17, 2011 at 4:52 pm The statement that more cloud cover cools the earth is not that straight forward
The key reason you are wrong is because you are confusing clouds and water vapor. Water vapor in the air will hold warmth at night but will not shade the surface in the day. If cosmic rays turn some of that water vapor into clouds then they are still opaque to IR at night, but they now provide shade in the day. The net result will be cooling relative to what the conditions would have been if the water vapor remained uncondensed in the atmosphere.
I hope that helps sort out the confusion.
Gary Swift says:
May 18, 2011 at 10:28 am
The key reason you are wrong is because you are confusing clouds and water vapor. Water vapor in the air will hold warmth at night but will not shade the surface in the day. If cosmic rays turn some of that water vapor into clouds then they are still opaque to IR at night, but they now provide shade in the day.
Svensmark’s hypothesis has nothing to do with shade in the day or water vapor, etc. But simply that cloud cover changes the albedo, i.e. what doesn’t even get to the Earth in the first place.
@Fred 9:58
In general, the solar cycle is very constant. The 22 year cycle (reversal in magnetic field) is usually more stable than the (consistant) 11 year cycle.
Leif Svalgaard says:
May 18, 2011 at 10:33 am
Svensmark’s hypothesis has nothing to do with shade in the day or water vapor, etc. But simply that cloud cover changes the albedo, i.e. what doesn’t even get to the Earth in the first place.
Yes, but I was addressing Ross’s theory that the clouds would also warm the earth at night. I was pointing out that the water vapor is still in the air either way and will warm the night whether it is cloudy or not. The change in albedo in the day (i.e. creating shade by reflecting sunlight back out to space. The difference between what you said and what I said is just symantics.) combined with the exact same nighttime conditions either way, results in a net cooling if cosmic rays create clouds.
Here is a chance for Svensmark:
Denmark wants to claim North Pole
May 18, 2011 16:12 Moscow Time
Denmark plans to lay claims to the North Pole. According to Danish media, Copenhagen plans to make public its Northern Strategy next month. This document contains the demands for the continental shelf in 5 zones around the Faroe Islands and Greenland, including the North Pole. The Arctic countries’ applications to shelf sections will be considered by the United Nations, and they must be submitted to the organization before 2014.
http://english.ruvr.ru/2011/05/18/50475000.html
vukcevic says:
May 18, 2011 at 11:09 am
Denmark wants to claim North Pole
We are the country nearest to the pole.
Oh no! Now we will have to make sacrifices to the Sun to safe the planet – ah la Aztecs.
What nice news. I await the response from the Annointed Ones.
Leif Svalgaard says:
We are the country nearest to the pole.
Not the magnetic North 🙂
We are the country nearest to the pole.
Greenland takes step toward independence from Denmark
The Arctic territory of Greenland has begun a new era of self-rule after 300 years under Danish authority, moving closer to independence with a potential oil bonanza below its icecap.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/greenland/5594140/Greenland-takes-step-toward-independence-from-Denmark.html
Leif Svalgaard says:
May 18, 2011 at 12:01 pm
We are the country nearest to the pole.
Heh, because the Danish have stolen Greenland from Norway (just kidding)… But is it still right, now that Greenland has more Home Rule?
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
May 18, 2011 at 12:43 pm
But is it still right, now that Greenland has more Home Rule?
We are doing this on behalf of Greenland. An oil-bonanza would make their home-rule more viable.
NO! THINK!
Cosmic Rays and solar activity are inverse proxies of each other so seeing one does not mean the other causes anything. An observed relation between solar activity and any earth atmospheric variable does NOT need Cosmic rays as the agency. The agent can be (AND IS!) solar particles themselves which have 300 times the energy flux on average of cosmic rays. Cosmic Rays are a side show.
The clincher is that if Cosmic Rays are the agents linking solar activity to the earth’s atmosphere then since they follow the suns’ 11 year cycle then world temperatures should mainly follow the 11 yr cycle BUT THEY DO NOT. They follow the 22 year magnetic cycle which guides solar particles in magnetically sensitive ways. Please see the Climate Realist thread on this http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=3307
And let us be clear when, using predicable aspects of solar activity, we at WeatherAction.com forecast extreme weather events with high skill we OBSERVE the chain of being:
solar activity (eg X flares, fast solar wind proton bursts etc) =>ionospheric/magnetic effects=> jet stream shifts / tornadoes / weather.
THERE ARE NO OBSERVED MODULATIONS OF COSMIC RAYS ON THESE SHORT TIME SCALES SO THEY CANNOT BE THE AGENTS OF WEATHER CHANGE OR CLIMATE CHANGE. (climate being the sum of weather over a long time)
THINK!!! For Cosmic Rays (which arrive essentially isotropically) to be modulated by solar activity, the magnetic flux (irrespective of direction) filling a large part of the solar system has to change – that takes weeks or months (the slow solar wind and magnetic flux takes typically 4 days to reach Earth for example and its got to go way beyond that to have a major effect), NOT half a day or so.
For a good Video link example of solar action driving changes in the jet stream see:-
=> Links at the bottom of slide 38 of the PDF in our submission to the UK Parliamentary Inquiry into December 2010 coldest for 100 years crisis. This shows a very dramatic double sunspot eruption driving the jet stream shift we predicted which ended the West Russia heat wave and Pakistan superfloods http://www.weatheraction.com/displayarticle.asp?a=318&c=1
=> http://www.weatheraction.com/docs/WANews11No3.pdf – Forecasted simultaneous blizzards in USA and Tropical Cyclone Yasi devastating Queensland preceded by fast solar wind from a very large coronal hole.
=> http://www.weatheraction.com/docs/WANews11No4.pdf – Similar pair of forecasted events eb 18/19 preceded by largest (X2) solar flare for 4 years
JET STREAM SHIFTS ARE THE STUFF OF CLIMATE CHANGE AND COSMIC RAYS ARE NOTHING TO DO WITH THEM.
So, the Cosmic Ray agency is a nice idea but doesn’t work (beyond perhaps a very minor effect of about 0.3%). It is a dangerous diversion to promote it as THE MAIN agent of sun-earth links because as it is shown on a regular basis that it doesn’t work the CO2 delusional sect just use their “Not a dog so it must be a cat logic, ie “Ah it’s not the Sun therefore it must be CO2”.
Thanks, Piers Corbyn, astrophysicist WeatherAction.com long range weather & Climate Forecasters
I have gone by the assumption for many years now that GCR’s do impact the formation of clouds, and this, more than simple Total Solar Irradiance, goes a long way to explaining how solar cycles and deep solar minimums can affect the climate in ways that are currently not included in global climate models.
My question, for those truly qualified to answer, is how our understanding of the GCR/cloud formation mechanism might translate into getting a more accurate picture of how this might relate to the role of anthropogenic GH gases. Some warmists it seems would seem to make the claim that it is true that sun WAS the biggest influencer of climate prior to the rapid build up of anthropogenic GH gases, but not so anymore. So the upshot of all this would seem to be that yes, GCR’s modulate the climate to some extent through the effect on cloud formation, but that’s all trumped by human greenhouse gas emissions.
I’d love to get a nice honest and unbiased discussion about this specfic point by some of the knowledgable people on this site…
All a cover for Geoengineering already taking place. Wake UP and Please LOOK UP.
Try taking a rain water sample to your local lab and having it tested for aluminum. Explain THAT.
“but that’s all trumped by human greenhouse gas emissions.”
How do you know that ?
R. Gates says:
May 18, 2011 at 4:57 pm
I’d love to get a nice honest and unbiased discussion
I don’t think you’ll get one. As I see it the equation is Climate = X * internal fluctuation + Y * sun + Z * man. The discussion should be about how large X, Y, and Z are. As long as some people claim X =1, Y = Z = 0 [1,0,0] others [0,1,0] and the rest [0,0,1], no progress can be made.
Leif Svalgaard says:
May 18, 2011 at 7:56 pm
R. Gates says:
May 18, 2011 at 4:57 pm
I’d love to get a nice honest and unbiased discussion
I don’t think you’ll get one. As I see it the equation is Climate = X * internal fluctuation + Y * sun + Z * man. The discussion should be about how large X, Y, and Z are. As long as some people claim X =1, Y = Z = 0 [1,0,0] others [0,1,0] and the rest [0,0,1], no progress can be made.
————-
I suppose you are correct, as sad as that is. I personally have always valued the open minded individual above the dogmatic. I think your trying to put true values on x,y, and z in the formula you give above is the honest approach and certainly that exactly what the honest climate scientist try’s to do. It is exciting to me that now we are getting closer to be able to quantify another aspect of the sun’s role on climate via the GCR modulation/cloud connection. What is depressing to me is that certain people will take this to an absurd extreme and insist it means that the human role must therefore be 0, or stop looking for other solar/climate connections that have nothing to do with the modulation of GCR’s or total solar irradiance.
Dr. Corbin
I agree with your assessment on the GCR, as I posted above:
– 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.
I also think geomagnetic storms have important effect on the Arctic polar vortex.
However, there are external factors not related to the solar activity, but apparently at the root of long term changes in AMO and PDO:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CD.htm
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/PDO.htm
Often referred to as the internal fluctuation by climate experts, but again that may be due to the lack of understanding of full picture.
If this effect were to cause more cloud at night time in the lower atmosphere than during daylight, global warming would result. Night cloud traps more heat, daytime cloud can cause cooling by re radiating more of the suns rays, but not night cloud.
Apologies to Dr. Corbyn for misspelling the name.
R. Gates
There are outside factors not related either to solar or human input, such as volcanic eruption and some others, in no way could be considered to be (climate/ temperature) internal fluctuations
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CD.htm
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/PDO.htm
Piers Corbyn says:
May 18, 2011 at 4:50 pm
JET STREAM SHIFTS ARE THE STUFF OF CLIMATE CHANGE AND COSMIC RAYS ARE NOTHING TO DO WITH THEM.
~
Nothing personal Piers..I do think you have got it..a part of it..for weather prediction.
BUT YOU THINK NOW..if interPLANETARY space or interplanetary atmosphere becomes polluted with interstellar neurtals and Anomalous cosmic rays, those planets orbiting in the variable pollution rates will have that pushed into their terrestrial atmospheres by the mechanisms you have shown here.. The Van Allen cosmic radiation belts “bloated” Piers..most dominate species ACR..being pushed from their trapped locations within Earth’s magnetic field..being freeeeeeeeed..instead of anilihation..
Carla says:
May 19, 2011 at 5:46 am
most dominate species ACR..being pushed
You still don’t get it: ACRs have much too low energy to do anything and their flux is 100 times lower than GCRs.
One of the basic questions has been answered, congrats to the team.
But so many more unanswered.
Why does the outgoing radiation values follow the ENSO cycle?
Is UV important, if so there is an anti correlation.
Does the process only work during daylight hours?
Is there compensatory actions that oppose cloud formation..ie show me the extra clouds where they matter.
Perhaps the PDO and solar enhanced bending jetstreams have more power? As for major hurricanes fueled by the solar wind….this should not be happening during a solar grand mimimum. The Neg PDO plus extra strong La Nina influenced by low solar more likely.
“As I see it the equation is Climate = X * internal fluctuation + Y * sun + Z * man. The discussion should be about how large X, Y, and Z are. As long as some people claim X =1, Y = Z = 0 [1,0,0] others [0,1,0] and the rest [0,0,1], no progress can be made.”
Well internal fluctuation (X) would be mainly oceanic but could well be substantial over 500 years if there is a larger low frequency oscillation in the background beyond PDO and ENSO. That does seem to be the case otherwise oceanic resistance would have stopped the MWP and LIA from happening at all.
Nominally the solar effect (Y) is only 0.1C from single cycle peak to trough unless amplified somehow such as by GCRs producing more clouds or by ozone based chemical reactions altering the vertical temperature profile of the atmosphere. That process appears to involve cloudiness and albedo changes which have the potential to alter energy received by the oceans to far more than the equivalent of a 0.1C temperature change. We have observed such cloudiness and albedo changes.
Man’s effect (Z) then has to be put in context.
Now the mechanism for climate effects from X and Y seems to be via an effect on the surface pressure distribution from above AND from below with an effect on jetstream behaviour which reorganises the energy flow through the atmosphere to cause a net cooling or a net warming.
We see from the MWP to LIA to date that the change in the surface pressure distribution from X and Y is substantial.
Z also needs to operate via a change in the surface pressure distribution but by how much ?
If X and Y can shift the jets latitudinally by 1000 miles or so how much am I bid for the effect of more CO2 ?
My guess would be something less than a mile. We wouldn’t notice it and couldn’t even measure it.