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.
Leif Svalgaard says:
May 19, 2011 at 6:57 am
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.
~
Ok .. lots that I don’t know..we all know that.. lol
So went scouting and wow.. ACR higher last solar min and GCR higher this solar min. HCS tilt angle is sited in the following abstract as to why that is. Maybe you might share something about the solar magnetic cycle relationship in all this.
Man o Man the cosmic radio isotope data screwed..
Anomalous and Galactic Cosmic Rays at 1 AU During the Cycle 23/24 Solar Minimum
R. A. Leske, A. C. Cummings, R. A. Mewaldt and E. C. Stone
Abstract
Anomalous cosmic ray (ACR) intensities at 1 AU at solar minimum generally track galactic cosmic ray (GCR) intensities such as those measured by neutron monitors, albeit with differences between solar polarity cycles. The unusual cycle 23/24 solar minimum was long-lasting with very low sunspot numbers and significantly reduced interplanetary magnetic field strength and solar wind dynamic pressure and turbulence, but also featured a heliospheric current sheet tilt that remained high for an extended period. Peak ACR intensities did not recover to the maximum values reached during the last two A>0 solar minima and just barely reached the last A<0 levels. However, GCR intensities in 2009 (neutron monitor rates and also at ∼200 MeV/nucleon) were the highest recorded during the last 50 years, indicating their intensities were not as heavily modulated during their transport from the outer heliosphere. This unexpected difference in the behavior of ACRs and GCRs remains unexplained, but suggests that either the ACR source intensity may have weakened since the last A<0 epoch, or perhaps that ACR intensities at 1 AU in the ecliptic may be more sensitive than GCRs to the higher tilt angle. This seems plausible if the ACR source intensity is greater at low latitudes during A<0 cycles, while the GCR distribution at the heliospheric boundary is more uniform in latitude. Shortly after an abrupt increase in the current sheet tilt angle in late 2009, both ACR and GCR intensities showed dramatic decreases, marking the end of solar minimum modulation conditions for this cycle.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/v471577130j58696/
vukcevic and carla, thanks
Vukcevic: I agree there are INTERNAL MATTERS in Earth as well – tectonic plate movement (very long term) and shorter term internal magnetic changes which affect at minimum the earth’s magnetic cross section, and we have noted it appears a stronger earth’s magnetic field is associated with a warmer world. This is in line with our general smoothed out observation that more solar particles => warming.
The GCR theory is either no effect or cooling because a larger magnetosphere might capture a few more Cosmic Rays and that theory’s general line is such cause cloud nucleation and cooling.
Carla. We do NOT know everything or even claim to know more than a drop of what needs to be known but I didnt quite understand your point.
All My comment above has also been posted on weatheraction.com where comments on it specifically can be made. short link = http://bit.ly/mQhihD
Thanks, Piers
Thanks Dr S. this article is explaining the solar magnetic cycle involvement just fine..
Unusual time histories of galactic and anomalous cosmic rays
at 1 AU over the deep solar minimum of cycle 23/24
Frank B. McDonald,1 William R. Webber,2 and Donald V. Reames1
Received 7 June 2010; revised 12 July 2010; accepted 26 July 2010; published 18 September 2010.
Carla says:
May 19, 2011 at 11:37 am
Peak ACR intensities did not recover to the maximum values reached
So even less reason to worry about ACRs. The ACRs have much lower energy that the GCRs and are thus modulated very differently [relatively more, in fact] than the GCRs. The different modulations will teach us about the mechanism and the conditions for the modulation. But since the intensity and energy of ACRs are so much smaller than that of GCRs we don’t need to consider the ACRs important factors.
Carla says:
May 19, 2011 at 11:37 am
Shortly after an abrupt increase in the current sheet tilt angle in late 2009, both ACR and GCR intensities showed dramatic decreases, marking the end of solar minimum modulation conditions for this cycle.
As we expected, ever since we first figured out long ago how important the HCS is for modulation of cosmic rays: http://www.leif.org/research/HCS-Nature-1976.pdf
The Galactic cosmic ray mystery continues..but sign and tilt angles questions answered nicely, even has a reference to .. our good friend Dr. S..and company..
Unusual time histories of galactic and anomalous cosmic rays
at 1 AU over the deep solar minimum of cycle 23/24
Frank B. McDonald,1 William R. Webber,2 and Donald V. Reames1
Received 7 June 2010; revised 12 July 2010; accepted 26 July 2010; published 18 September 2010.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/current/si/links/2010GL044218.pdf
[11] The three cosmic ray intensities in Figure 2 increase
rapidly after the “Halloween Events” in late 2003 which
marked the end of the solar maximum of cycle 23. This
initial increase is followed by an ∼1.5 year plateau region
centered about 2004.7. Since that time, the GCR and ACR
intensities increased continuously over the following 3 years
(except for a brief decrease associated with a small transient
increase of 5.5° in the tilt angle) reaching a broad minimum
between 2009.5 and 2009.85 followed by a sharp decrease
beginning in ∼2009.9. The relative changes compared to
cycle 21 can be seen more clearly in Figure 3 where the
cycle 21 data has been shifted forward 20 years.
[20] The more sharply peaked time history of all cosmic
ray ions over the solar minimum of cycles 19 and 21 show
the important role of drift effects in qA < 0 epochs. While
the 2008.7 transient decreased in tilt angle produces a larger
percentage change at low energies, it should be noted that
the relative change from the onset of cycle 23 in 1997 to the
2001.5 maximum is much larger at lower energies. The ratio
of the 5° change in tilt angle to the % change from solar
minimum to solar maximum (1997.7–2001.5) is 3% of the
SANAE solar cycle decrease, 0.7% for 200 MeV/n GCR He
and 0.2% for 8–18 MeV/n 0, indicating that the tilt angle
plays a significant role at the higher energies.
Carla says:
May 19, 2011 at 12:44 pm
The Galactic cosmic ray mystery continues..but sign and tilt angles questions answered nicely, even has a reference to .. our good friend Dr. S..and company..
John Wilcox and myself are the originators of the theory that the tilt angle [which is a misnomer as the HCS is not tilted at all, but warped] controls the cosmic ray flux: http://www.leif.org/research/HCS-Nature-1976.pdf
In addition to that there are much smaller effects having to do with drifts of the GCRs in the different polarities which causes a slight alternation in sizes between cycles. But since the ACRs have much less energy and intensity that the GCRs they wouldn’t in the climate debate.
Carla says:
May 19, 2011 at 12:44 pm
“Unusual time histories of galactic and anomalous cosmic rays at 1 AU over the deep solar minimum of cycle 23/24”
One is ‘supposed’ to say something like that [to get a paper accepted these days], but there was really nothing ‘unusual’ about that minimum, see: http://www.leif.org/research/Historical%20Solar%20Cycle%20Context.pdf
We probably had the same situation around 1965 when the polar fields were also weak.
Holgate (2007) shows a steady rise of sea-level throughout the 20 Century (mean rate = 1.74 mm/yr), with no increase in rate during recent decades (Fig.4). Sea level rise is mainly due to thermal expansion of the oceans, plus some land ice melting.
It also shows that the rate of sea level rise over the 20th Century is strongly modulated. Interestingly, the modulation has a good association with the sun spot cycle, however there is currently no established mechanism to explain such association. Variations in Solar Irradiance are too small to account for the modulation.
What an outrageous comment.
Just what do you think high albedo clouds cause on the surface, Leif? I’d think “shade” would be a fair description. Blocked/bounced/intercepted light, y’know?
Jeez.
Brian H says:
May 22, 2011 at 3:34 am
What an outrageous comment.
Let me try again: Leif Svalgaard says:
“cloud cover changes the albedo, i.e. what doesn’t even get to the Earth in the first place.”