Reblogged from Calder’s Updates
In the climax to the Danes’ experiments, cloud seeds flout the theories
Near to the end of the story that starts with stars exploding in the Galaxy and ends with extra clouds gathering, a small but important paragraph was missing till now. From experiments in Copenhagen reported in 2006 and reconfirmed in 2011 in Aarhus and Geneva (CERN, CLOUD), cosmic rays coming from old supernovas can indeed make molecular clusters a few millionths of a millimetre wide, floating in the air. But can these aerosols really grow nearly a million times in mass to be large enough to become “cloud condensation nuclei” on which water droplets can form – as required by Henrik Svensmark’s cosmic theory of climate change?
Opponents pointed out that theoretical models said No, the growth of additional aerosols would be blocked by a resulting shortage of condensable gases like sulphuric acid in the atmosphere.
Now for the first time, an unexpected trick that Mother Nature had up her sleeve is revealed by experiment. The discovery is elegantly explained by a new way in which sulphuric acid forms in the atmosphere, as announced in a paper by Svensmark and two of his colleagues in Denmark’s National Space Institute in Copenhagen, Martin Enghoff and Jens Olaf Pepke Pedersen. They have submitted it to Physical Review Letters. A preprint is available on arXiv here http://arxiv.org/abs/1202.5156v1
A brief history.
Last year’s attempts to dismiss the Aarhus and CERN results as inconsequential for climate change didn’t dismay the Danes. They knew there was something wrong with the current understanding because they had observational support for the whole chain from solar activity to cosmic rays to aerosols to clouds in the real atmosphere (Svensmark, Bondo and Svensmark 2009). In order to dig into the physics, they decided to rebuild, in the basement of the Space Institute, the 8 cubic metre experimental chamber SKYII which six years ago was used as the CLOUD prototype chamber at CERN,
In the limelight of the atmospheric drama, sulphuric acid is one of the commonest of trace gases and very important for both the formation and the growth of aerosols. When the Sun rises in the morning, its ultraviolet rays convert sulphur dioxide, ozone and water vapour in the air into sulphuric acid molecules. These are continuously lost as they club together with further water and a little ammonia into very small molecular clusters. Nevertheless, the concentration of sulphuric acid rises to a peak and then diminishes as the Sun goes down in the evening.
A clue that something more is going on comes from the persistence all through the night of sulphuric acid at about 10 per cent of the daytime maximum. If these molecules too are continuously lost, they must be replenished by a chemical reaction that doesn’t need ultraviolet light.
What did the new experiment called SKY2 show? Without going into technical details that you’ll find in the paper, let’s just say that the primary result flatly contradicts the theoretical prediction that the infant aerosols couldn’t grow up into cloud condensation nuclei. Here’s a figure from the paper.
Molecular clusters grow over time, in the SKY2 experiment in Copenhagen. The horizontal axis is scaled in nanometres (millionths of a millimetre) and each blue point shows the relative number of clusters of that size before and after the experimental runs. Anything over 1.0 means that growth has continued. In contrast, the red points illustrate a pessimistic prediction of previous theories, that growth should cease when the size passes 50 nanometres. On the other hand, the black curve running through the blue points shows what is to be expected if there is a continual supply of sulphuric acid. The persistent growth of clusters occurs only in the presence of gamma rays that simulate cosmic rays and set electrons free to influence the chemistry.
So what’s the explanation? What new pathway supplies the sulphuric acid needed to keep the growth going? The Danes recall a suggestion in their 2006 SKY report that electrons can act like catalysts, being used over and over again to promote chemical action. In the new paper they say: A possible explanation could be that the charged clusters are producing additional [sulphuric acid] molecules from reactions involving negative ion chemistry of [ozone, sulphur dioxide and water], where a negative ion can be reused in a catalytic production of several [sulphuric acid molecules].
Depending on the concentrations of trace gases, several may mean dozens. And where do the electrons come from? They are liberated by cosmic rays raining down by night as well as by day. If the results of the experiment and these ideas are confirmed, there’s an amazing pay-off. The cosmic rays help to make the extra sulphuric acid that allows (1) a number of additional aerosols to form and (2) a larger number of aerosols to grow into cloud condensation nuclei. Without this second effect the aerosols would grow slowly and most of the extra aerosols would be lost before becoming large enough to seed clouds.
That ions liberated by cosmic rays promote a second pathway for forming sulphuric acid was already known from an experiment performed in Copenhagen in a collaboration with the University of Copenhagen and the Technical University of Tokyo (see the Enghoff et al. reference below). Depending on whether the sulphuric acid comes from ultraviolet action or is ion-induced, it has different signatures in the relative abundances of isotopes of sulphur. What’s more, the number of molecules made by the ion route greatly surpassed the number of ions available, again implying reuse of the electrons in a catalytic fashion.
To summarize the latest paper, the Svensmark, Enghoff and Pepke Pedersen abstract reads:
In experiments where ultraviolet light produces aerosols from trace amounts of ozone, sulphur dioxide, and water vapour, the number of additional small particles produced by ionization by gamma sources all grow up to diameters larger than 50 nm, appropriate for cloud condensation nuclei. This result contradicts both ion-free control experiments and also theoretical models that predict a decline in the response of larger particles due to an insufficiency of condensable gases (which leads to slower growth) and to larger losses by coagulation between the particles. This unpredicted experimental finding points to a process not included in current theoretical models, possibly an ion-induced formation of sulphuric acid in small clusters.
Scandals of a political character engulf climate physics these days, but future historians may shake their heads more sadly over scientific negligence. Isn’t it amazing that such a fundamental activity of sulphuric acid, going on over your head right now, has passed unnoticed since 1875 when cloud seeding was discovered, since 1996 when Svensmark found the link between cosmic rays and cloud cover, and since 2006 when the Danes suggested the catalytic role of electrons? Perhaps the experts were confused by the ever-present dislike of the role of the Sun in climate change.
So Svensmark and the small team in Copenhagen have had nearly all of the breakthroughs to themselves. And the chain of experimental and observational evidence is now much more secure:
Supernova remnants → cosmic rays → solar modulation of cosmic rays → variations in cluster and sulphuric acid production → variation in cloud condensation nuclei → variation in low cloud formation → variation in climate.
Svensmark won’t comment publicly on the new paper until it’s accepted for publication. But I can report that, in conversation, he sounds like a man who has reached the end of a very long trek in defiance of continual opposition and mockery.
References
Henrik Svensmark, Martin B. Enghoff and Jens Olaf Pepke Pedersen, “Response of Cloud Condensation Nuclei (> 50 nm) to changes in ion-nucleation”, submitted for publication 2012. Preprint available at http://arxiv.org/abs/1202.5156v1
H. Svensmark, T. Bondo and J. Svensmark, “Cosmic ray decreases affect atmospheric aerosols and clouds”, Geophysical Research Letters, 36, L15101, 2009
Henrik Svensmark, Jens Olaf Pepke Pedersen, Nigel Marsh, Martin Enghoff and Ulrik Uggerhøj, ‘Experimental Evidence for the Role of Ions in Particle Nucleation under Atmospheric Conditions’, Proceedings of the Royal Society A, Vol. 463, pp. 385–96, 2007 (online release 2006). This was the original SKY experiment in a basement in Copenhagen.
M. B. Enghoff, N. Bork, S. Hattori, C. Meusinger, M. Nakagawa, J. O. P. Pedersen, S. Danielache, Y. Ueno, M. S. Johnson, N. Yoshida, and H. Svensmark, “An isotope view on ionising radiation as a source of sulphuric acid”, Atmos. Chem. Phys. Discuss., 12, 5039–5064, 2012. See http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/12/5039/2012/acpd-12-5039-2012.html
Some relevant items on this blog
Aarhus experiment http://calderup.wordpress.com/2011/05/17/accelerator-results-on-cloud-nucleation-2/
CERN CLOUD experiment http://calderup.wordpress.com/2011/08/24/cern-experiment-confirms-cosmic-ray-action/
Observational evidence of aerosol growth http://calderup.wordpress.com/2010/05/03/do-clouds-disappear/
Summary of Svensmark’s theory http://calderup.wordpress.com/2010/05/01/nutshell/
=============================================================
Books by Nigel Calder http://calderup.wordpress.com/category/4-buy-the-chilling-stars/
h/t to Matthew Pearce
ThinkingScientist says:
March 2, 2012 at 5:48 am
“I thought the correlation with low level cloud (below 3000 m) was established as early as 2000 and was reanalysed by Marsh & Svensmark in 2004.
A public pdf explaining this link can be found at:
http://www.space.dtu.dk/upload/institutter/space/forskning/06_projekter/isac/wp_103.pdf
Figures 10, 12, 13 and 14 seem to show pretty good evidence for a link. Unless you believe in the Hockey Stick and that there was no MWP/LIA.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Those who are interested in Svensmark’s findings might also want to read his earlier, shorter paper.
Abstract of “Influence of Cosmic Rays on Earth’s Climate” by Henrik Svensmark, 1998:
“During the last solar cycle Earth’s cloud cover underwent a modulation more closely in phase with the galactic cosmic ray flux than with other solar activity parameters. Further it is found that Earth’s temperature follows more closely decade variations in galactic cosmic ray
ux, and solar cycle length, than other solar activity parameters. The main conclusion is that the average state of the Heliosphere affects Earth’s climate.”
Full 1998 paper:
http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/EnviroPhilo/InfluenceOf.pdf
Lucy Skywalker says: March 2, 2012 at 10:49 am
…..
Hi Lucy
I have argued and disagreed on many occasions with Dr. S. and I still often do (once or twice I was sent to the sin-bin for it by Anthony, even banned for a year from another solar blog), but on this one he just may have a point. Perhaps you would like to read my post just below your one, take a good look at the spectrum graph I referred to, and please do comment whichever way you are inclined.
With AMO and SOI (elNino / laNina) spectral output is more ‘agreeable’,
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/AMO-SOI.htm
but the AMO (which is predominant according to the recent BEST paper on the natural variation) at 11 year period oscillates peak to peak with amplitude between -0.1C to +0.1C, more or less what Dr.S. often quotes.
Hi Vuk
That was nice of you to respond, and to defend Leif. Maybe you are right but I have two problems:
(1) with the best will in the world I often cannot follow your material because you assume too much prior knowledge. Happened again. You need to write a storyline for beginners, explaining all terms. Please. You would gain both more following and more understanding yourself, I think, if you did write beginners’ storylines to explain your graphs.
(2) I did, as it happens, check out the evidence myself today, once again. Evidence that climate and GCR are in synch. when the evidence is properly assessed – they have not simply gone out of synch since 1980 or whatever. I remember when I first checked this one, thereby refuting Damon and Laut, or whoever it was, who had their knife into Svensmark and were supported at Wikipedia. I remember because that was the occasion I realized that WP was malevolently untrustworthy with regard to Svensmark. I hadn’t yet fully connected that with the whole of WMC etc. Vuk, I cannot even be sure which reference it was now but it was in this thread.
kwik says:
March 1, 2012 at 10:59 pm
Concratulation, Svensmark! So energy turns into mass?
;————————————————————————————-
The name “cosmic rays” is misleading – they’re primarily particles and typically hydrogen rich – but they may contain other atoms including heavy metals.
They should really be called cosmic-ray particles.
Gary Hladik says:
March 1, 2012 at 11:01 pm
If aerosol formation continues at night, then could cloud formation continue, too (presumably at a lower rate with less water vapor available from evaporation)? And maybe offset to some extent the cooling effect of daytime clouds by increasing “back radiation”?
;——————————————————————————————————————–
High clouds are not sensitive to cosmic ray particles but low clouds over the open ocean do vary with the intensity of cosmic ray particles.
It’s the muon (a fat electron) – or rather the ones which survive to about 6 km (or thereabouts) then decay into two neutrinos and an electron – which is the cosmic ray particle of interest.
Since the muon is moving at speeds close to the speed of light, special relativity is needed to calculate the correct decay time.
The resulting electron interacts with dimethyl sulfide, water and the Sun to product sulfuric acid.
Dimethly sulfide is produced in the ocean by microbes when plankton are ruptured.
It’s how the open ocean birds know it’s breakfast time.
AndiC says:
March 1, 2012 at 11:18 pm
One also has to assume that post-industrial releases of Sulphur Dioxide has an effect here – more SO2 available for seeding?
;———————————————————————————————————————
Sulfur dioxide over the land isn’t a player – the sulfur comes microbes and plankton in the open ocean.
Lucy wrote: “climate and GCR are in synch. … they have not simply gone out of synch since 1980 or whatever.”
The basis for the claim that they HAVE gone out of sync is the fact that temperature rose in the last couple decades the 20th century, while solar activity remained at the same (high) level since 1950.
That’s like saying that you can’t heat a pot of water by turning the flame up to high and leaving it there: you have to slooooly turn the heat up, or it won’t heat. Insane.
I wrote a series of articles last year showing the number of scientists who are making this crazy claim, and challenging them on what must be their implicit assumption that the oceans had equilibrated to the high level of 20th century solar forcing by the 1970s. Otherwise continued high forcing WOULD cause continued warming.
In response to my queries, most of them acceeded that they have indeed been making this implicit assumption of rapid-ocean-equilibration, an assumption that on its face is absurd (given that the planet warmed for three centuries coming out of the Little Ice Age), and which is completely untenable in terms of theory. None of their arguments hold the least bit of water.
Lucy Skywalker says: March 2, 2012 at 2:42 pm
…………
Last thing Dr. S. needs is for me to defend him, he is more than capable to take care of himself.
You are right about correlation between GCR (or sunspot cycle) from about 1960s to 1990s (3 complete cycles). Global temperatures have strong imprint from the AMO (see BEST report on the natural variability http://berkeleyearth.org/pdf/berkeley-earth-decadal-variations.pdf ). The AMO oscillates with predominant period of 9 years, while solar cycle is around 11, so they drift in and out of phase.
I have added one more graph (now it is the last one again) in the
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC7a.htm
which shows the effect. It appears that once the temperature is in phase with the SSN cycle it gets locked (synchronised) and held by the solar cycle for a bit longer than the 9 year period might otherwise allow (this is often case with mechanical oscillations too), but eventually it falls out; when that happens the inferior oscillation (here the temperature) returns where it would normally belong, resulting in a sudden and large phase shift. This was the case from 1995 onwards, with two cycles moving rapidly to the anti-phase.
A bit complicated but close scrutiny of the graph could help.
Writing isn’t my forte; I am hoodwinked by ‘a picture is worth a thousand words’.
This link on new research indicating cloud height decreasing over the last decade is fascinating:
http://www.universetoday.com/93729/the-sky-is-falling-scientists-report/
I speculate that dips in the solar cycle may not just increase the counts of cosmic rays arriving into the atmosphere, but they may also result in those cosmic rays arriving to the atmosphere at higher energies. Higher energy cosmic rays may penetrate the atmosphere more deeply, so that nucleating of clouds may be promoted at lower altitudes. Maybe this even would reduce the amount of water vapor in the upper atmosphere (because water condenses out as clouds at lower altitudes), and therefore reduces the number of high altitude clouds (which would normally have a slight warming effect).
Lucy Skywalker says:
March 2, 2012 at 10:49 am
I’m both sad and glad for Leif’s cantankerous comment. I say cantankerous, because he must have been pointed towards the evidence that the correlation has not stopped, soooooooo many times – yet in typical troll fashion he omits to mention this fact.
Could you just humour me by pointing me in the direction of the evidence for a solar activity/climate correlation and particularly to the evidence which shows the correlation did not break down in 1980. The only correlations I’ve seen appear to rely on obsolete reconstructions and/or bizarre filtering mechanisms. Sometimes this produces something resembling a relationship over a limited period but which inevitably breaks down over the longer term. There are a number of long term temperature records (e.g CET); none of these records show much of a relationship to solar activity. When questioning the recent lack of cooling in response to reduced activity over the past decade or so we’re told about “lags” but these lags do not appear evident during the Dalton Minimum. According to the CET (and others) temperatures began to decline after about 1780 – i.e. 20 years before the weak Dalton cycles. Lags appear to be of variable length – and even negative in some cases.
Leif’s right the correlation simply isn’t there.
John Finn: did you read my comments?
And for the most obvious post-1980 correlation: the sun went quiet and global warming stopped. The idea that recent temperature history does not support a solar driver of climate is ludicrous.
Alec Rawls says:
March 3, 2012 at 8:22 am
John Finn: did you read my comments?
Yes I did but I think your conclusions are invalid. If solar activity were the sole (or main) climate driver the bulk of the temperature increase would have occurred in the early years. That’s not what happened. There was little or no increase between the late 1950s and mid-1970s. The strong warming trend followed after that.
And for the most obvious post-1980 correlation: the sun went quiet and global warming stopped
1. I’m not convinced global warming has stopped. The current La Nina, despite being one of the strongest ever recorded, is also one of the warmest.
2. If there really is a correlation global cooling should be well established by now. SC23 was not a particularly strong cycle and SC24 is a complete wimp but UAH temperatures remain at levels well above those in the 1980s. I also think temperatures will recover strongly when ENSO returns to neutral.
Svensmark deserves a Nobel prize. No question about it.