Svensmark's cosmic ray theory of clouds and global warming looks to be confirmed

Note: Between flaccid climate sensitivity, ENSO driving “the pause”, and now this, it looks like the upcoming IPCC AR5 report will be obsolete the day it is released.

From a Technical University of Denmark press release comes what looks to be a significant confirmation of Svensmark’s theory of temperature modulation on Earth by cosmic ray interactions. The process is that when there are more cosmic rays, they help create more microscopic cloud nuclei, which in turn form more clouds, which reflect more solar radiation back into space, making Earth cooler than what it normally might be. Conversely, less cosmic rays mean less cloud cover and a warmer planet as indicated here.  The sun’s magnetic field is said to deflect cosmic rays when its solar magnetic dynamo is more active, and right around the last solar max, we were at an 8000 year high, suggesting more deflected cosmic rays, and warmer temperatures. Now the sun has gone into a record slump, and there are predictions of cooler temperatures ahead This new and important paper is published in Physics Letters A. – Anthony

Danish experiment suggests unexpected magic by cosmic rays in cloud formation

Researchers in the Technical University of Denmark (DTU) are hard on the trail of a previously unknown molecular process that helps commonplace clouds to form. Tests in a large and highly instrumented reaction chamber in Lyngby, called SKY2, demonstrate that an existing chemical theory is misleading.

Back in 1996 Danish physicists suggested that cosmic rays, energetic particles from space, are important in the formation of clouds. Since then, experiments in Copenhagen and elsewhere have demonstrated that cosmic rays actually help small clusters of molecules to form. But the cosmic-ray/cloud hypothesis seemed to run into a problem when numerical simulations of the prevailing chemical theory pointed to a failure of growth.

Fortunately the chemical theory could also be tested experimentally, as was done with SKY2, the chamber of which holds 8 cubic metres of air and traces of other gases. One series of experiments confirmed the unfavourable prediction that the new clusters would fail to grow sufficiently to be influential for clouds. But another series of experiments, using ionizing rays, gave a very different result, as can be seen in the accompanying figure.

The reactions going on in the air over our heads mostly involve commonplace molecules. During daylight hours, ultraviolet rays from the Sun encourage sulphur dioxide to react with ozone and water vapour to make sulphuric acid. The clusters of interest for cloud formation consist mainly of sulphuric acid and water molecules clumped together in very large numbers and they grow with the aid of other molecules.

Simulating what could happen in the atmosphere, the DTU’s SKY2 experiment shows molecular clusters (red dots) failing to grow enough to provide significant numbers of “cloud condensation nuclei” (CCN) of more than 50 nanometres in diameter. This is what existing theories predict. But when the air in the chamber is exposed to ionizing rays that simulate the effect of cosmic rays, the clusters (blue dots) grow much more vigorously to the sizes suitable for helping water droplets to form and make clouds. (A nanometre is a millionth of a millimetre.)

Atmospheric chemists have assumed that when the clusters have gathered up the day’s yield, they stop growing, and only a small fraction can become large enough to be meteorologically relevant. Yet in the SKY2 experiment, with natural cosmic rays and gamma-rays keeping the air in the chamber ionized, no such interruption occurs. This result suggests that another chemical process seems to be supplying the extra molecules needed to keep the clusters growing.

“The result boosts our theory that cosmic rays coming from the Galaxy are directly involved in the Earth’s weather and climate,” says Henrik Svensmark, lead author of the new report. “In experiments over many years, we have shown that ionizing rays help to form small molecular clusters. Critics have argued that the clusters cannot grow large enough to affect cloud formation significantly. But our current research, of which the reported SKY2 experiment forms just one part, contradicts their conventional view. Now we want to close in on the details of the unexpected chemistry occurring in the air, at the end of the long journey that brought the cosmic rays here from exploded stars.”

###

The new paper is:

Response of cloud condensation nuclei (>50 nm) to changes in ion-nucleation” H. Svensmark, Martin B. Enghoff, Jens Olaf Pepke Pedersen, Physics Letters A 377 (2013) 2343–2347.

In experiments where ultraviolet light produces aerosols from trace amounts of ozone, sulfur dioxide,and water vapor, the relative increase in aerosols produced by ionization by gamma sources is constant from nucleation to diameters larger than 50 nm, appropriate for cloud condensation nuclei. This resultcontradicts both ion-free control experiments and also theoretical models that predict a decline in the response at larger particle sizes. This unpredicted experimental finding points to a process not included in current theoretical models, possibly an ion-induced formation of sulfuric acid in small clusters.

FULL PAPER LINK PROVIDED IN THE PRESS RERLEASE: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/51188502/PLA22068.pdf (open access PDF)

LOCAL COPY: (for those having trouble with link above):  Svensmark_PLA22068 (PDF)

(h/t to “me” in WUWT Tips and Notes)

Added: an explanatory video from John Coleman –

And this documentary:

0 0 votes
Article Rating
486 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
David
September 4, 2013 9:20 am

So of course, it is the sun 🙂

MikeN
September 4, 2013 9:27 am

Yes that’s what this would mean. The sun keeps out cosmic rays.

David
September 4, 2013 9:27 am

sun(s)

September 4, 2013 9:28 am

Continuing the sterling reputation of Danish science in the tradition of Tycho, Steno & Bohr, redeeming the odium of Boiling Jim Hansen, possibly of Norwegian extraction.

steven
September 4, 2013 9:29 am

Can somebody say Nobel?

NeedleFactory
September 4, 2013 9:30 am

Can others open the “open access” pdf? I cannot.

Kurt in Switzerland
September 4, 2013 9:31 am

Waiting for Pierrehumbert and Gavin to get in their obligatory stabs.
But still hoping that curiosity will win over dogmatism.
Kurt in Switzerland

Dave Day
September 4, 2013 9:32 am

It is stuff like this that is why I love this site and return daily…….
I learn so much.
Many thanks Anthony,
Dave

September 4, 2013 9:34 am

The open access PDF seems to have an extra space embedded in the file extension. If you save it with a different extension and then back to .pdf it opens fine.

David
September 4, 2013 9:35 am

Absolutely, it was always going to be magnetic/gravitational modulation of cosmic rays together with solar activity.
Piers Corbyn isn’t looking so silly now is he?
Of course the warmists are going to attempt to blame the pause on this effect which may be difficult if the cloud cover records don’t match the temperature plateau.
REPLY: Piers looks silly because he makes grandiose forecast skill claims that are so vaguely written they can compete with Jeane Dixon style astrological forecast language, not because he believe is cosmic ray modulation – Anthony

GlynnMhor
September 4, 2013 9:35 am

Meanwhile, here in Canada ice cover is delaying supply shipments to northern communities:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/story/2013/09/03/north-barge-delays.html

Sensorman
September 4, 2013 9:36 am

Needle – yes, it has an extra hyphen in the file extension, but just open it with Acrobat reader and it should be fine

Bill Parsons
September 4, 2013 9:37 am

The process is that when there are more cosmic rays, they help create more microscopic cloud nuclei, which in turn form more clouds, which reflect more solar radiation back into space, making Earth cooler than what it normally might be.

Does Svensmark suggest that the level of cosmic radiation is in flux – or that fluctuations in the sun’s energies cause variations in the earth’s magnetic shield?

Kurt in Switzerland
September 4, 2013 9:37 am

NeedleFactory:
Save file (already has a .pdf extension) — will go to your Downloads folder
Open Acrobat (probably helps if you have a recent version)
Open File (PLA22068.pdf)
Kurt in Switzerland

JimS
September 4, 2013 9:38 am

So let me get this straight: reduced solar radiation, means more cosmic radiation, which means more clouds? If so, then this would be a double whammy negative feedback system? I apologize for the non-scientific terminology used.

Londo
September 4, 2013 9:40 am

“Can others open the “open access” pdf? I cannot.
There is a minus (-) sign at the end of the file name. Just rename the file.

Corey S.
September 4, 2013 9:41 am

“the upcoming IPCC AR5 report will be obsolete the day it is released.”
I agree, but the ‘purveyors of all the is climate science’ will say that since it isn’t IN the report, that they will have to wait until the next one.
Everyone knows that the IPCC report is the top of the food chain for ‘true’ CC scientists./
The powers that be will find some way to exclude it, in the end. Just wait and see. Or, they will have some on their side write a paper that ‘refutes’ this one, giving them the cover they need.
It will be interesting to see this one play out.

mrsean2k
September 4, 2013 9:44 am

@Bill Parsons
Nigel Calder has a long-but-worth-reading post on the mechanism and some of the claimed effects it’s had on earth over geological timescales (over a year old, so likely some changes):
http://calderup.wordpress.com/2012/04/24/a-stellar-revision-of-the-story-of-life/

September 4, 2013 9:44 am

Interesting but still doesn’t explain the circulation changes between zonal and meridional jets with varying degrees of atmospheric ‘blocking’.

Bill Parsons
September 4, 2013 9:46 am

The process is that when there are more cosmic rays, they help create more microscopic cloud nuclei, which in turn form more clouds, which reflect more solar radiation back into space, making Earth cooler than what it normally might be.
Does Svensmark suggest that the level of cosmic radiation is in flux – or that fluctuations in the sun’s energies cause variations in the earth’s magnetic shield?

I could have read further before I posted. The sun’s role is explained below..

DirkH
September 4, 2013 9:47 am

JimS says:
September 4, 2013 at 9:38 am
“So let me get this straight: reduced solar radiation, means more cosmic radiation, which means more clouds? If so, then this would be a double whammy negative feedback system? I apologize for the non-scientific terminology used.”
Total Insolation does not change significantly. What changes significantly is only the magnetic field. So; “single whammy” – by modulating the albedo of Earth.

September 4, 2013 9:50 am

I have always believed that this was one of the many secondary effects associated with changing solar conditions.
That is a quiet sun allows more cosmic rays to enter earth’s atmosphere which in turn will promote more clouds colder temperatures.
The location of the Magnetic Pole, also has a bearing as to where the cosmic ray penetration will be greatest over the earth. The lower the latitude of the magnetic poles ,the lower will be the latitude of maximum cosmic ray penetration,. The lower the latitude of comic ray penetration the more moisture will be present, for the cosmic rays to work with.

M Courtney
September 4, 2013 9:52 am

So this raises a question:
Is this the Nobel Prize for Chemistry or Physics?

September 4, 2013 9:53 am

steven:
At September 4, 2013 at 9:29 am you ask

Can somebody say Nobel?

Elevation of the Svensmark Hypothesis to be the Svensmark Theory would open up entire new fields of climate physics. That elevation requires that the experimental observation can be understood theoretically.
So, Henrik definitely would deserve a Nobel Prize for physics if he can evince the required theoretical understanding of his experimental observation.
I think we should be prepared to start a pro-Nobel campaign for Henrik when he completes his study.
Richard

Ursus Augustus
September 4, 2013 9:54 am

An interesting speculation is that the cloud albedo effect is non uniform and say more effective over the Pacific and drives the ENSO cycles and hey presto… a powerfull compound mechanism. But that’s just me here in Oz getting excited that we are about to boot out a loony warmist government and elect one with a leader who once expressed the opinion ( as we are often reminded) that global warming alarmism was “just crap”.

Brad
September 4, 2013 9:55 am

Where’s Leif and his “the sun doesn’t vary enough”?
REPLY: Leif talks about TSI not varying enough, and he’s right. Magnetic field is a whole different animal – Anthony

Steven Hill from Ky (the welfare state)
September 4, 2013 9:58 am

Leif?

atthemurph
September 4, 2013 9:59 am

Sorry but this was all settled already. Time to move on from these scientific and experimental distractions and get on with the work of total global domination, err, I mean tackling man-made climate change.

pokerguy
September 4, 2013 10:00 am

So, this would seem to lend support to the apparent relationship between sun spot minima and maxima and warming and cooling in the historical climate record , such as the MWP and the LIA?
If so, where’ Leif to shoot it down?

Matt
September 4, 2013 10:02 am

Followed this story a long time ago, and when looking back to recall how these Scientists around Svensmark were treated by the community it must be a perfect day for them now. AGW storytelling will drag on for a whie and then silently disappear.
This could be a nobel prize, i would shoot for physics.
Rgds from Germany
Matt

Steven Hill from Ky (the welfare state)
September 4, 2013 10:06 am

Who would want a Nobel prize…..Gore and Obama have one, they have been tainted and ruined. Remember the risk of not acting is greater than the risk of acting. I heard that again today, is it a broken record? The world is in chaos, just wait until the temp. drops the next 30 years. It’s going to get really ugly.

MinB
September 4, 2013 10:08 am

The most wonderful aspect of this was reading about an experiment, I didn’t detect the word ‘model’ once.

Sedron L
September 4, 2013 10:10 am

Wait. How did the climate science overlords let this paper get published??

Sedron L
September 4, 2013 10:11 am

MinB says:
The most wonderful aspect of this was reading about an experiment, I didn’t detect the word ‘model’ once.
All data is model-dependent. All of it.

MinB
September 4, 2013 10:12 am

Or I should say, the experimental results trumped the theoretical
models.

Sedron L
September 4, 2013 10:15 am

Also, Minb, let me direct your attention to the 11 uses of the word “simulation” in the paper, as in
“The red curve is a typical result of a numerical simulation of the experimental situation using a standard numerical aerosol model.”
They are directly comparing their results to model predictions.

September 4, 2013 10:17 am

Sedron L:
At September 4, 2013 at 10:11 am you say

All data is model-dependent. All of it.

It seems you have been spending too much time on the wrong parts of the web.
38-24-34 is not the only kind of data.
Richard

September 4, 2013 10:18 am

Reblogged this on The Next Grand Minimum and commented:
The connections between the Sun, Cosmic Rays and the cold climate associated with grand minimums is becoming much clearer.

MikeN
September 4, 2013 10:19 am

Shouldn’t this be the new sticky post?

September 4, 2013 10:23 am

Sedron L:
Your post at September 4, 2013 at 10:15 am says in total

Also, Minb, let me direct your attention to the 11 uses of the word “simulation” in the paper, as in
“The red curve is a typical result of a numerical simulation of the experimental situation using a standard numerical aerosol model.”
They are directly comparing their results to model predictions.

Allow me to rephrase that for clarity.
Comparison of the experimental results with model predictions indicates the models are wrong.
Richard

Crispin in Waterloo
September 4, 2013 10:25 am

I love to see new science confirming innovative theory.
Now that the mechanism has been demonstrated it should be straightforward to show it taking place in the atmosphere. Because the reaction rate is so high it will also be relatively easy to catch the molecular transformation sequence in snapshots.
Did CERN already know this but not report it, instead asking for 5 more years before drawing conclusions?
Hang in Svensmark, recognition is coming for this remarkable advancement in the understanding of cloud formation.

RockyRoad
September 4, 2013 10:27 am

Sedron L says:
September 4, 2013 at 10:11 am

MinB says:
The most wonderful aspect of this was reading about an experiment, I didn’t detect the word ‘model’ once.
All data is model-dependent. All of it.

No,–let me correct you, Sedron:
“All models are data-dependent (unless the modeler doesn’t like the results, then he is free to cogitate, speculate, and agitate until he fulfills his nefarious ideologically-driven agenda).”
You just had it backwards (and if you’re a “climate scientists” you don’t see the need for much data anyways)!
Nirvana must be great!
You don’t really believe you can generate “data” from models, do you?

Eric Ellison
September 4, 2013 10:30 am

Josh : Time to update your cartoon of the other day with yet another knob!

September 4, 2013 10:31 am

The paper has this to say “It is proposed that an ion-mechanism exists which provides a second significant pathway for making additional H2SO4, as a possible explanation of the present experimental findings”. They injected sulfur dioxide (SO2) into the chamber and managed to convert some of that [using UV-lamps] to sulfuric acid (H2SO4) and found that adding ions to the mix made that process more efficient. This does not seem to be much of a confirmation of a correlation that has not held up over time in the first place.

JDN
September 4, 2013 10:32 am

@Svensmark
You used electropolished stainless steel in the container. Did you do this to eliminate metal cluster contribution? Where is the control showing the container doesn’t contribute material to aerosol formation? How did you clean the chamber prior to the experiments so that adsorbed chemicals weren’t contributing? Can there be a contribution from your PTFE membrane?

CRS, DrPH
September 4, 2013 10:33 am

Anthony says (h/t to “me” in WUWT Tips and Notes)…
A guy shouldn’t have to tip his own hat to himself! I offer a generous hat-tip, thanks! I’ve long held that Svensmark was onto something, this is very good to learn about.
However, the CAGW crowd will now say, “OK, Svensmark is right, but when the sun picks up activity again, it will deflect cosmic radiation & the planet will grow hotter and hotter!” Count on it.
REPLY: that wasn’t me putting a tip comment in my own tip thread, that’s how the person signed the tip comment – Anthony

DesertYote
September 4, 2013 10:34 am

Sedron L says:
September 4, 2013 at 10:15 am
They are directly comparing their results to model predictions.
###
OH NOES, they are doing SCIENCE!
Dude, you need to learn how science works before making silly comment.
1. Make some observations.
2. Concoct a theory (model, e.g. G*m1*m2/r^2)
3. Collect data.
4. COMPARE data with MODEL.
5. Adjust model.
6 Rinse repeat.

September 4, 2013 10:34 am

Anthony, I am so glad to hear you say Magnetic Field is a whole different animal because it is, and do not forget the geo magnetic field also has to be taken into consideration. This can compound solar magnetic changes.
The ap index is the index we should be watching the most in my opinion going foward.

Sedron L
September 4, 2013 10:34 am

Comparison of the experimental results with model predictions indicates the models are wrong.
Svensmark et al are using model predictions to validate (or invalidate) their experimental findings.

September 4, 2013 10:36 am

Here comes Leif to the rescue.

Sedron L
September 4, 2013 10:37 am

DesertYote: They are directly comparing their results to model calculations. This is from the caption for Figure 3:
“Blue circles are the experimental results averaged over five runs. The red curve is a typical result of a numerical simulation of the experimental situation using a standard numerical aerosol model. Notice that the expected response from the modeling decreases strongly with particle diameter in contrast with the experimental results. A much better agreement is seen with a numerical simulation in the black curve, where the concentration of sulfuric acid is
held constant.”

oldseadog
September 4, 2013 10:37 am

There is no doubt that AR5 will be obsolete when it is published; the problem will be getting MSM and the politicians to say so.

Dr. Lurtz
September 4, 2013 10:42 am

A formalized mechanism using both Solar magnetic fields and High energy UV. Finally, the Sun does something and it doesn’t involve TSI.

September 4, 2013 10:43 am

Sedron L:
re your silly reply to me at September 4, 2013 at 10:34 am.
Please see the post by DesertYote at September 4, 2013 at 10:34 am
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/04/svensmarks-cosmic-ray-theory-of-clouds-and-global-warming-looks-to-be-confirmed/#comment-1407737
It explains your misunderstasnding of the scientific method.
Richard

Sedron L
September 4, 2013 10:43 am

oldseadog says:
There is no doubt that AR5 will be obsolete when it is published; the problem will be getting MSM and the politicians to say so.
This simply isn’t true, and this paper doens’t make it true. There still remains a lot to be proven before this hypothesis explains (any of) modern climate change, including whether the radiative impact of clouds can account for observed climate variations (many, like Andrew Dessler, think they do not), whether the the cloud feedback is net positive or net negative, and whether there is an underlying trend in cosmic rays of sufficient magnitude to explain post-1975 warming.

Sedron L
September 4, 2013 10:45 am

And, even *if* Svensmark et al is true, CO2 is still a greenhouse gas, whose effects are seen throughout paleoclimate and whose radiative properties are probably the *best* known part of climate science (both theoretically and observationally).

Stacey
September 4, 2013 10:45 am

I think there are many climate scientists who could take a leaf out of Professor Svensmark’s work 🙂 Pun intended.

September 4, 2013 10:48 am

Stephen Wilde says:
September 4, 2013 at 9:44 am
Interesting but still doesn’t explain the circulation changes between zonal and meridional jets with varying degrees of atmospheric ‘blocking’.
——————————————
The hypothesis could explain such changes, due to variation in increased cloud cover. Also helps explain why models work so poorly for the Cretaceous (even worse than for now), because of ocean-derived CCN numbers, not necessarily the solar magnetic flux aspect of the study.

September 4, 2013 10:49 am

The field of solar /climate relationships is where the field of climatalogy is heading ,and more and more connections are starting to come to light as studies in this field keep making advances.
The case for a more meridional atmospheric circulation /solar connection being pretty conclusive ,through observation and experimentation.
The ap index /geological connection is another area where advances are being made.
If one were to plot all major volcanic eruptions /major earthquakes going back to 1600ad one will find a significant correlation between the times around sunspot minimums and an increase in this kind of activity. Correlations north of 80%, to much for coincidence in my opinion.

September 4, 2013 10:50 am

Eric Ellison says:
September 4, 2013 at 10:30 am
Josh : Time to update your cartoon of the other day with yet another knob!
——————————-
He had a number of panels on the sun side of the cube. One could be for radiation & another for magnetic flux.

September 4, 2013 10:52 am

TSI is but a vey small part of the solar climate relationship, although it plays a part.
I would say the TSI /ocean heat content connection is significant.

Greg
September 4, 2013 10:53 am

JimS says:
“So let me get this straight: reduced solar radiation, means more cosmic radiation, which means more clouds? If so, then this would be a double whammy negative feedback system? I apologize for the non-scientific terminology used.”
Yeah, you don’t sound too bright with ‘double whammy’, so instead of apologising, how about not using silly language in the first place?
It would not be a double negative feedback system anyway. There is NO feedback of either polarity happening here. The amount of cloud on Earth affects neither the solar output , nor the cosmic ray flux.
However, the two effects would be acting in the same sense, with less solar activity also increasing the amount of cloud cover.

September 4, 2013 10:53 am

Argh. What rubbish is this again.
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/
Cause and effect, remember? Same as that warming causes more CO2. (prof Carter)
As the temperature differential between the poles and equator grows larger due to the cooling from the top, very likely something will also change on earth. Predictably, there would be a small (?) shift of cloud formation and precipitation, more towards the equator, on average. At the equator insolation is 684 W/m2 whereas on average it is 342 W/m2. So, if there are more clouds in and around the equator, this will amplify the cooling effect due to less direct natural insolation of earth (clouds deflect a lot of radiation). Furthermore, in a cooling world there is more likely less moisture in the air, but even assuming equal amounts of water vapour available in the air, a lesser amount of clouds and precipitation will be available for spreading to higher latitudes. So, a natural consequence of global cooling is that at the higher latitudes it will become both cooler and drier.

September 4, 2013 10:56 am

Salvatore Del Prete says:
September 4, 2013 at 10:49 am
If one were to plot all major volcanic eruptions /major earthquakes going back to 1600 ad one will find a significant correlation between the times around sunspot minimums and an increase in this kind of activity
So you suggest that no solar activity whatsoever generates major earthquakes.

September 4, 2013 10:56 am

What I have come across is just about all climate scientist that are not involved in the man made global warming agenda are pretty much of the opinion that solar rules the climate both through primary and secondary effects.
Maunder Minimum and the more recent Dalton Minimum support this train of thought quite well.

September 4, 2013 10:56 am

Sedron L says:
September 4, 2013 at 10:45 am
And, even *if* Svensmark et al is true, CO2 is still a greenhouse gas, whose effects are seen throughout paleoclimate and whose radiative properties are probably the *best* known part of climate science (both theoretically and observationally).
———————————–
CO2 concentration is seen throughout paleoclimate to be negligible & primarily an effect rather than a cause of climate change. The radiative properties of water vapor are at least as well known, without the complication of the little understood affect of various carbon sinks on the effect of CO2 on climate.
It is indeed a greenhouse gas, but the effect of adding more of it beyond a very low level is trivial, with possible exception of when it gets extremely high in the absence of much O2, as in the Pre-Cambrian.
CACA is utter, total & complete garbage (& its models GIGO), & was known as such prima facie by real scientists as soon as the scam got started, but was perpetrated by fraudsters with knowledge & malice aforethought. Earth is homeostatic, as the paleoclimate record so abundantly demonstrates.

September 4, 2013 10:58 am

There is a recent study on this I wil try to send it.

Sedron L
September 4, 2013 11:00 am

Dick Courtney: please read your Paul Feyerabend.

Gail Combs
September 4, 2013 11:00 am

JimS says:
September 4, 2013 at 9:38 am
So let me get this straight: reduced solar radiation, means more cosmic radiation, which means more clouds? If so, then this would be a double whammy negative feedback system? I apologize for the non-scientific terminology used.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Actually the connection is less Solar Wind and weaker solar magnetic field.
NASA: Solar Wind Loses Power, Hits 50-year Low

Sept. 23, 2008: In a briefing today at NASA headquarters, solar physicists announced that the solar wind is losing power.
“The average pressure of the solar wind has dropped more than 20% since the mid-1990s,” says Dave McComas of the Southwest Research Institute in San Antonio, Texas. “This is the weakest it’s been since we began monitoring solar wind almost 50 years ago.”
…Flagging solar wind has repercussions across the entire solar system—beginning with the heliosphere.
The heliosphere is a bubble of magnetism springing from the sun and inflated to colossal proportions by the solar wind. Every planet from Mercury to Pluto and beyond is inside it. The heliosphere is our solar system’s first line of defense against galactic cosmic rays. High-energy particles from black holes and supernovas try to enter the solar system, but most are deflected by the heliosphere’s magnetic fields.
“The solar wind isn’t inflating the heliosphere as much as it used to,” says McComas. “That means less shielding against cosmic rays.”
In addition to weakened solar wind, “Ulysses also finds that the sun’s underlying magnetic field has weakened by more than 30% since the mid-1990s,” says Posner. “This reduces natural shielding even more.”
Unpublished Ulysses cosmic ray data show that, indeed, high energy (GeV) electrons, a minor but telltale component of cosmic rays around Earth, have jumped in number by about 20%…..

September 4, 2013 11:01 am

PS: And low H2O in the air, as during the dry atmospheres of Snowball Earth.

September 4, 2013 11:04 am

[PDF]
Av Monthly EUV .1-50 nm Flux Emissions – International Actuarial …
http://www.actuaries.org/HongKong2012/Papers/WBR9_Walker.pdf
You +1’d this publicly. Undo
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat – Quick View

Chris4692
September 4, 2013 11:05 am

seem promising, but before getting excited, let’s see the discussion pro and con, back and forth. We’ve only seen one side. See if it withstands criticism and further experimentation.

September 4, 2013 11:06 am

Sedron L:
Your entire post at September 4, 2013 at 10:45 am says

And, even *if* Svensmark et al is true, CO2 is still a greenhouse gas, whose effects are seen throughout paleoclimate and whose radiative properties are probably the *best* known part of climate science (both theoretically and observationally).

Sedron L, I am writing this with complete sincerity. If I could tell you this privately then I would, but I can’t so I write it here.
I recognise your pain: I really do. And you have my sympathy.
Yes, CO2 is a GHG and its logarithmically declining effect with increasing concentration is known and understood. Nobody is attacking that article of your faith.
But nature (e.g. the ‘pause’) and science (e.g. greater understanding of ENSO) is refuting your belief in discernible AGW. This is painful for you because loss of a faith always is painful. I understand that.
The work of Svensmark may be another refutation of your belief, and that hurts. I understand that, too. So you are flailing about here in attempt to push away what is hurting you. Many would do the same.
Your faith is not what makes you important: you are what makes your faith important. Know there are people who care about you. And they will still care when you recognise your faith was misplaced.
So, try to relax. Truth will out whatever you choose to believe. And replace your mistaken belief in AGW with a faith which will give you comfort and aid your happiness.
Richard

Sedron L
September 4, 2013 11:07 am

Salvatore Del Prete says:
What I have come across is just about all climate scientist that are not involved in the man made global warming agenda are pretty much of the opinion that solar rules the climate both through primary and secondary effects.
Except for claiming there is no warming, what other choice is there?

September 4, 2013 11:09 am

page 47 of the latest solar /climate connection research I just sent talks about muons and the solar /volcanic relationships which are currently under study.
This paper is a MUST for anyone interested in the latest findings on solar/climate relationships.

September 4, 2013 11:11 am

Richard is exactly correct.

andrewmharding
Editor
September 4, 2013 11:11 am

I remember from my A’ Level Physics (or was it O’ level?) The Wilson Cloud Chamber where supersaturated water vapour was condensed into liquid water trails by alpha and beta radiation particles. Presumably in the atmosphere cosmic rays (which are gamma rays and sometimes X-Rays which are both ultra short wave electromagnetic radiation), knock electrons of atoms in the atmosphere which become beta radiation and have the same effect? I sat my A levels 40 years ago so may be a bit rusty, but I believe this is demonstrable science, not the product of computer modelling which shares no basis with reality!

JimS
September 4, 2013 11:14 am

@Greg
I asked a legitimate question, and I am sorry you answered. Your spelling reveals perhaps a Brit behind the name, but I shall not think all Brits have such a condescending attitude.

MC
September 4, 2013 11:15 am

Look out Anthony, Leif is running his mouth about something other than TSI.
REPLY: It is fine if he wants to question and discuss the science, that’s what this blog is all about. From my perspective though, this is an important roadblock that has been removed in the atmospheric chemistry process. Previously is was shown that cosmic rays produced nuclei clumps, but most were too small to be effective. Now with this experiment showing that the kinds of nuclei cosmic rays produce can grow through an accretion process to reach the 50nm or greater size needed, it opens the pathway forward to documenting the entire cosmic ray to cloud formation process in Earth’s atmosphere. – Anthony

September 4, 2013 11:15 am

This identification of cosmic rays as a source of condensation nuclei (CN) resolves another conundrum in early climate studies. Originally, it was assumed that most CN were salt or clay particles. The problem was there appeared to be insufficient CN from these sources to account for the amount of cloud.
Research on this came from cloud seeding in the 1970s and 1980s – it was an early form of geo-engineering. The main CN was silver iodide added to a cloud to create rain or to preclude the development of hail storms. Generally it was abandoned because you didn’t know the baseline. How much would it have rained if you didn’t seed? There were also problems of lawsuits over claims of creating flash flooding or “stealing” moisture upwind to cause droughts downwind.

MikeN
September 4, 2013 11:18 am

What evidence do we have that the experiments were not rigged to produce the result they wanted to believe?

September 4, 2013 11:23 am

MikeN says:
September 4, 2013 at 11:18 am
What evidence do we have that the experiments were not rigged to produce the result they wanted to believe?
——————
Svensmark is a real scientist, not a CACA fraud & charlatan.

September 4, 2013 11:27 am

“Chris4692 says:
September 4, 2013 at 11:05 am
seem promising, but before getting excited, let’s see the discussion pro and con, back and forth. We’ve only seen one side. See if it withstands criticism and further experimentation.”
############
The problem is this.
The hypothesis is More GCR = more clouds = cooling earth.
Svensmark is trying to explain the mechanism more GCR = More clouds.
The problem is that if you look at events like Forbush events, where the amount of GCR changes dramatically, you dont see more clouds. Thats the real world. So, basically he’s trying to explain a phenomena that doesnt happen. And if he is able to show it in a lab he has the problem of explaining why it doesnt actually happen outside the lab.

Gail Combs
September 4, 2013 11:28 am

Ursus Augustus says:
September 4, 2013 at 9:54 am
An interesting speculation is that the cloud albedo effect is non uniform and say more effective over the Pacific and drives the ENSO cycles and hey presto… a powerfull compound mechanism…..
>>>>>>>>>>>>
Think Vukcevic and the Earth’s magnetic field. Think Ozone and the waning and waxing of ozone holes.

UW prof says cyclic ozone hole proves cosmic ray theory
A University of Waterloo scientist says that an observed cyclic hole in the ozone layer provides proof of a new ozone depletion theory involving cosmic rays, a theory outlined in his new study, just published in Physical Review Letters.
Qing-Bin Lu, a professor of physics and astronomy and an ozone depletion expert, said it was generally accepted for more than two decades that the Earth’s ozone layer is depleted by chlorine atoms produced by the sun’s ultraviolet light-induced destruction of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) in the atmosphere.
But mounting evidence supports a new theory that says cosmic rays, rather than the sun’s UV light, play the dominant role in breaking down ozone-depleting molecules and then ozone. Cosmic rays are energy particles originating in space….
In his study, Lu analyzes reliable cosmic ray and ozone data in the period of 1980-2007, which cover two full 11-year solar cycles. The data unambiguously show the time correlations between cosmic ray intensity and global ozone depletion, as well as between cosmic ray intensity and the ozone hole over the South Pole….

PAPER: Correlation between Cosmic Rays and Ozone Depletion
Discussion of paper @ Physics World: Do cosmic rays destroy the ozone layer?

September 4, 2013 11:28 am

MikeN:
At September 4, 2013 at 11:18 am you ask

What evidence do we have that the experiments were not rigged to produce the result they wanted to believe?

Science is about replication. If their experiment were – as you suggest – fr@udulent then that would be discovered as soon as others attempted to replicate the experiment. The experimenters would then lose their reputations, their jobs and their pensions.
So, what evidence do we have that you have as many as two brain cells to rub together?
Richard

September 4, 2013 11:31 am

Sedron L says:
September 4, 2013 at 10:10 am
Wait. How did the climate science overlords let this paper get published??

You probably haven’t noticed, but since Climate-gate, since the academic community learned how a few climate scientists were running interference to stop papers they didn’t like from getting published, there has indeed been more “skeptical” papers getting published.
That could just be a corrolation… A coincidence.
Interesting none-the-less.

September 4, 2013 11:35 am

Steven Mosher says:
September 4, 2013 at 11:27 am
So, basically he’s trying to explain a phenomena that doesnt happen.
A sober assessment of the available evidence http://www.leif.org/EOS/swsc120049-Cosmic-Rays-Climate.pdf [see also http://www.leif.org/EOS/Cloud%20Cover%20and%20Cosmic%20Rays.pdf ] concludes “In this paper we have examined the evidence of a CR-cloud relationship from direct and indirect observations of cloud recorded from satellite- and ground-based measurement techniques. Overall, the current satellite cloud datasets do not provide evidence supporting the existence of a solar-cloud link”

AllanJ
September 4, 2013 11:39 am

“There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamed of in your philosophy”.
Shakespeare must have foreseen the IPCC when he wrote those words.
I suspect there are even more critical unknowns driving earth’s climate. It is a delight when someone adds to our knowledge rather than merely argue that we know it all.

Gail Combs
September 4, 2013 11:40 am

Steven Mosher says: @ September 4, 2013 at 11:27 am
…. The problem is that if you look at events like Forbush events, where the amount of GCR changes dramatically, you dont see more clouds. Thats the real world. So, basically he’s trying to explain a phenomena that doesnt happen…
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Physicist Nive Shaviv doesn’t agree with you on that.

Is the causal link between cosmic rays and cloud cover really dead??
….
No apparent effect during Forbush decreases.
The last point raised by Sloan and Wolfendale is the fact that no effect is observed during Forbush decreases. These are several-day long events during which the CRF reaching Earth can decrease by as much as 10%-20%. Sloan and Wolfendale expect to see a decrease in the cloud cover during the events, but just like with the latitudinal effect, they expect to see an effect which is much larger than should actually be present.
Sloan and Wolfendale plot a graph for the cloud cover reduction vs. the cosmic ray reduction during Forbush events, based on the Oulu neutron monitor data. For the largest event, the Oulu neutron count rate decreased by about 15%. If the cloud reduction during the Forbush decreases should be similar to that over the solar cycle, a 7% reduction in the cloud cover is expected.
At face value this might seem like a real inconsistency, but at closer scrutiny it becomes clear where the discrepancy arises from. Fig. 3 plots the CRF reduction following the biggest Forbush event between 1982 and 2002, which took place in 1991. Indeed, one can see that the immediate reduction in the Oulu count is of order 15%, however, the data points for the cloud cover, plotted by Sloan and Wolfendale are either monthly average or weekly averages. Over the week following the 1991 even, the average CRF reduction in Oulu was actually roughly 5%, not 15%. This implies that the expected LCC anomaly is three times smaller, and therefore drowns under noise. The situation is much worse for the monthly data.
To see effects, one therefore needs to use daily averages of the cloud cover. This was done, for example, by Harrison and Stephenson (2006) who found that there is an apparent Forbush decrease in the cloud cover over Britain.

Summary
Sloan and Wolfendale raised three critiques which supposedly discredit the CRF/climate link. A careful check, however, reveals that the arguments are inconsistent with the real expectations from the link. Two arguments are based on the expectation for effects which are much larger than should actually be present. In the third argument, they expect to see no phase lag, where one should actually be present. When carefully considering the link, Sloan and Wolfendale did not raise any argument which bares any implications to the validity or invalidity of the link….

The comments under the analysis are still open if you want to debate the matter with Shaviv.

Steven Hill from Ky (the welfare state)
September 4, 2013 11:40 am

Clouds cool, I don’t see where there can be any objection. Dr. Roy has had this theory for several years now. The heating has stopped. Checkmate

Steven Hill from Ky (the welfare state)
September 4, 2013 11:44 am

The theory on man caused global warming looks about the same as welfare making people stronger or blowing up an Arab nation will bring about peace.

September 4, 2013 11:45 am

Steven Mosher says:
September 4, 2013 at 11:27 am
The problem is this.
The hypothesis is More GCR = more clouds = cooling earth.
Svensmark is trying to explain the mechanism more GCR = More clouds.
The problem is that if you look at events like Forbush events, where the amount of GCR changes dramatically, you dont see more clouds. Thats the real world. So, basically he’s trying to explain a phenomena that doesnt happen. And if he is able to show it in a lab he has the problem of explaining why it doesnt actually happen outside the lab.
———————————
The effect was found in a 2009 study, not found in 2010 & found again in 2011.
Naturally, you chose to credit the suspect outlier.
In any case, there’s a big difference between a brief event & long-term variation in magnetic flux modulation of cosmic rays, the supply of which isn’t steady, as recognized by the science of cosmoclimatology.

Tom in Florida
September 4, 2013 11:46 am

“It is proposed that an ion-mechanism exists which provides a second significant pathway for making additional H2SO4, as a possible explanation of the present experimental findings”.
So where are all the skeptics who should be shouting loudly that “it is proposed”… “as a possible explanation”? If this was an AGW paper that is exactly what you would all say.
So what do we have? Another step along the path, a good one perhaps, but not the holy grail as some posters seem to want to bestow upon it.
And Salvatore, if you have a personal issue with Dr S take it up somewhere else. I for one am tired of having to read through all your opinionated BS that has little to do with the subject at hand with which you have polluted the last couple of solar threads. State your position, provide us with explanations and links so we can learn something and let the personal stuff go.

September 4, 2013 11:52 am

Tom in Florida says:
September 4, 2013 at 11:46 am
not the holy grail as some posters seem to want to bestow upon it
When people are grasping for straws, it seems that even the smallest blade can make a difference…

September 4, 2013 11:54 am

Svensmark et al:
It is less clear if the variations in ionization caused by solar activity can be seen in changes in the CCN production in the real atmosphere. In other words if a 10% change in the ionization could result in an ≈ 1–2% change in CCN concentration, which is of the order expected to have a observable impact on clouds [15]. Since nucleation and growth in the atmosphere vary with temperature, pressure, and concentration of gases, the impact of the observed effect will depend on the specific location in the atmosphere.
There Svensmark has a problem in converting the excellent hypothesis in an unquestionable theory. If CERN experiment has not produced 100% result, with current stagnation and even more so with possible cooling, impact of his research will loose some of the impetus.
We also know that sun maintained its magnetic cycle but lost sunspots during the Maunder minimum when temperatures fell.
Sunspots are the source of the TSI change but not to a degree to explain climate variability.
Sunspots also are the source of les frequent but more violent solar magnetic events resulting in the mass ejection (CMEs) and different type of far more energetic interaction with the Earth’s environment to the one that the Svensmark’s hypothesis is about.

September 4, 2013 11:55 am

Tom in Florida says:
September 4, 2013 at 11:46 am
This paper is real science, based upon repeatable experiment, with a follow up program of further research to test hypotheses. This is the antithesis of consensus climate “science”, based upon GIGO models.

September 4, 2013 11:57 am

Steven Hill from Ky (the welfare state) says:
September 4, 2013 at 10:06 am
Who would want a Nobel prize…..Gore and Obama have one…
_________________________________________________________
They don’t have a real one, they have a “Peace Prize” which is a political prize not a scientific prize. As far as I know, the science ones do matter.

Mario Lento
September 4, 2013 12:00 pm

DirkH says:
September 4, 2013 at 9:47 am
JimS says:
September 4, 2013 at 9:38 am
“So let me get this straight: reduced solar radiation, means more cosmic radiation, which means more clouds? If so, then this would be a double whammy negative feedback system? I apologize for the non-scientific terminology used.”
Total Insolation does not change significantly. What changes significantly is only the magnetic field. So; “single whammy” – by modulating the albedo of Earth.
+++++++
Hi Dirk: Semantics, but metaphorically, it’s OK to call it a double whammy. I’m not saying anything new here. The theory suggests a negative feedback to a waning sun. Or conversely a positive feedback to a more active sun. When the sun is more active, more of the sun’s energy is allowed to pass through the atmosphere and heat the earth. When the sun is less active, less of it’s energy makes it down through the atmosphere to heat the earth. So two whams in that sense.

adam.j
September 4, 2013 12:01 pm

Steven Mosher says:
September 4, 2013 at 11:27 am
“The problem is this.
The hypothesis is More GCR = more clouds = cooling earth.
Svensmark is trying to explain the mechanism more GCR = More clouds.
The problem is that if you look at events like Forbush events, where the amount of GCR changes dramatically, you dont see more clouds. Thats the real world. So, basically he’s trying to explain a phenomena that doesnt happen. And if he is able to show it in a lab he has the problem of explaining why it doesnt actually happen outside the lab.”
Nigel Calder responded to that argument on his blog here
http://calderup.wordpress.com/2010/05/03/do-clouds-disappear/

Gail Combs
September 4, 2013 12:02 pm

Tom in Florida says: @ September 4, 2013 at 11:46 am
…So where are all the skeptics who should be shouting loudly that “it is proposed”… “as a possible explanation”? If this was an AGW paper that is exactly what you would all say.
So what do we have? Another step along the path, a good one perhaps, but not the holy grail as some posters seem to want to bestow upon it…..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It made it through Peer Review without being censored. It adds another link to our knowledge of how the climate actually may work. It shoots a few more holes in the idiotic CO2 is the ultimate Control Knob propaganda from the IPCC. AND it is just in time to trip up the next IPCC report. THAT is plenty of reason for celebrating
Many Skeptics, like me take the position of I Don’t Know. We are still in the phase of trying to figure out what unknowns we don’t know. Others have tried to take what we do know and cobble together a possible explanation.
At this stage of climate science anyone who takes the stance of ‘I Know’ is full of it.

AnonyMoose
September 4, 2013 12:03 pm

This isn’t Nobel prize territory yet. This experiment is at the “that’s odd” stage. They found an unexpected situation which behaves differently than current understanding. Someone has to figure out what is causing this behavior. Maybe the explanation of that will be significant, or maybe it will be an “of course a hot air balloon rises” explanation.

tallbloke
September 4, 2013 12:05 pm

Reblogged this on Tallbloke's Talkshop and commented:
Great news: More confirmation of Svensmark’s theory

September 4, 2013 12:07 pm

Gail Combs says:
September 4, 2013 at 12:02 pm
It made it through Peer Review without being censored.
Because it is not really about the climate, but about how to convert sulfur dioxide and water vapor to sulfuric acid in their reaction chamber.

Rob Crawford
September 4, 2013 12:12 pm

“Svensmark et al are using model predictions to validate (or invalidate) their experimental findings.”
Backwards it have you.

tallbloke
September 4, 2013 12:12 pm

Congratulations Henrik.

cotwome
September 4, 2013 12:14 pm

Steven Mosher says:
Maybe not, a peer reviewed paper says otherwise:
Forbush decreases – clouds relation in the neutron monitor era
http://www.astrophys-space-sci-trans.net/7/315/2011/astra-7-315-2011.html
Dragić, A., Aničin, I., Banjanac, R., Udovičić, V., Joković, D., Maletić, D., and Puzović, J.: Forbush decreases – clouds relation in the neutron monitor era, Astrophys. Space Sci. Trans., 7, 315-318, doi:10.5194/astra-7-315-2011, 2011.

M Courtney
September 4, 2013 12:17 pm

Rob Crawford says at September 4, 2013 at 12:12 pm
Well things put you.

TRM
September 4, 2013 12:19 pm

” But the cosmic-ray/cloud hypothesis seemed to run into a problem when numerical simulations of the prevailing chemical theory pointed to a failure of growth.Fortunately the chemical theory could also be tested experimentally,”
I’ll see your simulation.and raise you an experiment! It’s time for the IPCC to fold but I’m pretty sure they try to bluff. Their tell is so obvious that I’m going all in.

Bob
September 4, 2013 12:22 pm

Leif Svalgaard says:
September 4, 2013 at 12:07 pm
It made it through Peer Review without being censored.
Because it is not really about the climate, but about how to convert sulfur dioxide and water vapor to sulfuric acid in their reaction chamber.
Leif, I think you may be wrong. Do you remember all of the pre-press release admonitions about the CERN confirmatory paper a couple of years ago. They were clearly concerned the results would add ammunition to the skeptics.

Kev-in-Uk
September 4, 2013 12:25 pm

I advocate caution, as Mosher points out, lab and real world results are not necessarily the same.
What this DOES do – is start to concentrate folks minds back on to the solar/extraterrestrial geomag/cosmic ray/gamma ray, etc type areas where we simply do not have enough information and understanding to ‘diss’ solar variation as a potential primary or secondary cause of earth climate changes.
As others note, many earth scientists, including myself, do not doubt that there are external influences on the earths climate – AND, for avoidance of doubt – these external influences MUST be significant (otherwise how does one explain cyclic Ice ages, for example!). Now, AFAIK, no-one has come up with demonstrable theories to explain all these possible external causes and effects. Svensmarks work is a simply a step towards such understanding.
As for the AGW – its mostly CO2 caused, ‘theory’ – it was already dead in the water. I just hope that some of the CO2 carbon derived warming ‘hype’ is now reassessed and ADMITTED as likely grossly over-exaggerated.
The likes of Hansen, Mann, etc – all need to start their climb downs real soon…….or they will simply look more and more foolish (if that’s possible?)

Peter PLAIL
September 4, 2013 12:26 pm

I am having trouble understanding this “experiment” thingy – can anyone explain how this relates to the real world of mathematical modelling? /sarc

Peter Plail
September 4, 2013 12:28 pm

Sorry all – I am not really shouting my surname – I have enough trouble with it without drawing attention to it.

PeterB in Indianapolis
September 4, 2013 12:31 pm

Y’know, there may be a really easy way to confirm the hypothesis here folks… Maybe that would stop some of the arguments between Leif, Mosher, Salvatore, and Vuk…. although they are entertaining to watch.
At any rate, my proposal is this:
If we do have a big reduction in solar activity over the next 2 or 3 solar cycles, why don’t we take detailed measurements of cosmic radiation, cloud cover (at varying latitudes and altitudes), and temperature over the next 30 years or so, and then it should be pretty darn easy to confirm or refute this hypothesis.
Claiming it has been confirmed yet is premature, and claiming it has been refuted already seems to be based on studies with insufficient data to actually confirm or deny anything.
So, let’s do some real science and maybe actually measure these things over the next 10, 20, or 30 years or so in the “real world” and see what the actual data tell us. Novel idea to be sure.

Duster
September 4, 2013 12:33 pm

Sedron L says:
September 4, 2013 at 11:00 am
Dick Courtney: please read your Paul Feyerabend.

The problem with Feyerabend and similar “philosophers” is that their arguments are often used to justify “scientific” conclusions that are contra-reality merely because the investigator thinks his or her ideas have merit because they emerged spontaneously from their very own fuzzy little heads. It is bad enough when research is bent simply to maintain grant status; when sincerity displaces honesty, the infernal highway is funded for paving work.
Besides, read Francis Bacon and you will discover that the issue of theory interacting with results was a concern even in the 16th century. That was the reason Bacon advanced the scientific method to begin with. He argues that since a scientist cannot be objective, therefor he (well her as well) has to rely on the experiment to actually inform about nature. He did not anticipate Trenberth for instance asserting that the data must be wrong, since it didn’t match the model expectations. Trenberth is exhibiting Feyerabend-like sincerity as opposed to Baconian emphasis on experiment.

pokerguy
September 4, 2013 12:36 pm

@Gail Combs,
Many thanks for finding that rebuttal to Mosher’s very reasonable sounding objection. I hope he responds.

MC
September 4, 2013 12:38 pm

Anthony, You were kind to post a note with my post. Let me clarify it for you. You don’t have to qualify yourself on your own blog. Your character far surpasses mine. I know the work you put in to this site and the expense. It takes a huge toll on your mind body spirit and wallet. I extend my gratitude to you for maintaining a site that is needed more than money can compensate.
I am going to send you a contribution to that effect and for my being a smart ass. Keep up the unsurpassed effort.

taxed
September 4, 2013 12:38 pm

My interest is in the weather and because of that l have real doubts that just on its own this idea would have any real impact on changes to the cloud cover.
But if it were linked along with changes to the jet stream as well, then yes this idea would have legs.

Mario Lento
September 4, 2013 12:39 pm

Gail Combs says:
September 4, 2013 at 12:02 pm
Tom in Florida says: @ September 4, 2013 at 11:46 am
…So where are all the skeptics who should be shouting loudly that “it is proposed”… “as a possible explanation”? If this was an AGW paper that is exactly what you would all say.
++++++++++
Good questions Gail: But let us not forget that what stirs many skeptics into action. It is a natural survival instinct for those of us who don’t want to be bullied. I am especially skeptical when someone intends to scare the people who can forcibly take my money. That is also in part what differentiates (not in the calculus sense) conservatives from liberals. I digress.

Man Bearpig
September 4, 2013 12:42 pm

Congratulations to Svensmark and his team. He took a lot of flak over the years but he should have a nice big smile on his face and a glass of champagne in his hand.

Mario Lento
September 4, 2013 12:44 pm

Gail: I read more carefully: I AM SORRY I should have addressed Tom in FLorida, the person you were addressing in my above. I don’t know where my head was!

DirkH
September 4, 2013 12:46 pm

Bob says:
September 4, 2013 at 12:22 pm
“Leif, I think you may be wrong. Do you remember all of the pre-press release admonitions about the CERN confirmatory paper a couple of years ago. They were clearly concerned the results would add ammunition to the skeptics.”
GLOBE international controls all established parties in all EU protectorates and needs the CO2AGW theory hoax as an excuse to justify food-to-fuel policies.
And they control science funding in the EU.
If you want to do science in the EU you play by the rules of GLOBE international or you don’t play.

davidmhoffer
September 4, 2013 12:49 pm

@Leif Svalgaard;
OK, you convinced me a long time ago that the correlation on this matter doesn’t exist. But if this experiment holds up, doesn’t it raise the question as to why the correlation doesn’t exist?
I ask this in the same vein as CO2. We know what the physical properties are in isolation in the lab. What we don’t seem to know is why these don’t exhibit themselves as expected in the earth system as a whole. The answer most likely lies with our lack of understanding regarding totality of all feed backs + changes due to factors unrelated to CO2. Does this not raise the need for a similar discussion? Or is there something else I have missed?

Pat Frank
September 4, 2013 12:50 pm

Sedron L, interpretation is model-dependent. Magnitudes and effects are not. E.g., ionizing cosmic rays would produce atmospheric nano-droplets (or not) independently of anyone’s model about them.

Green Sand
September 4, 2013 12:56 pm

Steven Mosher says:
September 4, 2013 at 11:27 am

“Thats the real world. So, basically he’s trying to explain a phenomena that doesnt happen. And if he is able to show it in a lab he has the problem of explaining why it doesnt actually happen outside the lab.”

————————————————
Quite right, however that is not limited to Svensmark’s hypothesis. There are many others that are having an issues with the “real world”, including one very high profile hypothesis.

Mac the Knife
September 4, 2013 12:58 pm

richardscourtney says:
September 4, 2013 at 11:06 am
Richard,
Beautifully and succinctly stated.
MtK

DesertYote
September 4, 2013 1:00 pm

Sedron L says:
September 4, 2013 at 10:37 am
###
I’ve talked to Moonies less dense then you.

Rob Potter
September 4, 2013 1:04 pm

Thanks Gail (and others) for pointing out the flaw in the “Forbush events refute this” argument. I am constantly disappointed with people trying to refute Svensmark using – what are essentially – proxies instead of looking at the experimental data being developed.
Yes, we are still a long way from linking solar activity to global temperatures, but this is a significant postulated mechanism for how the correlation between solar activity and earth temperature could occur. Arguing that the theory is wrong because the correlation is not perfect or that Forbush events are not seen in monthly (or weekly) cloud cover is not valid because you are not addressing the theory.
Quite simply, this is a testable hypothesis which has not been refuted on the link between GCR and cloud nuclei. The upstream link (high solar activity shielding the earth from GCR) seems to be accepted, but there is equivocation over the downstream link between the cloud nucleii and actual clouds. This one will be hard as I doubt we will be able to create a big enough SKY3 to get results on the kind of scale needed to perform experiments, so we will have to rely on better cloud data and accept the vagaries of observational vs experimental science.
Over-interpreting the theory as “the answer refuting AGW” is just as wrong as refuting it based on poor proxies. I am not ready to beatify Svensmark yet (and apart from one or two comments, few people are on this thread), but credit has to be given where it is due: he has developed a testable hypothesis and been prepared to test it properly – though well-designed experiments. Kudos.

September 4, 2013 1:05 pm

Bob says:
September 4, 2013 at 12:22 pm
“about how to convert sulfur dioxide and water vapor to sulfuric acid in their reaction chamber.”
Leif, I think you may be wrong.

Read they paper. Its conclusion is “It is proposed that an ion-mechanism exists which provides a second significant pathway for making additional H2SO4, as a possible explanation of the present experimental findings”
davidmhoffer says:
September 4, 2013 at 12:49 pm
Does this not raise the need for a similar discussion?
Discussions are always good and needed, but should not degenerate into worship by the faithful, seeking solace from evil CAWG.

Dan Murphy
September 4, 2013 1:06 pm

I am seeing some confirmation bias in this thread. This experimental result is a possible piece of the puzzle, but it is easy to get excited about something that confirms one’s own prejudices.
A healthy skepticism is the hallmark of a true Scientist. Being an Advocate is not doing science, it is being political. I am not referring to any attempts to defend or discredit Svensmark’s findings, but rather my remarks are directed to those who seem to take this one set of experimental laboratory results and assume that they validate the Cosmic Ray/Atmospheric Clouds/Temperature Modulation Theory – and then take it personally when others argue for a different interpretation.
And another thing: It is very obvious that (among others) Steven Mosher and Dr. Svalgaard irritate some of the commenters here with their skeptical attitudes – heck it annoys me sometimes, but being skeptical is what a real scientist does. He (she) does everything they can think of to disprove their own hypothesis, and THEN they ask other scientists to try their best to prove them wrong. In other words, a true scientist, a good scientist is even skeptical about their own work. Note that, in my opinion, some of you would do well to emulate Gail Combs or Richard Courtney (there are many others as well) in their demeanor in this forum. In general, when they disagree with a poster, they will provide a counter argument, and links to sources to back up their argument. They will not whine and make personal remarks about those they disagree with.
Since I am not a scientist, I come here to the WUWT comment section to learn directly from the scientists and others who are willing to share their knowledge. While this thread isn’t quite the worst I have seen here at WUWT, I do resent those who derail comment threads by engaging in off-topic rants and childish behavior. Grow up or go somewhere else.

September 4, 2013 1:09 pm

Rob Potter says:
September 4, 2013 at 1:04 pm
The upstream link (high solar activity shielding the earth from GCR) seems to be accepted
Because there is both a good correlation and a good theory explaining it.
but there is equivocation over the downstream link between the cloud nucleii and actual clouds.
Because the correlation is not there and that therefore no theory is needed.

gopal panicker
September 4, 2013 1:09 pm

if cosmic rays were key…then there should be a 11 year cycle…following the solar cycle…no evidence for that

September 4, 2013 1:14 pm

I always had faith in Henrik ‘s work, and now to have this confirmed even to a greater degree is just wonderful news.
More solar /climate relationships will be confirmed as we advance through this decade and we get to see first hand prolonged solar minimum conditions and the effects it has on the climate.
In with the new(solar/climate connection) ,out wth the old (agw hoax) ridiculous CO2 /global warming non existent connection.

Pat Frank
September 4, 2013 1:14 pm

Sedron L: “Feyerabend.”
Figures.
Feyerabend was wrong, Sidron. Even he admitted that he didn’t understand the consistent success of science, in light of his own analysis that such success should not happen. The discordance between the expectations stemming from his own analysis and the undoubted success of science amounts to a thorough disproof of his case.
Neither you nor Feyerabend allow the interplay of theory and result. The content of results is independent of theory. Only interpretation is theory-bound. When interpretation is proven wrong by by the non-concordance of theory-based prediction and subsequent results, theory is changed or discarded or reconstructed. Sometimes radically. Always independently of human preference.
This empirical winnowing forever removes theory from dependence on subjective content. Freedom from subjectivity has been central to science since Galileo. It’s time you caught up. Too late for Feyerabend.
You’re also wrong about CO2 by the way. Radiation physics says nothing about how any increased energetic content is partitioned by, and into, the climate system. It may not show up as sensible heat at all. F. Moeller made this point in 1963, in a debate with Gilbert Plass. It’s still true today. Climate physics has not advanced to the point where the small perturbation of increased GHGs can be resolved from background processes. It seems apparent that hubris has caused AGW-driven climate scientists to ignore this truth.

Bill Marsh
Editor
September 4, 2013 1:14 pm

Interesting that they cite Ultraviolet radiation as a factor. Wasn’t there a paper posted at WUWT a month or so ago that showed a very high correlation between the ‘ozone holes’ and temperatures? I seem to recall it.

george e. smith
September 4, 2013 1:15 pm

Well there is more to the Svensmark theory, than just the numbers of solar particles and cosmic rays. The interration between the reversals of solar magnetism, and non-reversals of the earth’s magnetism, should result in different steering of arriving charged particles, which tend to spiral around the magnetic field lines. This can alter the distribution of charged particle flux, between tropical regions, where plenty of atmospheric moisture can be found, and more polar regions, where there is less water vapor to condense.
Of course, such conjectures are subject to proper study of the magnitude of these effects. If it is just a butterfly’s wing effect; who cares; but maybe it could have an observable effect.
I’m still open to the idea; but would certainly like to know more about the amplitude of such variations. I am quite sold on the idea, that cloud modulation negative feedback is pretty much in total control of earth’s climate, as far as mean Temperature regulation. The CO2 mechanism, though real, is pretty much a non starter as far as I am concerned; particularly since the reality constantly fails to follow the computer models.

InWDC
September 4, 2013 1:16 pm

So when will we see cooling from the quiet sun of the past few years?

September 4, 2013 1:17 pm

There is going to be no correlation over an 11 year period, it takes years of a prolonged solar minimum to get any solar/climate correlation. Further the degree nf magnitude change and duration of time have to reach certain levels, levels that never get reached during the so called 11 year sunspot cycle.
That is where so many get tripped up.

September 4, 2013 1:19 pm

In addition earth’s magnetic field has a say in how many cosmic rays will enter our atmosphere along with the amounts of galatic cosmic rays in our neighborhod of the galaxy.

September 4, 2013 1:25 pm

Ultraviolet and ozone connection transfers to the atmospheric circulation connection. At times of low solar actiivty (sustained) the ozone distribution is such that the polar regions of the stratosphere warm relative to the lower latitudes of the stratosphere giving rise to a more meridional atmospheric circulation and hence more clouds, snow cover and precipitatoin and hence colder N.H. temperatures.
Again this is not going to happen over the course of the so called 11 year sunspot cycle, which serves to keep solar /climate correlations low and the climate constant.

Lance Wallace
September 4, 2013 1:26 pm

I hope all commenters will take the time to view the 52-minute documentary. This was beautifully done, professionally scripted, and quite inspiring. Excellent explanations, considerable careful coverage and comments from Nir Shaviv and Jan Veizer, etc.
OK, Leif, I can already hear (and agree with) your comment that the other side of the story was not covered adequately. And as long as the mechanism for growth to CN size still eludes us, the hypothesis will not become a theory. However, the way ahead has been marked out.
Many thanks to you, Anthony, for posting the documentary.

highflight56433
September 4, 2013 1:26 pm

Svensmark’s hypothesis being put to test in a chamber designed to generate condensation nuclei large enough for water vapor formation is even more compelling when one understands that clouds (other than ground fog) form due to warmer moist air rising into cooler air aloft, resulting in an increase differential between the warmer moist air rising and the air it is rising in.
I bought into the theory when he first published it. It makes logical sense.

Jimbo
September 4, 2013 1:28 pm

In this post I read the word (and variations thereof) ‘experiment’ 12 times. Next time you see a Warmist paper see how many times you can count the word ‘experiment’. If you do see the word ‘experiment’.
Spatial & temporal variability of summer rainfall over Ethiopia from observations & a regional climate model experiment do take a look out for the word just before it. 😉

M Courtney
September 4, 2013 1:28 pm

Dan Murphy says at September 4, 2013 at 1:06 pm …
Good point. I’m as guilty as anyone on this thread.
But I still think the work should lead to a Nobel Prize sooner rather than later. All science is wrong eventually but Svensmark has swum against the flow and found things (by experiment and in accordance with theory) that no-one else has.
It is hard not to be overly enthusiastic about a pioneer who keeps delivering the goods.
But you are right. “Overly enthusiastic” is unhelpful.

Man Bearpig
September 4, 2013 1:28 pm

Sedron L says:
September 4, 2013 at 10:45 am
And, even *if* Svensmark et al is true, CO2 is still a greenhouse gas, whose effects are seen throughout paleoclimate and whose radiative properties are probably the *best* known part of climate science (both theoretically and observationally).
———-
You forgot the the na na ne naa naa

Joe
September 4, 2013 1:32 pm

Steven Mosher says:
September 4, 2013 at 11:27 am
The problem is this.
The hypothesis is More GCR = more clouds = cooling earth.
Svensmark is trying to explain the mechanism more GCR = More clouds.
The problem is that if you look at the orthodoxy, as CO2 has continued to icrease, temperatures haven’t. Thats the real world. So, basically the models are trying to explain a phenomena that doesnt happen. And if they are able to show it in a computer they have the problem of explaining why nature is getting it wrong outside that computer.
——————————————————————————————————————————-
Very well said, Steve!
This, as a fledgeling hypothesis (only in the orthodoxy would it be “settled” after a mere decade or two), may well go a very long way to explaining that pesky lack of co-operation by nature! So I’m sure that, in the interest of scientific truth, all the orthodox scientists will be rushing to validate and expand on the idea to help iron out the minor wrinkles, no?

highflight56433
September 4, 2013 1:32 pm

A mechanism that increases the condensation nuclei is a mechanism for increased cloud formation. And since Svensmark’s hypothesis has a global affect, it has greater meaningful influence than an aircraft attempting to could seed a local condition.

highflight56433
September 4, 2013 1:33 pm

oops…should read “cloud seed” 🙂

September 4, 2013 1:34 pm

today is wonderful news for those of us who know the solar/climate connection exist.

William Astley
September 4, 2013 1:34 pm

In reply to:
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 4, 2013 at 11:35 am
Steven Mosher says:
September 4, 2013 at 11:27 am
So, basically he’s trying to explain a phenomena that doesnt happen.
A sober assessment of the available evidence …
William:
Time to take your head out of the sand. There are cycles of warming and cooling that correlate with solar magnetic cycle changes.The question is not if solar magnetic cycle changes cause cyclic warming and cooling of the planet but rather how.
There is now unequivocal observed cooling at both poles. There is an unexplained significant change to the solar magnetic cycle.
Scientists require imagination and persistence to solve problems. Svensmark is an old fashion meticulous persistent scientist.
Svensmark will be proven correct by abrupt cooling of the earth due to the solar 24 cycle change.

Man Bearpig
September 4, 2013 1:38 pm

MikeN says:
September 4, 2013 at 11:18 am
What evidence do we have that the experiments were not rigged to produce the result they wanted to believe?
————-
You can replicate the experiment if you so wish. The details are in the paper.

September 4, 2013 1:39 pm

It seems to be fairly widely accepted here that an active sun leads to less clouds and an inactive sun to more clouds.
Leif says that the correlation is not good enough to be meaningful but we haven’t had cloud data for long.
Recent cloud data from the Earthshine project shows that global cloud cover reduced during the recent warming spell and stopped decreasing or may have increased somewhat around 2000 when the warming stopped as well.
We have two options to consider:
i) Svensmark suggests more clouds from simple cloud seeding but gives no guidance as to how that then affects the structure of the atmospheric circulation to achieve the full range of phenomena that we see with latitudinally shifting climate zones, changed jet stream behaviour and changes in atmospheric ‘blocking events.
ii) I suggest that the solar variations directly alter ozone chemistry thus altering the vertical temperature profile of the atmosphere and I have described how that could translate into the full range of observed phenomena.
How to test between the two?
We need to know whether the simple cloud seeding process can alter the vertical temperature profile of the atmosphere in the way required to achieve the observed phenomena.
I don’t see how it could.

wayne
September 4, 2013 1:42 pm

I.P.C.C. AR5 … D.O.A.

September 4, 2013 1:48 pm

Salvatore Del Prete says:
September 4, 2013 at 1:34 pm
today is wonderful news for those of us who know the solar/climate connection exist.
For the people who know, no proofs or evidence is needed, so why is this ‘wonderful news’?
Stephen Wilde says:
September 4, 2013 at 1:39 pm
It seems to be fairly widely accepted here that an active sun leads to less clouds and an inactive sun to more clouds.
Leif says that the correlation is not good enough to be meaningful but we haven’t had cloud data for long.

In which case there is no basis for something to be ‘widely accepted’.

September 4, 2013 1:49 pm

Stephen Wilde says:
September 4, 2013 at 1:39 pm
Doesn’t have to be either/or.
Small fluctuation in spectral composition of TSI & larger variation in solar magnetic flux could both be involved in climatic cycles.

albertalad
September 4, 2013 1:50 pm

Cold plasma has been well-hidden. Space physicists have long lacked clues to how much of this electrically charged gas exists tens of thousands of miles above Earth and how the stuff may impact our planet’s interaction with the sun. Now, a new method developed by Swedish researchers makes cold plasma measurable and reveals significantly more cold, charged ions in Earth’s upper altitudes than previously imagined.
At these lofty elevations, storms of high-energy charged particles – space weather – roil the atmosphere, creating auroras , buffeting satellites, and sometimes wreaking havoc with electronic devices and electric grids on Earth. The new evidence of abundant cold (i.e. low-energy) ions may change our understanding of this tumultuous space weather and lead to more accurate forecasting of it, scientists say. The finding might also shed light on what’s happening around other planets and moons – for instance, helping explain why the once robust atmosphere of Mars is so wispy today.
“The more you look for low-energy ions, the more you find,” said Mats André, a professor of space physics at the Swedish Institute of Space Physics in Uppsala, Sweden, and leader of the research team. “We didn’t know how much was out there. It’s more than even I thought.”
ww.irf.se/Topical/Press/?dbfile=Elusive matter found to be abundant far above Earth &dbsec=Administration

September 4, 2013 1:50 pm

Salvatore Del Prete says:
September 4, 2013 at 1:25 pm
“Ultraviolet and ozone connection transfers to the atmospheric circulation connection. At times of low solar actiivty (sustained) the ozone distribution is such that the polar regions of the stratosphere warm relative to the lower latitudes of the stratosphere giving rise to a more meridional atmospheric circulation and hence more clouds, snow cover and precipitatoin and hence colder N.H. temperatures.”
Well that is what I’ve been saying for some time save that I would add the effect of other wavelengths and particles relevant to the ozone creation / destruction process.
But that isn’t the Svensmark hypothesis. It is my alternative to it.

September 4, 2013 1:51 pm

Stephen they worked in conjunction with one another not opposite. A weak sun promotes more clouds through an increase in cosmic rays andUV light/ozone changes promote a more meridional atmospheric circulation. They both contribute, it is not one or the other.
You are taking the wrong approach in trying to say they both can’t occur in response to a quiet sun, when in reality that is exactly what happens.
I have been saying this for years, and Stephen you can add the volcanic /solar relationship to that.
It is much more then what you keep trying to convey.

Ulric Lyons
September 4, 2013 1:51 pm

Are there controls to check that cloud cover changes actually lead temperature changes?
I can see many more inverse points of correlation here with the temperature shifted forward around 8 months:
http://1.2.3.10/bmi/www.climate4you.com/images/HadCRUT3%20and%20TropicalCloudCoverISCCP.gif

Man Bearpig
September 4, 2013 1:54 pm

Leif Svalgaard says:
September 4, 2013 at 12:07 pm
Gail Combs says:
September 4, 2013 at 12:02 pm
It made it through Peer Review without being censored.
Because it is not really about the climate, but about how to convert sulfur dioxide and water vapor to sulfuric acid in their reaction chamber.
——————-
So it would only have been censored if it mentioned climate, I see now. Thanks for clearing that up.

September 4, 2013 1:55 pm

milodonharlani says:
September 4, 2013 at 1:49 pm
“Doesn’t have to be either/or.
Small fluctuation in spectral composition of TSI & larger variation in solar magnetic flux could both be involved in climatic cycles.”
I accept a possible effect from the magnetic flux but only if part of the thermal effects in the atmosphere are due to charged particles which the magnetic flux would direct in at the poles along the charge lines. I think the wavelength variations play a greater role and they are not affected by the magnetic field are they?
But that isn’t the Svensmark hypothesis is it?

M Courtney
September 4, 2013 1:55 pm

Stephen Wilde says at September 4, 2013 at 1:39 pm

We need to know whether the simple cloud seeding process can alter the vertical temperature profile of the atmosphere in the way required to achieve the observed phenomena.
I don’t see how it could.

From a layman’s perspective the question of Willis’s storms as temperature regulators springs to mind.
More clouds will affect how these storms are created. And these storms do move energy and humidity vertically.
But the effect of these movements will vary depending on their latitude. The Jet Stream will carry on regardless but it will be affected by the temperature and humidity of the Tropics.
To an ignoramus like myself this seems like a way that the formation of clouds could alter the vertical temperature profile of the atmosphere.
Not that I am endorsing this as anything but idle speculation.

Theo Goodwin
September 4, 2013 1:55 pm

Svensmark is doing something that is all but unique in climate science, namely, conducting experiments. In addition, they are active rather than passive experiments (that is unique in climate science). His work is completely in accord with scientific method.
Svensmark’s hypotheses may prove to be falsified as his experiments advance (another unique mark in climate science). But Svensmark will be the first to present the evidence that falsifies his hypotheses (another unique mark in climate science). Falsification is a step forward in science. Too bad that Alarmists are too proud and too fearful to take that step.
The experiment discussed in this article cannot prove that Svensmark’s major hypothesis is true. But it is a necessary step in a planned serious of active experiments (another unique mark in climate science).
I think that Leif’s criticisms above are directed at the title of the post rather than Svensmark’s experiment.

September 4, 2013 1:58 pm

Svalgaard and Mosher: 5th column.

September 4, 2013 1:59 pm

Stephen Wilde says:
September 4, 2013 at 1:55 pm
I don’t know to what extent spectral composition of TSI covaries with magnetic flux & the sunspot cycle, but I wouldn’t rule it out. Maybe Dr. Svalsgaard can comment.

Theo Goodwin
September 4, 2013 2:00 pm

I forgot to add an important point. If there remain some bozos who are prone to claim that active experimentation in climate science is not possible then look at Svensmark’s work. You do not need a second Earth to do experiments in climate science.

Jimbo
September 4, 2013 2:00 pm

MikeN says:
September 4, 2013 at 11:18 am
What evidence do we have that the experiments were not rigged to produce the result they wanted to believe?

Now you are getting close to understanding climate scientists and their models. Did you see the recent divergence with temps?

Theo Goodwin
September 4, 2013 2:01 pm

davidmhoffer says:
September 4, 2013 at 12:49 pm
Excellent and crucially important point. You are hitting on all cylinders.

September 4, 2013 2:01 pm

Leif’s comments are meaningless to me.
Stephen ,an increase in cosmic rays is one of the many secondary effects associated with a prolonged solar minmimum just as a change in UV light/ ozone distribution, both which create or result in an increase in clouds.
The first process through condensation nuclei ,the other through a more meridional atmospheric circulation. They work together in tandem not opposing.

September 4, 2013 2:02 pm

Salvatore Del Prete says:
September 4, 2013 at 1:51 pm
“Stephen they worked in conjunction with one another not opposite. A weak sun promotes more clouds through an increase in cosmic rays andUV light/ozone changes promote a more meridional atmospheric circulation. They both contribute, it is not one or the other.”
That isn’t what Svensmark actually says as far as I know. Does he specify how the increased clouds affect the thermal structure of the atmosphere and the degree of jet stream meridionality?
I think the change in cloud quantities is more likely due to changes in the length of the lines of air mass mixing than additional cloud seeding.
I know that cosmic particles will seed clouds in an enclosed space with favourable conditions but the atmosphere is not short of nuclei in the first place.
I suspect that pressure and humidity constraints in an atmosphere open to space limit the amount of cloud that can be formed at any given temperature regardless of the availability of nuclei.
I don’t think we can resolve such issues here.

Mike McMillan
September 4, 2013 2:03 pm

At 2:45 in the Coleman video (right after the polar bears), we have a cyclone in the Gulf of Mexico that is rotating anti-cyclonically.
Obviously copied from an AlGore video.

September 4, 2013 2:04 pm

Salvatore Del Prete says:
September 4, 2013 at 11:04 am
[PDF]
Av Monthly EUV .1-50 nm Flux Emissions – International Actuarial …
http://www.actuaries.org/HongKong2012/Papers/WBR9_Walker.pdf
You +1′d this publicly. Undo
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat – Quick View

September 4, 2013 2:05 pm

The above study shows all of the latest solar/climate relationships. Very informative.

Theo Goodwin
September 4, 2013 2:05 pm

Pat Frank says:
September 4, 2013 at 12:50 pm
Thank You. Now I do not have to say it. Explaining the difference between models and reality is a sysiphean task.

September 4, 2013 2:09 pm

M Courtney said:
“this seems like a way that the formation of clouds could alter the vertical temperature profile of the atmosphere.”
Clouds are a consequence of the vertical and horizontal temperature profiles as air masses of different qualities mix and mingle so that one or other of them falls to a temperature below the dew point. Convective clouds can affect local temperature profiles by releasing latent heat of condensation but that is quickly eliminated by enhanced uplift. Most clouds are layer clouds and not convective.
I hope readers realise that I am humbly wary of going too far in presenting an alternative to Svensmark at this juncture. I don’t expect to persuade many here, merely put my thoughts in the public domain for future reference.

September 4, 2013 2:10 pm

Stephen, Svensmark, is only saying that a quiet sun will result in more clouds due to an increase in cosmic rays, he does not get into the dynamics of how the atmosphere might change.
He is simply saying a mechinism which will result in more clouds(in his case cosmic rays) will result in a colder earth, independent of your theory or mine as far as the atmospheric circulation goes.

Theo Goodwin
September 4, 2013 2:10 pm

Alexander Feht says:
September 4, 2013 at 1:58 pm
Please. This information is hush-hush.

Jimbo
September 4, 2013 2:11 pm

Leif Svalgaard says:
September 4, 2013 at 12:07 pm
Gail Combs says:
September 4, 2013 at 12:02 pm
It made it through Peer Review without being censored.
Because it is not really about the climate, but about how to convert sulfur dioxide and water vapor to sulfuric acid in their reaction chamber.

Would you agree that climate models are not really about the climate, but about how to convert the rise of co2 into extra warming?

September 4, 2013 2:11 pm

Stephen Wilde says:
September 4, 2013 at 2:02 pm
We can’t resolve such issues, but we can discuss them.
The number of cloud condensation nuclei in the air ranges from around 100 to 1000 per cubic centimeter. The various types of possible CCNs also differ in hygroscopic quality. Therefore, I don’t think that the atmosphere today is everywhere saturated with potential CCNs.
So IMO the processes being studied by Dr. Svensmark could indeed influence cloudiness & climate.
Nor does it seem to me, in my inexpert, to say the least, opinion, that the cosmic ray hypothesis necessarily should vitiate your ozone idea.

September 4, 2013 2:13 pm

Clouds are a consequence of the vertical and horizontal temperature profiles as air masses of different qualities mix and mingle so that one or other of them falls to a temperature below the dew point. Convective clouds can affect local temperature profiles by releasing latent heat of condensation but that is quickly eliminated by enhanced uplift. Most clouds are layer
That is correct Stephen, and Svensmark, is simply saying an increase in cosmic rays will faciltate what you are saying because there is more condensation nuclei available which can give rise to more clouds.

September 4, 2013 2:19 pm

I do accept that an increase in clouds from more condensation nuclei, if it actually happens, could enhance the efficiency of the processes that I prefer but I don’t see how it could work without changing stratosphere temperatures first.
If the temperatures in the stratosphere stayed the same I think that pressure and humidity constraints would restrict if not suppress the increase in clouds from more nuclei alone.

September 4, 2013 2:22 pm

Friends:
Please return to the nub of the present issue.
Assuming the experiment is replicated, then it does not accord with existing understanding of cloud nucleation. The next and vital step is to determine why the experiment provides the observed result. Or, as the above article reports Henrik says

Now we want to close in on the details of the unexpected chemistry occurring in the air

If that theoretical understanding were achieved then – as I say above – Henrik’s work would be worthy of a Nobel (and that is not an exaggeration) because it would open up new areas of the physics of climate for study.
When – and only when – those new studies are conducted then it will be known how important the Svensmark Effect is and why.
On one hand, and as Leif keeps saying,
in the short term the effect seems to be too small for detection. However, this is debatable because of the analysis of Forbush Events.
On the other hand,
the work by Shaviv suggests the effect is very significant over millennial time scales. However, it is hard to understand why when the short-term effects are so small.
So, if the chemistry can be resolved then there is much physics to be investigated.
At this stage it is the chemistry that needs to be debated.
All the discussion about possible and conjectured effects on jet steams and ENSO is pointless at this stage. Until the chemistry is resolved nobody can know if this work is significant or not.
Unfortunately, there are ‘champions’ of various ideas concerning Sun/climate interactions and they want discussion (adoption?) of their ideas wherever they can get it. Recently we have had two WUWT threads on ENSO hijacked by solar discussions. In this thread – where solar discussion is appropriate – the needed and important discussion of possible chemical mechanisms in the atmosphere is being displaced.
Richard

M Courtney
September 4, 2013 2:25 pm

Yeah, its the uplift that struck me.
I don’t see anything here that necessarily puts Svensmark in conflict with Wilde. They may well compliment each other.
It seems to fit so far.
And I look forward to S Wilde being ready to give us what he has, when he’s got his ducks in a row. Because it look like it will be very interesting. To me as a plebeian novice

Gary Pearse
September 4, 2013 2:26 pm

I’ve liked the idea a lot because of an experiment done in 1912:
http://www.masc.ulg.ac.be/fiches/EN/wilsoncloudchamber.pdf
“Cloud chamber was first demonstrated in the early years of this century (1912) by the Scottish physicist (C. T. R.) Wilson. It was among the earliest means of making the tracks of ionising radiation visible (they formed streaks of clouds). The source of ions in the chamber is a combination of the normal background COSMIC RAYS and the NATURAL RADIATION of the local environment.”
So the Technical University of Denmark waited 101 years before they added the radiation to make the theory work. I trust that C.T.R Wilson is referenced prominently. I saw a demonstration of the phenomenon in a physics class in 1956 at Wesley College in Winnipeg. I note that CAGW proponents always mention Tyndall and Arhenius when it comes to CO2’s uptake of LWIR but, curiously, no mention of cosmic rays causing clouds as demonstrated by Wilson. Indeed, I haven’t seen much mention of Wilson and his cloud chamber anywhere.

September 4, 2013 2:27 pm

“Until the chemistry is resolved nobody can know if this work is significant or not.”
Agreed.
How could this finding result in a change to the vertical temperature profile of the atmosphere?
That is what must be achieved to produce the phenomena that we observe.
And if it can do it then how large is the effect relative to the changes in ozone chemistry that also appear to be involved when solar variations occur?
The paper doesn’t take us very far really does it?

Lawrence13
September 4, 2013 2:30 pm

Jim
I’m no scientist but I heard about this theory in a book by the science writer Nigel Calder called the ‘Manic Sun’ which was published in the mid nineties I believe. As I understood the mechanism then it was nothing to do with the suns brightness but rather it magnetic activity. So when the ever present at varying levels of cosmic rays are hitting the earth they form clouds that reflect the suns light thus cooling (like the little ice age when the sun apparently was inactive in terms of sunspots and solar wind and flares for several hundred years) and when the sun is magnetically active with lots of sunspots then it protects the earth from cosmic rays thus making it warmer due to less clouds.
Now this was all dismissed out of hand almost by the climate science world and only the sceptic and poor Henrik soldering on with PR by Nigel Calder with the internet and the growing sceptic movement acting like the cavalry arriving.
Just watching that documentary has just shown me very clearly how another even possible bigger player is the Milky Way. As its shown the earth orbiting the sun in our solar system and the solar system orbiting every 250 million years the Milky Way and how on that journey our solar system will pass through massively varying amounts of cosmic rays that the modulating effect by the sun can possibly be overwhelmed. So there’s the suns activity, and then the varying density of cosmic rays and then the Milancovitch theory of earth’s orbit and axis changes and one thinks Blimey !!!! there’s a lot going on a cosmic scale which seems to drown out any co2 level changes.
The hard donkey work for Svensmark has been proving that cosmic rays actually do increase low levl cloud formation.

highflight56433
September 4, 2013 2:30 pm

“That is correct Stephen, and Svensmark, is simply saying an increase in cosmic rays will faciltate what you are saying because there is more condensation nuclei available which can give rise to more clouds.”
That is exactly correct. Recall cloud seeding efforts. Imagine the entire planet having a mechanism that increases clouds, More clouds, more reflection. If getting colder, then greater cooling…if getting warmer, then less warming. Given the flat or declining global temperatures, maybe one might consider the obvious affect of increasing GCRs.

September 4, 2013 2:35 pm

M Courtney says:
September 4, 2013 at 2:25 pm
“Yeah, its the uplift that struck me.
I don’t see anything here that necessarily puts Svensmark in conflict with Wilde. They may well complement each other.
It seems to fit so far.
And I look forward to S Wilde being ready to give us what he has, when he’s got his ducks in a row. Because it look like it will be very interesting”
The ducks are coming into line slowly.
This is the latest version:
http://www.newclimatemodel.com/new-climate-model/
In fact it could accommodate various people’s pet theories as supplemental additions including Svensmark’s hypothesis.
I have deliberately left gaps to be filled in by new data but what is most apparent is that the sequence of events which I set out fits observations better than any other hypotheses currently in play.

M Courtney
September 4, 2013 2:40 pm

In reply to my father (RichardSCourtney),
I can’t discuss the chemistry without knowing the medium the chemistry is taking place in. For the atmosphere that means I need to know what is going on with the pressure and the temperature.
Stephen Wilde seems to think the interactions between pressure and temperature (and moisture carried or condensed out) will dominate cloud nucleation effects. But I don’t know enough about how the pressure and temperature vary in the atmosphere – especially in storms – to definitely agree with him.
A weather-forecast cell, which averages square miles, is of no relevance to the chemistry that could be pushed over the thermodynamic edge and dropped out of the system within a single hailstone or the shimmer on a raindrop.
That is why the weather patterns are important to understand how the chemical reactions are driven. We do not know where the chemical reactions balance so we can’t know why the clouds are formed or fizzle out.
Yet.

highflight56433
September 4, 2013 2:46 pm

“That is why the weather patterns are important to understand how the chemical reactions are driven. We do not know where the chemical reactions balance so we can’t know why the clouds are formed or fizzle out.”
Actually, we do know how clouds are formed and fizzle out.

Joe
September 4, 2013 2:49 pm

richardscourtney says:
September 4, 2013 at 2:22 pm
Friends:
[…]
At this stage it is the chemistry that needs to be debated.
All the discussion about possible and conjectured effects on jet steams and ENSO is pointless at this stage. Until the chemistry is resolved nobody can know if this work is significant or not.
[…]
Richard
————————————————————————————————————————-
That, sadly, seems to be an effect of the orthodoxy proclaiming “settled science” over a couple of decades, much of which has seen little more than either confirmatory (assumed from the start) studies or attempts to fudge the discrepancies between models and reality by questioning reality.
From the start we’ve been told that the basic theory is complete, and people on both sides have accepted the notion that any theory (or alternative) should be “born” complete; a scientific microwave dinner. Because of that, interesting work like this is expected to resolve all issues at a stroke.
Personally, I believe that’s the biggest single disservice that Climatology has inflicted on mankind. None of the economics will really matter over time (all that “wasted” money is only really getting moved elsewhere, after all!) but the belief that scientific advance should always involve instant gratification will take a long time to die!

September 4, 2013 2:54 pm

M Courtney says:
September 4, 2013 at 2:25 pm
IMO the Svensmark & Wilde hypotheses may well be mutually reinforcing rather than mutually exclusive.

BernardP
September 4, 2013 2:55 pm

I recall that this link between sun activity, cosmic rays, cloud formation and temperatures was showcased in “The Great Global Warming Swindle” documentary.

jorgekafkazar
September 4, 2013 2:55 pm

Judging from the concentration of troll posts here, Svensmark’s work really has them scared silly. Sillier.

September 4, 2013 2:55 pm

In the end ToA radiation balance has to be maintained long term if the atmosphere is to be retained.
Anything that seeks to disturb that radiative balance is countered by circulation changes.
The most basic position is that cloud formation and dissipation is governed overall by the configuration of the specific circulation required to maintain that ToA radiative balance.
If cosmic rays do form more clouds then the circulation must change to accommodate them but to achieve that change in the first place requires some sort of thermal effect as a precursor.
If there is no initial thermal effect then the creation of an extra cloud molecule in one place will be cancelled by the dissipation of another cloud molecule elsewhere.
To be convinced by the Svensmark hypothesis I would need to be shown how cosmic rays could effect the initial thermal change such that the system overall could retain the additional cloud molecules created.
As far as I know ,extra cosmic rays from low solar activity have no significant initial thermal impact do they?

policycritic
September 4, 2013 3:08 pm

For the non-scientific here who want to put what Svensmark has done in context, I urge you to watch Dr. Miyahara’s talk on Galactic Cosmic Rays (GRC) and the Sun that was featured on WUWT a few months ago:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/17/another-solar-to-climate-amplification-mechanism-found/
Dr. Miyahara’s talk was given at the The 2nd Nagoya Workshop on the Relationship between Solar Activity and Climate Changes in January, 2012 at Nagoya University (Nagoya, Japan).
If you have a large display, watch it on Vimeo. Direct link:

There’s a link on the WUWT page for her PDF’s as well, but here’s the direct link:
http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/news/2011ScienceMeeting/docs/presentations/2k_Miyahara_SORCE_brief.pdf
Dr. Miyahara is difficult to understand sometimes. She has trouble with Rs, Ps, and Ls, but the talk is clear, and in my view, riveting. I’ve watched it three times because it answers so many questions.
Dr. Lief Svalgaard gave a talk at this same conference: “The Long-term Variation of Solar Activity.”
A WUWT link to the conference participants, which included Svensmark:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/08/interesting-presentations-from-the-nagoya-workshop-on-the-relationship-between-solar-activity-and-climate-changes/

Paul Neczypir
September 4, 2013 3:13 pm

I’d always assumed that the likeliest place to look for any relationship between the solar cycle and cloud cover would be in the ultraviolet wavelength, as this is the range which varies the most. We know that ultraviolet light is harmful to microbes (the traditional way of disinfecting buckets was to leave them to dry in the sun). And we know that microbes play a big role in seeding clouds, particularly those which result in precipitation and hence cooling. http://e360.yale.edu/feature/the_long_strange_journey_of_earths_traveling_microbes/2436/
So when ultraviolet radiation is at its peak, at solar maximum, there will be fewer airborne microbes surviving and hence less cloud and rain.
I know that the variation in UV over a solar cycle is small on the face of it (approx. 1.5%) and even the variation between now and the Maunder Minimum is estimated at just 3%. But then again, we’re only looking to explain temperature differences of fractions of a degree celcius.

September 4, 2013 3:18 pm

Stephen Wilde says:
September 4, 2013 at 2:55 pm
The hypothesis is that water vapor in the air that otherwise wouldn’t have condensed onto a cloud nucleus will do so thanks to increased cosmic ray flux. There might be a feedback effect of some sort from a cooled surface & lower troposphere, but the process isn’t temperature-dependent to start, within normal bounds, if I understand the evolving hypothesis correctly.
You may find material of use to you in Calder’s discussion of Svensmark, et al:
http://calderup.wordpress.com/2012/03/01/yet-another-trick-of-cosmic-rays/

September 4, 2013 3:20 pm

Svensmark also argues in favor of a role for a cosmic ray flux in the history of life on earth, including mass extinction events.
http://calderup.wordpress.com/category/3b-the-svensmark-hypothesis/

highflight56433
September 4, 2013 3:23 pm

“To be convinced by the Svensmark hypothesis I would need to be shown how cosmic rays could effect the initial thermal change such that the system overall could retain the additional cloud molecules created. As far as I know ,extra cosmic rays from low solar activity have no significant initial thermal impact do they?”
The temperature is not the issue; condensation nuclei is the issue. In a given atmospheric condition where clouds could form except there exists a lack of condensation nuclei vs condensation nuclei by which to form those clouds is the difference. If an increase in GRCs produce an ion by which water vapor can cling to, then an increase is condensation nuclei provides a mechanism for more clouds, more reflection. Rising air = clouds can form. Descending air or atmospheric compression, fewer or no clouds. No condensation nuclei, no clouds. Read up on cloud formation and dew point.

September 4, 2013 3:24 pm

Sun-Earth link is far stronger than many here assume, it is not well understood ; moreover it is sometime denied by those who should know better.
During 100 or so years the Earth rotation has slowly changed to an extent of about 5ms pp. To my surprise, I found that ~1,2ms pp or about 25% of it is synchronised with the sunspot magnetic cycle.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSN-LOD.htm
Neither of the known direct solar nor the solar controlled inputs do have enough energy variability to achieve such an effect.
One could speculate endlessly, but before we settle for the GCR, TSI, SCL or any other variable as a primary cause for the decadal global temperature change, it is of fundamental importance to understand all the causal or coincidental geo-solar, factual or apparent links.
Despite all pretence such understanding doesn’t exist.

taxed
September 4, 2013 3:27 pm

To my mind for this idea to work it also needs to be linked to changes in the jet.
Because a weaker waving and more unstable jet would lead to more cloud cover. Due to the warm and cold air blocks meeting over larger areas. Also a weaker jet in summer means you get a increase in weak and floppy lows forming. Which leads to a increase in capping and so more cloud cover forming in layers rather then the towering Cumulus cloud.
Also along with a more waving jet there also seems to be a increase in wind shear. Which along with reducing the forming of hurricanes it also helps to spread the cloud cover over a larger area. You only need to look at the Fulldisk satellite images of the lndian ocean to see this in action.

September 4, 2013 3:34 pm

Thankyou for your perseverance, Professor Svensmark!

highflight56433
September 4, 2013 3:36 pm

“One could speculate endlessly, but before we settle for the GCR, TSI, SCL or any other variable as a primary cause for the decadal global temperature change, it is of fundamental importance to understand all the causal or coincidental geo-solar, factual or apparent links.”
Exactly. Everything affects everything.

Ulric Lyons
September 4, 2013 3:46 pm

Stephen Wilde says:
“Interesting but still doesn’t explain the circulation changes between zonal and meridional jets with varying degrees of atmospheric ‘blocking’.”
True, I don’t see what cloud variation has to do with the AO changing, especially at the kind of scales that it changes at.

September 4, 2013 4:44 pm

Henrik Svensmark,
Congratulations on the publication of your new research on cosmic ray interaction with the Earth-Atmosphere System.
Going forward, I hope you still have the energy, enterprise and entrepreneurial skills to keep your line of research alive.
I find it encouraging that there is a significant line of research which is independent and orthogonal to the myopic AGW research. Your efforts are a wakeup signal to the AGW biased climate community which is the basis of the unbalanced and manipulated IPCC assessment processes.
Mr Svensmark, it is possible that you are inspiring new generations of scientists to actively seek orthogonal and independent paths.
: )
John

MojoMojo
September 4, 2013 4:50 pm

” David says:
September 4, 2013 at 9:35 am
Absolutely, it was always going to be magnetic/gravitational modulation of cosmic rays together with solar activity.
Piers Corbyn isn’t looking so silly now is he?
Of course the warmists are going to attempt to blame the pause on this effect which may be difficult if the cloud cover records don’t match the temperature plateau.
REPLY: Piers looks silly because he makes grandiose forecast skill claims that are so vaguely written they can compete with Jeane Dixon style astrological forecast language, not because he believe is cosmic ray modulation – Anthony”
I am no expert on Piers Corbyn .
But for the record, Piers Corbyn does not endorse Svendmarks theory of cosmic rays controlling climate.
Corbyn has said its only the Sun/Earth/Moon magnetic connection that controls weather and climate.
Anthony I wish you would further examine Corbyns forecasts.
They are very specific.IMO too specific as he could have a better track record if he fudged dates more.
Im amazed by what he accomplishes.(Although I havent properly audited his entire forecasts.Nor has this site)
Whats impressive is his prediction of specific extreme weather events.

Bill H
September 4, 2013 5:11 pm

Bill Parsons says:
September 4, 2013 at 9:37 am
Does Svensmark suggest that the level of cosmic radiation is in flux – or that fluctuations in the sun’s energies cause variations in the earth’s magnetic shield?
==========================================
I dont think they do but here is some food for thought.
The sun is like a wave machine in a pool. When waves are high they consume things passing by and redirect them. When there are no waves the items skip readily across it.
As a child I used to skip rocks on a pond and on a river. When the river or pond has waves the rock doesn’t make it across the pond. When its calm it is very easy to get the rock to skip across the pond. Solar wind are waves of energy. When the solar output is low there are few waves to collect these particles and they strike the planet. When solar wind is high the number of particles is significantly lower.
Just one more external force which has an effect on our climate

Theo Goodwin
September 4, 2013 5:20 pm

richardscourtney says:
September 4, 2013 at 2:22 pm
Very well said. The modern mind is not well-suited for the patience necessary for science. Svensmark is a remarkable exception. Both Alarmists and Skeptics tend think that the next article will provide the solution if we only exercise our ingenuity fully.

Bill H
September 4, 2013 5:26 pm

Ulric Lyons says:
September 4, 2013 at 3:46 pm
True, I don’t see what cloud variation has to do with the AO changing, especially at the kind of scales that it changes at.
========================
Look to the planets heat budget. Right now the poles are cooling rapidly so the energy is pushing out from the poles. Remember the flow of energy is always negative to positive. In a cooling world the wind shear and jets will reflect the strength of the negative position. In a warmer world it becomes less negative and thus the shift will be equatorial to poles moving the jets as less energy is exerted against the equatorial jets.

Ulric Lyons
September 4, 2013 5:43 pm

Bill H says:
“Right now the poles are cooling rapidly..”
The Arctic has been cooler this summer due to a more positive AO/NAO, but look what happened last summer. If we get a whole bunch of cool summers this decade, we’ll see much warming in the Arctic. I didn’t really follow the rest of your comment.

September 4, 2013 5:55 pm

Stephen, Ulric & Bill,
It seems reasonable to me that an increase in low tropospheric cloud cover could affect air circulation patterns & mean global temperature.
Consider the case of the hothouse Cretaceous, with its equable climate, showing little temperature gradient from the equator to the poles. Contrast that situation with the icehouse world of today & even moreso of glacial phases. The colder, drier world is windier, with storm tracks possibly farther south.
This paper attempts to explain the failure of GC models to reproduce Cretaceous climate by their neglect of clouds & CCNs of biological origin. Needless to say it wasn’t welcomed by the Team.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/320/5873/195.abstract

Bill H
September 4, 2013 5:58 pm

Ulric Lyons says:
September 4, 2013 at 5:43 pm
Bill H says:
“Right now the poles are cooling rapidly..”
The Arctic has been cooler this summer due to a more positive AO/NAO, but look what happened last summer. If we get a whole bunch of cool summers this decade, we’ll see much warming in the Arctic. I didn’t really follow the rest of your comment.
==================================
Think of it this way. The power exerted outward from the poles controls flows. If you have high flow you will have high air turnover and thus warming (or what you perceive as warming) This is deceptive as the fact is, the cold is being pushed deeply towards the equator. (negative to positive flow – energy physics). The Ocean oscillations will amplify or buffer the intensity of the change.
When the planet is warming their is less energy at the poles and thus less flow. This allows the equatorial jets to expand and move upward. this expands the areas of warmer or temperate zones.
It is only when the planets energy budget comes close to equilibrium that balance is found between the polar and equatorial jets. Right now the polar jets are much stronger than they were just 10 years ago. yes it is cooling, But the ice formation in the arctic is delayed until the heat budget returns closer to equilibrium. Given the Antarctic increase this year we are nearing that dream balance. The arctic is always about 2 years behind the antarctic (im not sure why) but here we are and i expect the ice rebound to become very rapid the next few years.

Bill H
September 4, 2013 6:24 pm

To add to my last post, the sun is now beyond solar max and cooling will continue at the poles. Depending on the severity of the continued cooling the energy imbalance may slow ice formation for a few more years. The key is ocean oscillations. What are they now and how will they amplify or buffer what is going on. Were on the cooling side of many of them. This leads me to believe that ice will rebound significantly the next few years in the Arctic as the Antarctic has done. There simply wont be much heat available to continue the melt.

markx
September 4, 2013 6:36 pm

Stephen Wilde says: September 4, 2013 at 2:55 pm

In the end ToA radiation balance has to be maintained long term if the atmosphere is to be retained.
Anything that seeks to disturb that radiative balance is countered by circulation changes. The most basic position is that cloud formation and dissipation is governed overall by the configuration of the specific circulation required to maintain that ToA radiative balance. If cosmic rays do form more clouds then the circulation must change to accommodate them but to achieve that change in the first place requires some sort of thermal effect as a precursor.

While there is little doubt the climate system is full of self-regulatory mechanisms I’d have to note that surely this (cosmic ray effect) is a question of degree and timing – how much there is and how long the process takes.
If some event resulted in a steady escalation of cosmic ray reaching earth over a prolonged period, the cloud formation may escalate over that time period, with the climate eventually reaching a new normal and stabilizing (or fluctuating) around that level of temperature, cloud cover etc. Until the cosmic ray flux changes again.
If there is no initial thermal effect then the creation of an extra cloud molecule in one place will be canceled by the dissipation of another cloud molecule elsewhere.
This may eventually occur: More clouds = cooler climate = less water vapour in the air = less chance of droplet nuclei forming. But then (for that level of cosmic ray flux) the thermostat has been set at a new level.

Bill H
September 4, 2013 6:53 pm

Well that’s odd..
The potential heat loss due to increased cloud cover is precisely the heat that Trenbreth has lost..
hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

September 4, 2013 6:54 pm

Thanks, Anthony and “me”.
This is good news!

thingadonta
September 4, 2013 7:06 pm

So the sun is the centre of the climate universe, and not humans.

September 4, 2013 7:18 pm

Bill H says:
September 4, 2013 at 6:53 pm
The missing heat is hiding in water vapor in the sky instead of sea water deep in the oceans.

sophocles
September 4, 2013 7:24 pm

Hallelujah, it’s Cosmic Rays,
Hallelujah, they’re making clouds.
Hallelujah, Man’s not to blame,
Burning coal now without any shame.

Jack Simmons
September 4, 2013 7:31 pm

oldseadog says:
September 4, 2013 at 10:37 am

There is no doubt that AR5 will be obsolete when it is published; the problem will be getting MSM and the politicians to say so.

oldseadog,
Politicians will never let this go. It means they can get more taxes and they are always interested in getting more taxes. If the ‘blame’ for the taxes can be transferred to a scientific concept few understand, it is the best of all worlds.

September 4, 2013 7:35 pm

Any HAMS in the crowd? If you are a HF radio operator you know the myth about a constant sun is a myth. Solar min, you can barely reach your neighbors. Solar max you can reach around the world with less power than a light bulb. Sunspots are your measure, not TSI.

Sean
September 4, 2013 7:39 pm

This can’t be right… there’s no way to tax, cap or trade cosmic rays.
How are the eco-nazis going to push their Luddite agenda now?

Pamela Gray
September 4, 2013 8:17 pm

The leap made too far. I think folks are over-playing their hand re: a tiny difference causing a huge chain of events. Anthony’s color commentary is a good example of such a leap that is entirely unsubstantiated by the research article. What is important is the presence or absence of equatorial clouds and at a certain time span of the day. If cloud seeding is to measurably affect ENSO which then measurably affects land temperatures, any variance of something external like cosmic rays needs to be greater than the noise of natural intrinsic variation.
So no I am not buying this as proof of a Solar-Earth climate connection. It may indeed be yet another teeny tiny thing everybody goes gaga over….just like they did with anthropogenic CO2.

Tom in Texas
September 4, 2013 8:25 pm

“There is no doubt that AR5 will be obsolete when it is published; the problem will be getting MSM and the politicians to say so.”
The Alarmists Report 5 needs to be balanced with a Realists Report 1 containing the recent papers
not in the AR5.

Retired Engineer John
September 4, 2013 8:41 pm

Do any of the satellites have laser sounders tuned to sulfuric acid and water vapor molecules so that we could scan the atmosphere to see if this reaction is taking place?

Pamela Gray
September 4, 2013 8:42 pm

When we consider cosmic ray influences on clouds, lets consider just how much clouds vary of their own accord. Do changes in cosmic rays affect such a large entity in measurable ways? My hunch is that no, the variance is not enough to overcome internal sources of variation in cloud cover.
http://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/role.html#TOP

Leo Smith
September 4, 2013 8:44 pm

Sedron wittered:
“Whether the radiative impact of clouds can account for observed climate variations (many, like Andrew Dessler, think they do not),”
Oh dear. with an almost sunless summer last year did Britain overall seem warmer or colder?
“whether the the cloud feedback is net positive or net negative, ”
Oh dear. with an almost sunless summer last year did Britain overall seem warmer or colder?
Are cloudless deserts hotter or colder than places where cloud and rainfall is higher at similar or lower latitudes?
“and whether there is an underlying trend in cosmic rays of sufficient magnitude to explain post-1975 warming”
Well actually that’s what got Svensmark started in the first place.

AlexS
September 4, 2013 8:55 pm

“the upcoming IPCC AR5 report will be obsolete the day it is released.”
IPCC AR5 is not science it is social politics.

Leo Smith
September 4, 2013 9:01 pm

Stepohen wilde mumbles:
“Clouds are a consequence of the vertical and horizontal temperature profiles as air masses of different qualities mix and mingle so that one or other of them falls to a temperature below the dew point”
That is only the first condition. air well below the dew point will not form clods without condensation nuclei, and that is the whole point of Svensmark, in a nutshell.
The experimental data shows that overall, global temperature correlates with LOW cloud formation. Low cloud is overall temperature reducing, high thin cloud which somewhat reflects heat back at night time is overall slightly warming.
But what really counts in the end is the earth’s albedo. You don’t have to be a genius (or perhaps you do) to see that white fluffy clouds as seen from space are brighter, at lest in the visible spectrum, than land or sea with no cloud cover.
And any photographer will tell you that cloud reduces light intensity by 4-8 times depending on how thick is is. Only takes a few percent of modulation of total global cloud cover to have drastic impacts.
So it cant be temperatures driving clouds – has to be the other way around. And we know that the oceans are so big that the air over them is always practically at the dew point all the time.

RoHa
September 4, 2013 9:48 pm

Ahem!
“Conversely, fewer cosmic rays mean less cloud cover …”

george e. smith
September 4, 2013 9:54 pm

“””””””…….Salvatore Del Prete says:
September 4, 2013 at 1:17 pm
There is going to be no correlation over an 11 year period, it takes years of a prolonged solar minimum to get any solar/climate correlation. Further the degree of magnitude change and duration of time have to reach certain levels, levels that never get reached during the so called 11 year sunspot cycle……..”””””””
Salvatore, I didn’t lay out the concept very well.
Over a full 22 year solar magnetic cycle, evidently the sun’s magnetic field spends 11 years in one polarity direction and the next 11 years in the opposite direction. Now you add in the earth’s own magnetic field, which does not reverse on the same time scale, and you should get a net vector sum magnetic field in the sun earth region that shows a 22 year cyclic variation . Charged particles moving through the region, either from sun-earth or GCRs, will travel in paths that depend somewhat on the net magnetic field, about which they tend to spiral. Since the earth magnetic poles are in the geographic polar regions, many of these charged particles end up colliding with the earth in the vicinity of the earth magnetic poles, so this alters what otherwise might be expected to be a uniform flux of charged particles incident on earth. A 22 year cyclic variation in the net magnetic field of sun and earth, ought to shift the distribution of charged particles relative to the tropical moist areas or the dry polar areas, so the distribution of charged particle nucleated clouds, from pole to equator should have a 22 year cyclic change, with more clouds, when the magnetic steering towards the poles, is reduced.
Like I said, I don’t know enough about the solar fields vis a vis the earth field to estimate such effects, but Such a cyclic variation should be observable, if Svensmark is correct.
Having studied the Wilson Cloud chamber in the past, I find the Svensmark thesis to be compelling.
Evidently we will soon know more about it.

CRS, DrPH
September 4, 2013 10:01 pm

Pamela Gray says:
September 4, 2013 at 8:42 pm
When we consider cosmic ray influences on clouds, lets consider just how much clouds vary of their own accord. Do changes in cosmic rays affect such a large entity in measurable ways? My hunch is that no, the variance is not enough to overcome internal sources of variation in cloud cover.

Thank you, as always, for your insight, Pamela! I’ve pondered this long & hard, and discussed this a bit with Prof. Joel Norris from the Scripps Institution who presented an excellent colloquium on cloud physics to Fermilab National Accelerator Laboratory.
http://vmsstreamer1.fnal.gov/VMS_Site_03/Lectures/Colloquium/100512Norris/f.htm
It is not that cosmic rays (GCR) affect existing clouds, but rather, they stimulate the formation of nuclei which will eventually form new clouds. Svensmark believes that the most important cloud formation is in the troposphere, but I’ve pondered if GCR might also stimulate very high clouds consisting of ice, rather than water, particles. Such phenomena as noctilucent clouds may result from both ionizing GCR and airborne, complex chemicals resulting from industrial processes.
Could such very high altitude ice-crystal clouds produce a negative, rather than positive, forcing on climate? NASA and others seem to think that high-altitude clouds act to trap infrared, but I’m not sure that they don’t block more incoming radiation, especially over the poles and land.
Damned if I know, I’m an environmental biologist.

u.k.(us)
September 4, 2013 10:11 pm

Leo Smith says:
September 4, 2013 at 9:01 pm
Stepohen wilde mumbles:………..
=================
Glad you cleared that up for us.
Specially the photographer part.
It is so much clearer now.

kadaka (KD Knoebel)
September 4, 2013 10:15 pm

From ferd berple on September 4, 2013 at 7:35 pm (quoted out of order):

Sunspots are your measure, not TSI.

Per Livingston & Penn, sunspots are becoming less visible, soon might not be visible at all, as seen in the decreasing sunspot counts.
So sunspots are not the measure that will properly show solar activity. Got another?

Any HAMS in the crowd? If you are a HF radio operator you know the myth about a constant sun is a myth. Solar min, you can barely reach your neighbors. Solar max you can reach around the world with less power than a light bulb.

That’s strange. Wikipedia lists several factors that must be aligned for worldwide High Frequency propagation. Sunspot Cycle and Solar Activity are separate items.
In the Ionosphere proper, where those HF transmissions are bounced off of certain layers, the lowest layer, the D layer, is charged up by solar activity. It eats HF transmissions, thus when sunlight during the day fires up the D layer the possible usable transmission range gets drastically shorter.
Since “solar max” sure sounds like when the Sun’s emissions are most energetic thus when the D layer is stronger, and “solar min” when it’s weaker, “min” would have further possible HF transmissions than “max”. Which is exactly the reverse of what you said.
Any clarifications about that?

September 4, 2013 10:37 pm

I’m late to this thread, but there have been a couple of papers recently that indicate there is a great deal we don’t know about atmospheric chemistry. Hence any theoretical predictions should be treated with caution until empirically supported. Mind you that would be a first for climate science.

Henry Clark
September 4, 2013 10:38 pm

It is good to see additional study further ironing out the specifics (while attempts to pretend all correlations were sheer coincidence were already revealed as transparently-biased professional propaganda, if contrasting to viewing the rarely-shown following for the many matches in the *derivative* of sea level rise, humidity, average cloud cover, and temperature patterns with cosmic ray history over recent decades and centuries: http://s24.postimg.org/rbbws9o85/overview.gif )

u.k.(us)
September 4, 2013 11:07 pm

Philip Bradley says:
September 4, 2013 at 10:37 pm
“…Hence any theoretical predictions should be treated with caution until empirically supported.”..
================
There are no predictions here, the data is barely understood.
“Caution”, understates the uncertainty of the conditions.

Brad
September 4, 2013 11:50 pm

Leif’s post on another board on this paper:
“The paper has this to say “It is proposed that an ion-mechanism exists which provides a second significant pathway for making additional H2SO4, as a possible explanation of the present experimental findings”. They injected sulfur dioxide (SO2) into the chamber and managed to convert some of that [using UV-lamps] to sulfuric acid (H2SO4) and found that adding ions to the mix made that process more efficient. This does not seem to be much of a confirmation of a correlation that has not held up over time in the first place.
A sober assessment of the available evidence http://www.leif.org/EOS/swsc120049-Cosmic-Rays-Climate.pdf [see also http://www.leif.org/EOS/Cloud%20Cover%20and%20Cosmic%20Rays.pdf ] concludes “In this paper we have examined the evidence of a CR-cloud relationship from direct and indirect observations of cloud recorded from satellite- and ground-based measurement techniques. Overall, the current satellite cloud datasets do not provide evidence supporting the existence of a solar-cloud link”

Since he knows about this post and has chosen not to respond in the thread, maybe we should not post this, and use this is just an FYI to Anthony.

September 4, 2013 11:59 pm

I was referring to this,
But the cosmic-ray/cloud hypothesis seemed to run into a problem when numerical simulations of the prevailing chemical theory pointed to a failure of growth.

September 5, 2013 12:39 am

Philip Bradley, I understand that is referring to the state of play leading up to the SKY2 experiment. This is something new…

alex
September 5, 2013 1:02 am

Physics Letters A.
Pfui.
Why not publish it on toilet paper.
Would have the same value.

September 5, 2013 1:27 am

alex:
Your post at September 5, 2013 at 1:02 am says in total

Physics Letters A.
Pfui.
Why not publish it on toilet paper.
Would have the same value.

Thankyou for demonstrating the normal warmunist excuse for ignoring science that contradicts your belief; i.e.
Proclaim
1.
The paper must be peer reviewed to be considered unless it supports the cause and – in that case – it can be included in IPCC Reports
2.
If the paper is peer reviewed then it must be disregarded because of a perceived and irrelevant flaw in its author(s); e.g. he is a religious believer, he is not a Lord, he … etc.
3.
If the paper is peer reviewed and its author(s) cannot be smeared then the paper can be disregarded because it is not published in a ‘leading’ journal (i.e. make the claim which you have here).
All these proclamations are demonstrated to be falsehoods by countless examples.
For example, the seminal work on aeronautics was authored by two bicycle salesmen who published it in a magazine about bee keeping.
The value of that paper
is not affected by its authors not being scientists who developed their invention in attempt to make money,
is not affected by its not having been peer reviewed,
and is not affected by having been published in a small-circulation magazine.
The value of that paper is demonstrated by e.g. my recent flights to and from Indonesia.
Richard

Chris Wright
September 5, 2013 2:51 am

Sedron L says:
September 4, 2013 at 10:45 am
“And, even *if* Svensmark et al is true, CO2 is still a greenhouse gas, whose effects are seen throughout paleoclimate and whose radiative properties are probably the *best* known part of climate science (both theoretically and observationally).”
Oh, really? Then how do you explain the lack of global warming in this century, despite rising CO2 levels?
How do you explain the lack of evidence in the ice core records? Without exception they show that CO2 followed the temperature, so temperature change caused the CO2 changes and not the other way around.
You refer to observations. Please give me a paleoclimate example where a change in CO2 was followed by a corresponding change in temperature? The key word is ‘followed’.
Of course, if CO2 didn’t drive climate change, what did? I suspect Svensmark has the answer.
CO2 isn’t a greenhouse gas. Greenhouses don’t work by trapping radiation, they work by trapping warm air. But CO2 is definitely a green gas, it’s probably why the world is getting greener.
Chris

Eliza
September 5, 2013 3:09 am

My father proposed this particle mechanism to me in 1965 when they started setting up one of the first cosmic ray counters in the world in Chacaltaya Bolivia for the WMO

Ulric Lyons
September 5, 2013 3:34 am

Bill H says:
September 4, 2013 at 5:58 pm
I cannot make the slightest sense out of what you write, but if you expect an Arctic ice rebound, that will take more positive AO/NAO conditions (which is why there is more ice this summer than last summer). Read this, and the following comments of mine for further evidence:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/23/the-medieval-warm-period-in-the-arctic/#comment-1398577

Gary Pearse
September 5, 2013 4:59 am

I note criticisms (Pamela Gray and others) that the effect would be small in any case relative to other factors.
Pamela Gray says:
September 4, 2013 at 8:17 pm
“The leap made too far.”
However, I’ve been struck by the surprising effect of small changes- two examples:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geography_of_Tanzania
“Seasonal rainfall is driven mainly by the migration of the Intertropical Convergence Zone. It migrates southwards through Tanzania in October to December, reaching the south of the country in January and February, and returning northwards in March, April, and May. This causes the north and east of Tanzania to experience two distinct wet periods – the short rains (or “Vuli”) in October to December and the long rains (or “Masika”) from March to May”
Northern Tanzania is at ~4 degrees N. The phenomenon is entirely due to changes in the sun’s angle which is quite small a change between the end of the winter rain and the onset of the spring rain period.
The second example is part of the Eschenbach Effect in which a half hour change in the onset of cumulus cloud development makes a significant difference in the heating (or cooling) effect on SST. Little things may mean a lot.

dabbio
September 5, 2013 5:04 am

Needless to ask here, please correct me if I’m wrong: The real significance of the Svensmark experiment is that it provides a possible physical cause, a mechanism, for explaining an otherwise undoubted, unexplained close correlation of CFR with the geological and paleontological temperature record, is it not? As we all know, correlation is not causation, and the warmists ostensibly challenge this correlation because of no known possible mechanism. Although a lot remains to be worked out about the chain from CCN formation to weather, it seems to me that Svensmark has made a lot more convincing case for a cosmic ray mechanism than the warmists have been able to show for CO2. I mean where is THEIR experiment?

dabbio
September 5, 2013 5:05 am

Excuse me, CRF (cosmic ray flux), not CFR.

Bill_W
September 5, 2013 5:30 am

Mosher said:
Svensmark is trying to explain the mechanism more GCR = More clouds.
The problem is that if you look at events like Forbush events, where the amount of GCR changes dramatically, you dont see more clouds. Thats the real world. So, basically he’s trying to explain a phenomena that doesnt happen. And if he is able to show it in a lab he has the problem of explaining why it doesnt actually happen outside the lab.
That’s fine Stephen. In my view, this is just one piece of the cloud puzzle. Clouds (in all their different types and altitudes) are not well understood. If this mechanism is relevant and yet in the real world this effect turns out to not be important, it will be because there are other effects operating that ameliorate it. Dan Murphy had some good points above in this vein as well.

cba
September 5, 2013 5:32 am

Clouds have two mechanisms for increasing albedo. One is fractional cover increase or decrease = more or less cloud cover. The second is the reflectivity which seems to be determined by the size of the cloud nucleation particles. An increased reflectivity can achieve greater albedo and less incoming power without a change in cloud cover. And that might be very hard to detect because there is a backscattering component that is angular dependent. Can anyone say L1 satellite for albedo measurements?

JN
September 5, 2013 6:25 am

MinB says:
September 4, 2013 at 10:08 am
The most wonderful aspect of this was reading about an experiment, I didn’t detect the word ‘model’ once.
Exactly!
Another unusual aspect: when the the data and the theory didn’t agree, they felt obliged to do further work on both!

Mervyn
September 5, 2013 6:43 am
September 5, 2013 6:47 am

Now if we could just link clouds to PDO. Oh, wait! Somebody has.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/research-articles/global-warming-as-a-natural-response/

Albert Stienstra
September 5, 2013 6:53 am

@ Steven Mosher September 4, 2013 at 11:27 am
A Forbush event is an event where GCR decreases spectacularly. Forbush event = less GCR = no clouds. Fits with Svensmark’s experiments.

aaron
September 5, 2013 7:11 am

One thing I’ve though has been neglected was that the high energy cosmic rays that produce the cloud effect aren’t likely to be affect much my solar changes.
Is it possible the causal mechanism is mixed up. Could changes in high energy CR affect solar weather as well as affect earth weather? Could the solar correlations be coincidental rather than causal?

beng
September 5, 2013 7:25 am

Glacier-growth is remarkably correlated w/Milankovitch cycles, and specifically w/the N hemisphere summer insolation. Solar magnetic cycles/cosmic rays are completely unrelated. Even if cosmic rays have cloud effects, they are insignificant compared to the Milankovitch effects (which are straight-forward regional solar-input effects). Time to move along.

Pamela Gray
September 5, 2013 7:28 am

Gary Pearse, cloud changes are big events localized to macro and micro climate regions on Earth. Pressure cell shifts are big events localized to macro and micro climate regions. The potential % amount of variance from one state to the next is far greater than TSI % variance which is a tiny event Earth hardly notices. For those who jump on the UV “HUGE” change bandwagon, remember that UV is a tiny piece of IR and has only a tiny amount of energy in it relative to the visible spectrum of shortwave infrared. Kind of like CO2 is just a tiny part of greenhouse gasses, with water vapor being the major player. A 10% change in water vapor has a strong affect on radiative cooling. A 10% change in CO2 will be undetectable on radiative cooling. So too a % change in TSI produces a mathematical change in temperature (which is buried in internal noise). The same % change in UV is mathematically undetectable in temperature.
This is why I think changes in cosmic rays are a tiny event compared to cloud formation from internal sources on Earth. Indeed the Earth is ripe with stuff that can form clouds and produce rain. Salt spray, dust and other suspended particles that can attract water molecules are far more abundant and vary to a much greater degree than cosmic rays do.
Look up dry rain, or cloudless rain. We get that stuff in NE Oregon all the time. No cosmic rays need apply for the job.

September 5, 2013 7:43 am

M Courtney says September 4, 2013 at 2:40 pm

Stephen Wilde seems to think the interactions between pressure and temperature (and moisture carried or condensed out) will dominate cloud nucleation effects. But I don’t know enough about how the pressure and temperature vary in the atmosphere – especially in storms – to definitely agree with him.

Suggest a look be taken at super-cooled, but NOT frozen water; yes, water CAN exist at a temperature significantly BELOW 0 deg C and not be in a solid state (i.e. frozen).
.

September 5, 2013 7:46 am

Brad says:
September 4, 2013 at 11:50 pm
Leif’s post on another board on this paper:
“The paper has this to say “It is proposed that an ion-mechanism exists which provides a second significant pathway for making additional H2SO4, as a possible explanation of the present experimental findings”. They injected sulfur dioxide (SO2) into the chamber and managed to convert some of that [using UV-lamps] to sulfuric acid (H2SO4) and found that adding ions to the mix made that process more efficient. This does not seem to be much of a confirmation of a correlation that has not held up over time in the first place.
A sober assessment of the available evidence http://www.leif.org/EOS/swsc120049-Cosmic-Rays-Climate.pdf [see also http://www.leif.org/EOS/Cloud%20Cover%20and%20Cosmic%20Rays.pdf ] concludes “In this paper we have examined the evidence of a CR-cloud relationship from direct and indirect observations of cloud recorded from satellite- and ground-based measurement techniques. Overall, the current satellite cloud datasets do not provide evidence supporting the existence of a solar-cloud link”

Since he knows about this post and has chosen not to respond in the thread, maybe we should not post this, and use this is just an FYI to Anthony.
—————
Those quotes are from THIS thread.

September 5, 2013 7:59 am

kadaka (KD Knoebel) says September 4, 2013 at 10:15 pm

In the Ionosphere proper, where those HF transmissions are bounced off of certain layers,

Do not forget that MF (300 – 3,000 kHz) and LF (30 – 300 kHz) are affected by ‘those layers’ as well, speaking as one active in 160 meter band WSPR operations, and hopefully (IF the FCC will get in gear) 630 meter (472 – 479 kHz) band operations since the last WARC conference approved that as a world-wide ‘Amateur’ radio allocation. On the 160m band I regularly get ‘spots’ (automated web-based signal reports from other WSPR participants) from AUS (down under) and EU (over there) countries as well as all across the continental 48 on 160 meters (approx 1836 kHz).
‘The pitch’; An updated map of WSPR participants all-over-the-world: http://wsprnet.org/drupal/wsprnet/map
.

Kev-in-Uk
September 5, 2013 8:03 am

Gary Pearse says:
September 5, 2013 at 4:59 am
Agreed. Nobody should expect to find a single control function/knob (despite the alarmists claims that CO2 is that knob!). The problem with small cause/effect systems is that if there are several, or even many tens or perhaps hundreds of such effects overlapped and interactive upon each other – almost NO amount of data or modeling would be able to separate them out. Now, add to that that we probably don’t even fully know what half the processes are or may be involved and it becomes a real needle in a haystack situation. Curve fitting type observations simply do not necessarily mean correlation – and could simply be a coincidental conjunction of a ‘mass’ of effects!
I know this sounds rather defeatist, – but it is the fact that Man, or more explicitly Climate Science Man, believes that they know what is happening and have the ability to lecture the rest of us instead of actually openly admitting that they know very little ‘concrete’ facts.
I’m quite disgusted at the simplification of the processes used to ‘model’ our climate – in the context that climate science boys believe that a few simple ‘catch all’ type forcings could even remotely be expected to reflect reality. The sooner we realise that the only way to delve into these small cause/effect realms is with greatly detailed measurement over long timescales, the better. How many billions have been spent delving into atomic structure over several decades? – that would be peanuts by comparison to the required data and analysis of global climate!
In short, the climate ‘team’ are writing a novel based on a few start middle and end paragraphs! At almost every stage of development of the ‘novel’, new and additional data and hypotheses will arise and this is likely to continue for many decades.
You know, the UK Metoffice studies a relatively tiny zone of the earth climate in order to give forecasts over an area of say 1000×1000 sq miles – and they can’t get that right half the time! – and this with supercomputers and lots of data!

September 5, 2013 8:04 am

Pamela Gray says September 5, 2013 at 7:28 am

This is why I think changes in cosmic rays are a tiny event compared to cloud formation from internal sources on Earth.

This, of course, does not in any way explain why we get thin, high-level cloud ‘decks’ forming mid-day on some summer days here deep in the heart of Texas; there are, apparently, a number of factors at work to form reflective ‘cloud’ material starting with water vapor to the initial formation of ‘water droplet (and/or ice) nuclei’ and upwards …
.

September 5, 2013 8:06 am

beng says:
September 5, 2013 at 7:25 am
Cloud effects don’t cause ice ages, so aren’t posited as an alternative to Milankovitch cycles. They theoretically can & probably do however affect the smaller cycles within both glacial & interglacial phases during icehouse climates & similarly during hothouses.

September 5, 2013 8:23 am

And to think, we could have saved hundreds of billions of dollars already spent on non-solutions to a non-problem if we had instead paid a single scientist to perform basic atmospheric experiments like this one.

September 5, 2013 8:24 am

Pamela Gray says September 4, 2013 at 8:42 pm
When we consider cosmic ray influences on clouds, lets consider just how much clouds vary of their own accord. Do changes in cosmic rays affect such a large entity in measurable ways …

That’s the question, isn’t it?
When I can take an inch and a half (1 1/2″) diameter Sodium Iodide/Thallium-doped gamma scintillation detector NaI(Tl) ‘probe’ and observe a ‘background’ count of 3,000 to 4,000 CPM (counts or ticks per minute) at sea level and that value only INCREASES with altitude – what *is* that affect on the formation on cloud/water nuclei at altitude?
Again, as others have posted above, recall your Wilson chamber experience at uni, or, take a gander here:
1) Cloud Chamber, MIT Video; Subatomic particles such as cosmic ray muons, alpha particles, and high energy electrons are striking our bodies all the time. In the cloud chamber, these particles ionize air molecules, creating delicate cloud trails by condensing supersaturated alcohol vapor.
http://video.mit.edu/watch/cloud-chamber-4058/
2) Cloud Chamber at Exploratorium, San Francisco; Cloud chamber uses tiny droplets of water vapor to show the trails left by subatomic particles.

.

Pamela Gray
September 5, 2013 8:26 am

Jim, your cirrus clouds usually form in front of an encroaching warm front as it pushes water vapor up into the atmosphere where it “glaciates”, or forms ice crystals. Because the humidity is so low up there, the clouds that form are thin and easily swept into wispy shapes. I would imagine that Texas often has these as the humidity in the interior would be quite dry, especially in the northern parts. We get them here in NE Oregon too.

September 5, 2013 8:32 am

Speaking of muons, the Stanford Linear Accelerator Web site years ago had a great page on the effect of cosmic rays on cloud formation, with climatic consequences. The graphics showed how the rays impacted muons.
When I posted some time ago that the orthodoxy-offending page had magically disappeared, Dr. Svalsgaard attributed it to funding cut backs. I’m not so sure.

tadchem
September 5, 2013 8:34 am

I thought that Svensmark’s theory was elegantly demonstrated about 80 years ago by the discovery that cosmic rays produce visible white traces (high albedo) in WIlson cloud chambers.

September 5, 2013 8:47 am

tadchem says:
September 5, 2013 at 8:34 am
A Harvard site used to have an excellent presentation on your observation, but sadly it too, as with the SLAC instance cited above, has been disappeared by the CACA goon squad.

bit chilly
September 5, 2013 8:53 am

only today was i told i should spend less time on here by a warmist. yet every visit compels me to spend more time here.the comments are almost the equal of the work in question.
constant inquisition,unlike the science is settled from the warmists,and real experiments , those who believe in the catastrophic element of AGW,wont even know what an experiment is.

Phil.
September 5, 2013 9:28 am

This experiment shows how under certain conditions H2SO4 aerosols can grow to sufficient size to become CCN in a chamber. What hasn’t been done as far as I can see is to relate this to conditions in the atmosphere, for example while the pressure, temperature, SO2 and O3 are maintained at near surface values and above, the UV light used is 254nm which is removed by the ozone layer. Also the paper does not relate the gamma rays used to the expected cosmic ray fluxes in the lower atmosphere, is it a realistic simulation? This experiment is far from proving that Svensmark’s link between cosmic rays and global warming is confirmed.

wobble
September 5, 2013 9:35 am

kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
September 4, 2013 at 10:15 pm
In the Ionosphere proper, where those HF transmissions are bounced off of certain layers, the lowest layer, the D layer, is charged up by solar activity. It eats HF transmissions, thus when sunlight during the day fires up the D layer the possible usable transmission range gets drastically shorter.

You seem to be describing decreased HF propagation that correlates with diurnal periods of higher exposure to solar radiation. Since, as many on this thread have said, TSI doesn’t significantly vary, it seems as if his comment about changes in TSI having less effect on HF propagation could be germane. In other words, it’s quite possible that variation in TSI effect HF propagation much less than solar factors which vary significantly.
(Diurnal fluctuations of exposure to solar radiation is not the same as variation in TSI.)

aaron
September 5, 2013 9:53 am

A few avenues for exploring experimental evidence:
1. Look in locations where CN particles are rare or vary considerably in concentration. ie. over the oceans away from aerosol drift from land. There is not likely to be any observable effect when there is already CN particle competition.
2. Look where the molecules likely to be affected by CRs are (near the ocean surface? warmer waters? more turbulant waters? turbulant winds at ocean suface?).
3. Look for atmospheric drying. Two things happen when clouds form, water vapor is removed from the atmosphere from condensation (and heat is released) and less SW radiation would hit water on the surface, causing another delayed drying.
4. Look at albedo change. Where these clouds happen is as important as the extent. A small change in cloud cover over the ocean near mid-low latitudes can huge impact on the energy absorbed while a large change over land in high latitudes could have almost none.

September 5, 2013 9:58 am

Pamela Gray says September 5, 2013 at 8:26 am
Jim, your cirrus clouds usually form in front of an encroaching warm front …

Hmmm … something is not right here.
a) ‘Fronts’, a surface phenomenon, cirrus, an upper level phenom.
b) This is Texas Summer environment, where fronts are nonexistent (or the high exception, but that’s not the case under consideration).
It should be almost be a tautology that not all clouds (cirrus in this case) are associated with ‘frontal’ activity.
The point is being missed, though with this side discussion, the point being that … well, see prev. posts above and conclude as appropriate.
.

Phil.
September 5, 2013 9:59 am

JN says:
September 5, 2013 at 6:25 am
MinB says:
September 4, 2013 at 10:08 am
The most wonderful aspect of this was reading about an experiment, I didn’t detect the word ‘model’ once.

Perhaps that’s because they refer to their model as a ‘numerical simulation’ most of the time?

taxed
September 5, 2013 10:27 am

Jim
Am not sure if its the same in Texas, but here in the UK we get high cloud during fine spells.
When warm moist air has been drawn up from the tropics and moves around a area of high pressure. The area of high pressure dry’s up the lower clouds but a fair bit of the high Cirrus remains.

September 5, 2013 10:27 am

As an example of the contribution GCR/atomic particle collisions that could contribute to CN formation, I would offer up this visible satellite loop showing the formation of a lower-level, daytime-heating cumulus over Texas with the hypothesis that if GCR et al are responsible for increased cloud formation (as opposed to having no effect whatsoever) that the effect would be a) increased areal extent and b) a slightly sooner (earlier) formation (on the time scale or seconds? minutes?)
So, we are talking marginal changes in the rate of CN creation, but, as anybody in business will tell you it can be small marginal differences that make or break the balance sheet.
The 3-hr visible imagery sat loop:
http://weather.rap.ucar.edu/satellite/displaySat.php?region=ABI&itype=vis&size=large&endDate=20130905&endTime=-1&duration=3
.

September 5, 2013 10:41 am

‘Albert Stienstra says:
September 5, 2013 at 6:53 am
@ Steven Mosher September 4, 2013 at 11:27 am
A Forbush event is an event where GCR decreases spectacularly. Forbush event = less GCR = no clouds. Fits with Svensmark’s experiments.”
Except, when you look at cloudiness before and after these events you see NO DIFFERENCE.
the theory has been falsified, so he is looking for a mechanism to explain something that doesnt happen.

September 5, 2013 10:42 am

‘The hard donkey work for Svensmark has been proving that cosmic rays actually do increase low levl cloud formation.”
Especially when there is no evidence that the do increase low level cloud formation.

September 5, 2013 10:54 am

Steven Mosher says:
September 5, 2013 at 10:42 am
Actually there is abundant evidence that cosmic rays increase clouds & do affect temperature:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/11/new-paper-links-cosmic-rays-clouds-and-temperature/
How much longer are you going to keep denying reality?

September 5, 2013 10:58 am

Steven Mosher says:
September 5, 2013 at 10:42 am
Especially when there is no evidence that they do increase low level cloud formation.
and in addition the current satellite cloud datasets do not provide evidence supporting the existence of a solar-cloud link as I pointed out up-thread.

September 5, 2013 10:59 am

lets see if we can focus people on the actual data.
As leif and I have tried to point out Svensmark theory is this.
More GCR = More clouds.
Now, he is investigating the mechanism, the chemistry. But before we look for an explanation of the effect ( more GCR = more clouds ) dont you think it makes sense to look
at the observations?
1. we have observations of GCR
2. We have observations of clouds
Is it true that when GCR increase that clouds increase? Well, go look at the data.
Answer? Nope. You cant find any clear change in clouds when GCR increase.
Now lets suppose that Svensmark discovers some new chemistry in the lab, and we have more support for the idea. you STILL have the problem of why this effect is not seen in the ‘wild”.
The theory is clear More GCR = More clouds.
That is testable today.
Go look at cloudiness versus GCR. and what do you find?
GCR and clouds are un correlated.
maybe the effect is small? maybe all the instruments are bad? maybe monkeys will fly out of your butts, but to date, the theory explains an effect that doesnt happen.