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.
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)
Related articles
- EcoAlert: “Milky Way’s Cosmic Rays Have Direct Impact on Earth’s Weather & Climate” (dailygalaxy.com)
- Unexpected magic by cosmic rays in cloud formation (sciencedaily.com)
- Danish experiment suggests unexpected magic by cosmic rays in cloud formation (phys.org)
- Svensmark Effect Attacked: Study claims cosmic rays don’t effect clouds (junkscience.com)
- Ten Year Anniversary of the Climate Change Paradigm Shift (americanthinker.com)
- Spencer’s posited 1-2% cloud cover variation found (wattsupwiththat.com)
Added: an explanatory video from John Coleman –
And this documentary:
Salvatore Del Prete says:
September 5, 2013 at 12:30 pm
Again this analogy , what Leif concludes is if volcanic eruptions were all very small, his data would show no correlations with the climate therefore he would wrongly conclude all volcanic eruptions would have no correlations with the climate.
If, indeed, they were all very small, they would not have any significant influence on the climate. Good that you have seen the light. But since you are not bringing anything worthwhile to the table, perhaps we have heard your opinion enough for now, what do you think?
LEIF lol
How good are those observations?
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 5, 2013 at 12:13 pm
Do you really believe that past anti-scientific behavior of Team members doesn’t matter at all? Such concern is amply justified by past fraudulent activity, IMO.
Should I not entertain doubts about papers relying upon GIGO climate models, as in part does Laken, et al 2012?
The good Dr. is young & appears more committed to actual science than many established Team members, however he relies upon the Hadley Centre atmosphere-only general circulation model to conduct “experiments”.
http://www.benlaken.com/
He is more circumspect about denigrating studies finding an effect than you are, so his entire abstract bears posting, not just its conclusion cited by you:
“Despite over 35 years of constant satellite-based measurements of cloud, reliable evidence of a long-hypothesized link between
changes in solar activity and Earth’s cloud cover remains elusive. This work examines evidence of a cosmic ray cloud link from
a range of sources, including satellite-based cloud measurements and long-term ground-based climatological measurements. The
satellite-based studies can be divided into two categories: (1) monthly to decadal timescale analysis and (2) daily timescale epoch superpositional
(composite) analysis. The latter analyses frequently focus on sudden high-magnitude reductions in the cosmic ray
flux known as Forbush Decrease events. At present, two long-term independent global satellite cloud datasets are available (ISCCP
and MODIS). Although the differences between them are considerable, neither shows evidence of a solar-cloud link at either long
or short timescales. Furthermore, reports of observed correlations between solar activity and cloud over the
1983–1995 period are attributed to the chance agreement between solar changes and artificially induced cloud trends. It is possible
that the satellite cloud datasets and analysis methods may simply be too insensitive to detect a small solar signal. Evidence from
ground-based studies suggests that some weak but statistically significant cosmic ray-cloud relationships may exist at regional
scales, involving mechanisms related to the global electric circuit. However, a poor understanding of these mechanisms and their
effects on cloud makes the net impacts of such links uncertain. Regardless of this, it is clear that there is no robust evidence of a
widespread link between the cosmic ray flux and clouds.”
So even in his estimation & that of his co-authors, there is evidence, if not robust, of a less than widespread link. And his survey conclusion is hardly dispositive.
The scientific attitude would thus not be IMO to assert that no evidence exists. Laken cites examples of more evidence in his personal link above.
IMO this recent study suggests that Laken, et al 2012, which relied upon the Hadley Centre model to reach its conclusion, should not be taken as the last gospel word on the subject of clouds.
Source: Journal of Geophysical Research-Atmospheres, doi:10.1002/jgrd.50562,
2013 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jgrd.50562/abstract
Title: Non-negligible effects of cloud vertical overlapping assumptions on longwave spectral fingerprinting studies
Authors: Xiuhong Chen and Xianglei Huang: Department of Atmospheric, Oceanic, and Space Sciences, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA;
Xu Liu: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, Virginia, USA.
ABSTRACT: In order to monitor and attribute secular changes from outgoing spectral radiances, spectral fingerprints need to be constructed first. Large-scale model outputs are usually used to derive such spectral fingerprints. Different models make different assumptions on vertical overlapping of subgrid clouds. We explore the extent to which the spectral fingerprints constructed under different cloud vertical overlapping assumptions can affect such spectral fingerprinting studies. Utilizing a principal component-based radiative transfer model with high computational efficiency, we build an OSSE (Observing System Simulation Experiment) with full treatment of subgrid cloud variability to study this issue. We first show that the OLR (outgoing longwave radiation) computed from this OSSE is consistent with the OLR directly output from the parent large-scale models. We then examine the differences in spectral fingerprints due to cloud overlapping assumptions alone. Different cloud overlapping assumptions have little effect on the spectral fingerprints of temperature and humidity. However, the amplitude of the spectral fingerprints due to the same amount of cloud fraction change can differ as much as a factor of two between maximum random versus random overlap assumptions, especially for middle and low clouds. We further examine the impact of cloud overlapping assumptions on the results of linear regression of spectral differences with respect to predefined spectral fingerprints. Cloud-relevant regression coefficients are affected more by different cloud overlapping assumptions than regression coefficients of other geophysical variables. These findings highlight the challenges in constructing realistic longwave spectral fingerprints and in detecting climate change using all-sky observations.
I’ve been told that “Anyone who eats tomatoes is going to die“.
Since I can’t disproved this statement (or disprove that anyone is going to die, eventually, no matter), I continue to eat tomatoes.
I guess this makes me a “denier” of sorts.
That said, I thought all the “science was settled.”
At least, we now know that all the grant money isn’t wasted.
Well I don’t see how you can observe “cloud feedback” by making measurements in outer space, from a satellite.
That’s like a trying to figure out how many people died on planet earth in 2012, by counting every person on earth at midnight on new year’s eve, and then figuring how many were missing from the 2011 year count.
Cloud feedback upset the energy “balance” on earth, by varying the mount of solar energy that reaches the earth surface, and gets absorbed. You have to have sensors on the ground to measure that, if you want to know how cloud cover variations affect the result.
Feedback systems (earth) control their behavior (earth climate/weather) by using the output (climate/weather) to modify the INPUT (Solar Energy).
LOL…Allow me to paraphrase Mosher…
Steven Mosher says:
September 5, 2013 at 10:59 am
lets see if we can focus people on the actual data.
As leif and I have tried to point out CAGW theory is this.
More co2 = More heat
Now, he is investigating the mechanism, the chemistry. But before we look for an explanation of the effect ( more co2 = more heat ) dont you think it makes sense to look
at the observations?
1. we have observations of co2
2. We have observations of temperature
Is it true that when co2 increases that temperatures increase? Well, go look at the data.
Answer? Nope. You cant find any clear change in temperatures when co2 increases.
Now lets suppose that CAGW 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 co2 = More heat.
That is testable today.
Go look at temperature versus co2. and what do you find?
co2 and temperatures are un correlated.
maybe the CAGW 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.
🙂
err…what happened to preview??
Leif Svalgaard & Mosher,
By your several critical comments on this thread on Svensmark’s research in this paper (and perhaps also in his previous papers) is your position any of the following:
1) is your position that if you were a peer reviewer of this (or perhaps his other published papers) then you would have strongly recommended to the journal editor against accepting it as is?
and / or
2) is your position that if you were the journal editor you would not have agreed initially to the paper’s submission ‘as it currently is’ prior to the start of the review / acceptance process?
and / or
3) is your position that if you were an IPCC lead author or contributing author (etc) then you would assess that the Svensmark research paper(s) does not have scientific merit / significance for inclusion in one of their ARs?
and / or
4) is your position that if you were on a climate science research grant funding board then you would have voted to reject Svensmark’s application for a grant for this whole line of research?
and / or
5) is your position different than any of the above?
However, whatever your responses to the above questions, I think this is an open venue on scientific work and you are vigorously and healthily engaged in a normal scientifically skeptical dialog; that your commentary has the potential to give Svensmark invaluable feedback. You have given him an oppportunity to directly or indirectly address your comments. We all benefit.
John
John Whitman says:
September 5, 2013 at 2:49 pm
I too value the comments of experts & advocates in relevant fields. However Dr. Svalgaard & Mr. Mosher IMO overstate their case in asserting that there is no actual observational evidence from the real world that GCRs increase low tropospheric cloudiness & hence temperature. As I stated above, such evidence is abundant, however unconvincing they may find it.
In addition to the studies cited above since 2008, there is Scherer, et al from 2006/7 (summary of climatic conclusions from page 104 of the .PDF, Part VII, Section 15:
http://www.geo.tu-freiberg.de/environ_geology_seminar/cosmic_ray_climate.pdf
The authors marshal the evidence then in the literature showing a connection between GCRs, clouds, temperature & climate on timescales from billions of years to subdecadal. Comments in this post have so far concentrated on the short-term phenomenon of Forbush Decline events.
While cosmoclimatology is yet in its infancy, it is IMO better supported than the dogma that man-made CO2 is the primary driver of climate change.
phodges says:
September 5, 2013 at 2:33 pm
Well done, phodges. (I will try to reread when I stop laughing.)
From Neo on September 5, 2013 at 1:46 pm:
Start with the set “People who are alive”. It is automatically implicit that the only people who are capable of eating tomatoes are living people.
It is trivial to show equivalence with “People who will die”.
A subset of “People who will die” is “People who ate tomatoes”.
As “People who ate tomatoes” is a subset of “People who will die”, and “People who will die” is equivalent to “People who are alive”, then “People who ate tomatoes” is a subset of “People who are alive”.
Thus it is shown that people who are alive who eat tomatoes are people who will die.
The statement has been proven.
Note that “People who did not eat tomatoes” is still part of “People who will die”, thus whether tomatoes were or were not eaten has no effect on membership in that set. Either way, if you are a person who is alive then you are a person who will die.
Congratulations, you are not denying. I hope you find this to be cheering news.
Nucleation; It doesn’t appear to be such a simple process …
“Supercooling of Water”, Peter Wilson
http://cdn.intechopen.com/pdfs/31428/InTech-Supercooling_of_water.pdf
Excerpt: Research involving supercooled water encompasses many fields of science and atmospheric research comprises a large fraction of these works (DeMott 1990, 1995). Ice formation in the atmosphere affects rainfall and snowfall as well as the level of solar radiation reaching the Earth’s surface and so is very topical of late (Sastry 2005, Hegg and Baker 2009). In clouds, supercooled water droplets are thought to sometimes freeze homogeneously through the organization of water molecules into an ice lattice without the need for any external seeding agent (Tabazadeh et al. 2002, Ansmann et al. 2005).
Classical Nucleation Theory (tutorial pt 1) (N.B.: Dry Lecture)
.
For those more impressed by video capture of a subject rather than ‘dry lecture’, try:
MojoMojo says:
September 4, 2013 at 4:50 pm
Considering the errors in your claims below, I’d say you are undoubtedly an accurate judge of the level of your own expertise.
Specific? That’s daft. They are as far from specific as it is possible to be.
His “entire forecasts” are very difficult to audit, because he doesn’t publish them. Or to be more precise, he publishes only the successful parts of them.
If I predict fifty vague things for tomorrow, some of them will be sure to come true … perhaps that impresses you.
Me, not so much.
Finally, you say that this site has not audited Piers’s forecasts. Clearly, you’re not following the bouncing ball. How about a post called Putting Piers Corbyn To The Test? Don’t you think that might qualify? Or try my post, Willis on why Piers Corbyn claims such a high success rate.
Here’s someone else who is clear that Piers’ forecasts are just vague handwaving.
Here’s another view:
I offered publicly to bet with Piers on his forecast for the opening of the Olympics if he would specify his forecast exactly. He declined … and very wisely so, since even his vague, handwaving forecast turned out to be wrong.
So I agree, MojoMojo. As you say, you are no expert on Piers Corbyn … but some of us here are. He has been tested. He’s failed. Next contestant, please.
w.
milodonharlani says:
September 5, 2013 at 1:21 pm
“Furthermore, reports of observed correlations between solar activity and cloud over the 1983–1995 period are attributed to the chance agreement between solar changes and artificially induced cloud trends. It is possible that the satellite cloud datasets and analysis methods may simply be too insensitive to detect a small solar signal. Evidence from ground-based studies suggests that some weak but statistically significant cosmic ray-cloud relationships may exist at regional scales…” So even in his estimation & that of his co-authors, there is evidence, if not robust, of a less than widespread link. The scientific attitude would thus not be IMO to assert that no evidence exists.
The issue is not whether, as Laken holds possible, that there is evidence or not for small insignificant effects, but whether there is evidence that CGRs are a major driver of climate. And there is no good evidence for that, robust or not.
milodonharlani says:
September 5, 2013 at 1:32 pm
“These findings highlight the challenges in constructing realistic longwave spectral fingerprints and in detecting climate change using all-sky observations.”
Admitting how hard it is to establish the influence on climate and hence why the correlations are poor. If the correlations are poor they can not be taken as evidence.
John Whitman says:
September 5, 2013 at 2:49 pm
1) is your position that if you were a peer reviewer of this (or perhaps his other published papers) then you would have strongly recommended to the journal editor against accepting it as is?
No, as the paper is only about converting H2O and SO2 to H2SO4
3) is your position that if you were an IPCC lead author or contributing author (etc) then you would assess that the Svensmark research paper(s) does not have scientific merit / significance for inclusion in one of their ARs?
See answer to 1)
4) is your position that if you were on a climate science research grant funding board then you would have voted to reject Svensmark’s application for a grant for this whole line of research?
Since the paper is not about climate, how could we?
You have given him an opportunity to directly or indirectly address your comments. We all benefit.
Since the paper is about H2SO4 etc…
milodonharlani says:
September 5, 2013 at 3:21 pm
While cosmoclimatology is yet in its infancy, it is IMO better supported than the dogma that man-made CO2 is the primary driver of climate change.
A field has to stand on its own demerits rather than that of another one’s. The case for cosmoclimatology is extremely weak: http://www.leif.org/EOS/1303-7314-Cosmic-Rays-Climate-billion-yrs.pdf
Useful distinction of major driver of climate.
_____________________
milodonharlani says:
September 5, 2013 at 3:21 pm
While cosmoclimatology is yet in its infancy, it is IMO better supported than the dogma that man-made CO2 is the primary driver of climate change.
A field has to stand on its own demerits rather than that of another one’s. The case for cosmoclimatology is extremely weak: http://www.leif.org/EOS/1303-7314-Cosmic-Rays-Climate-billion-yrs.pdf
__________________________
Of course a field should stand on its own, & concur that the case for the longest timeframe is presently weak, although IMO better for orders of magnitude less than a billion years.
Don’t have time to read the paper tonight, but will tomorrow.
Thanks.
milodonharlani says:
September 5, 2013 at 5:02 pm
Useful distinction of major driver of climate.
Yes, that is the crux of the matter. There is no doubt that the Sun has an influence on the climate though a variety of plausible vectors. As long as these influences are small [say of order 10% of total change] they are still of great academic interest, but they are not relevant for the current climate debate and are not something to make one hot under the collar.
From wobble on September 5, 2013 at 9:35 am:
Slightly more that half of the ionosphere is exposed to the Sun, slightly less than half is in the shadow of the Earth. When considering worldwide HF signal propagation, with the strength of the D layer of the ionosphere at the “spot” the signal is attempting to “bounce off” of related inversely to the possible usable propagation distance, it is apparent that more energetic solar emissions will decrease worldwide possible usable propagation distances.
Thus even though the effect is based on the Sun’s effect on the D layer, globally the effect goes beyond diurnal variation. In other words, on average more energetic solar emissions should yield shorter possible HF transmission distances based on the D layer effect.
If a quieter Sun does decrease HF propagation distance while a more active one increases it, as originally proposed, then other factors are acting against and overwhelming the contribution of the D layer effect.
There is more than a small problem with that
————————-
Atmospheric aerosol formation is known to occur almost all over the world, and the importance of these particles to climate and air quality has been recognized. Although almost all of the processes driving aerosol formation take place below a particle diameter of 3 nanometers, observations cover only larger particles. We introduce an instrumental setup to measure atmospheric concentrations of both neutral and charged nanometer-sized clusters. By applying the instruments in the field, we come to three important conclusions: (i) A pool of numerous neutral clusters in the sub–3 nanometer size range is continuously present; (ii) the processes initiating atmospheric aerosol formation start from particle sizes of 1.5 nanometers; and (iii) neutral nucleation dominates over the ion-induced mechanism, at least in boreal forest conditions.
—————————–
and in more detail
——————————
First, they found that the number of small clusters (< 1.2 nm) was essentially constant over time with loss from evaporation and reaction balancing growth by accretion and reaction.
Second, growth up to about 1.9 nm occurs through reactions with sulfuric acid. Significant growth only occurred on days when sulfuric acid concentrations increases and was synchronous with it. On the other hand, theory shows that sulfuric acid/water aerosols are not stable by themselves requiring amines to stabilize and measurements with an atmospheric pressure inlet time of flight mass spectrometer showed that the intermediate aerosols did incorporate amines. This means that sulfuric acid from SOx oxidation can be rate limiting
Third, above this limit, organic addition dominates and growth requires (photo)chemical activation by oxidation
Fourth, neutral clusters dominate as shown in the figure above and for all aerosol sizes. The purple line shows the relative numbers of neutral (purple), ionic( blue) and ions formed by recombination (red) aerosols. This is surprising and casts a different light on claims that cosmic ray ionization controls aerosol production.
From Eli Rabett on September 5, 2013 at 9:08 pm:
Mr. Josh Halpern, this thread is virtually dead by current WUWT standards, we move quickly around here. Basically you’re trying to slip in a “last word” after practically all of the most knowledgeable commentators have moved on thus aren’t here to refute you. Strike one.
This is brand-new research, and your “refutation” is some old thing dredged up from your site that by the URL is from 2007, six years old. Clearly it does not specifically address the current work. Strike two.
Your last paragraph quoted from your site’s piece, references a figure and even the colors of “data” on the figure. You made no attempt to reword the quote for understanding without the figure, did not provide a link specifically to that image. Heck, it doesn’t look like you even read what you quoted and just splattered a scoop for your comment. To find reference for the quoted section, nothing can be done but seeing the ancient piece on your site, which seems to be your calculated intent.
Strike three. Get out.
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 5, 2013 at 4:41 pm
…
milodonharlani says:
September 5, 2013 at 3:21 pm
While cosmoclimatology is yet in its infancy, it is IMO better supported than the dogma that man-made CO2 is the primary driver of climate change.
A field has to stand on its own demerits rather than that of another one’s. The case for cosmoclimatology is extremely weak: http://www.leif.org/EOS/1303-7314-Cosmic-Rays-Climate-billion-yrs.pdf
The paper Sloan and Wolfendale 2013 finds against Shaviv’s model due to mis-timing and too small difference between spiral arm and inner arm GCR flux – 20-30% as opposed to 300%. But the authors end the paper with a counter-proposal (speculation) – that ultra-high energy PeV particles might have a climate role, via some “electric” effect in the atmosphere. Apparently supernova remnants continue to emit PeV particles for a long time. Can you comment on this?
richardscourtney says:
September 5, 2013 at 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….
——————
Has nothing to do with any “believes” or “excuses”.
Phys. Lett. A has impact factor of 1.7
http://about.elsevier.com/impactfactor/2013/author-webpage-10143.html
Means nobody reads it, just the authors.
For comparison, “Nature” has imact factor 36.
Steven Mosher says:
September 5, 2013 at 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.
I agree fully with SM on this, one has to start with observation and then go to mechanistic explanation, not the other way around. Top down not bottom up (flying monkeys notwithstanding). This is a correct argument against reductionism. Advances in computation and analytical capability tempt the unwary into reductionism and it is always a road to nowhere.
A good example is radiation biology. Observations of human populations exposed to radiation (Japan bomb survivors, radium dial painters, nuclear workers etc..) plus abundant animal data show clearly a threshold below which no radiation harm can be found.
But cell biologists / geneticists observed mechanisms of DNA damage and alteration at very low doses, and assumed these would have an effect e.g. cancer at the whole organism level (very usafe assumption – in defiance of organism level data). Therefore radiation protection practice around the world is based on the LNT (linear no threshold) hypothesis of radiation carcinogenesis which is false, based on failed reductionism and failed epistemology. LNT is the fiction that allows claims of thousands/millions of dead from radioactivity releases when the real number is usually a handful or zero.
***
milodonharlani says:
September 5, 2013 at 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.
***
Even if it’s possible (posts above suggest it isn’t), I’m interested in the major climate players, not “plausible” bit-players. Movement thru the galactic plane are multi-million-yr-long effects, while Milankovitch cycle history suggests we could be near the end of this interglacial right now.
– – – – – – – – –
Leif,
Don’t you think funding for Svenmark’s research is somehow categorized in association with the idea of contributing to the understanding of the climate system? I do.
Personal note => See the following youtube for some levity. These are images that sometimes come to my mind when Q & A makes an avrupt & unanticipated (at least on my part) left turn.
“. . . I knew I should have taken that left turn in Albuquerque . . .”
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=e8TUwHTfOOU&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3De8TUwHTfOOU
John