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:
John Whitman says:
September 6, 2013 at 6:28 am
“Since the paper is not about climate, how could we?”
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.
You asked for my opinion…
phlogiston says:
September 6, 2013 at 1:24 am
supernova remnants continue to emit PeV particles for a long time. Can you comment on this?
As you say ‘speculation’, but there is little doubt that a supernova explosion next door would have some undesirable effect.
After drinking cool aid with C02 for decades, IMHO this new cool aid with CR tastes much better! 🙂
Good thing I turned off the computer when I did last night. Another summer monsoonal electrical storm promptly arrived from the south in NE Oregon, with high winds, torrential rains, copious lightning & thunder. It should be the last of the season. It was not unprecedented in my experience, but the frequency this year might be so at least since the late ’60s & early ’70s, thanks to regional if not global cooling.
I’ve now read Sloan & Wolfendale. Thanks again.
They make a strong case, although I’d like to read Shaviv’s response as well. I note that in conclusion the authors offer an alternative hypothesis for an astronomical effect on terrestrial climate of lower-energy galactic cosmic “rays”:
“An explanation of the reason for the initiation of the Ice Age epochs of the past 10^9 years
remains to be found. Such initiation may possibly have an astronomical cause by way of the
effect of GCR of PeV energies on the electrical conditions of the atmosphere. The periods of
increase here are of order 20 ka occurring everyMa or so. The 20 ka period arises from the rapid
diffusion of the PeV particles which are deemed responsible. The fact referred to by Erlykin
and Wolfendale (2001) is that proximity to Supernova remnants in the Solar System’s passage
through the Galaxy causes increases by several orders of magnitude in the intensity of terrestrial
GCRs at PeV energies (as distinct from a few percent in the GeV energy range). This might
have relevance, the multiplying factor coming by way of effects on the electrical conditions of
the atmosphere.”
A burst of actual rays (gamma) have been suggested as a cause of the Ordovician-Silurian Mass Extinction Event, which as you may know coincided with a fairly brief but intense glaciation.
http://arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0309/0309415.pdf
To return to my point about your reliance on Laken’s conclusion, the paper cited by Anth_ny today might reinforce questions about the validity of his doubts, based as they are upon the Hadley Centre’s climate model. I don’t know if the objections the cited paper raise apply to that model or not, but suspect they do:
http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/13/8879/2013/acp-13-8879-2013.html
In sum, I feel that it’s premature to claim that there exists no evidence supporting a solar magnetism-modulated GCR effect, even a major one, on climate, on at least some time scales. Increasingly, experimental results are showing how such an effect might work. The proper scientific approach would IMO be to await further observation & analysis, preferably with minimal reliance upon modeling, before ruling the hypothesis defunct out of hand.
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 6, 2013 at 7:25 am
phlogiston says:
September 6, 2013 at 1:24 am
L.S. “..but there is little doubt that a supernova explosion next door would have some undesirable effect.”
LOL. J. Curry would indeed be blown away (among others)!
milodonharlani says:
September 6, 2013 at 8:19 am
The proper scientific approach would IMO be to await further observation & analysis, preferably with minimal reliance upon modeling, before ruling the hypothesis defunct out of hand.
My point is that that works both ways, i.e. also before accepting the hypothesis as confirmed.
I didn’t say it was confirmed, only that there was abundant evidence for it. I feel it’s not justified to claim that no evidence exists from the natural world (as opposed to mounting laboratory observations). IMO Svensmark’s hypothesis hasn’t been either confirmed or falsified. The trend appears to be towards confirmation, however, based upon experimental findings & field observations which have been both supportive & found dubious (as in Laken, whose conclusions are IMO questionable, based upon reliance on problematic models).
Erratum Correction: “A burst of actual rays (gamma) has been suggested as a cause of the Ordovician-Silurian Mass Extinction Event, which as you may know coincided with a fairly brief but intense glaciation” is correct. I added the burst after writing the rest of the sentence & neglected to change the verb from have to has.
IMO the glaciation & associated terrestrial changes suffice to explain the extinctions, without appeal to the heavens. Note that the glaciation began during a period with CO2 concentrations in the thousands of ppmv.
milodonharlani says:
September 6, 2013 at 9:17 am
I didn’t say it was confirmed, only that there was abundant evidence for it.
But that is the point: there is not abundant evidence for it. The correlations on which the hypothesis was built have failed to hold up. So the early ‘evidence’ is no longer evidence, no matter how abundant. As Einstein said: “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong”.
Steven Mosher says:
September 5, 2013 at 10:59 am
“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…”
It seems special conditions are necessary in terms of H2O supersaturation of the air (without nuclei) to get water drops to fall. From Charles T.R. Wilson (of cloud chamber fame) in his Nobel lecture:
http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1927/wilson-lecture.pdf
“It was found that there was a definite critical value for the expansion ratio
(v2/v1= 1.25) corresponding to an approximately fourfold supersaturation.
In moist air which had been freed from Aitken’s nuclei by repeatedly form-
ing a cloud and allowing the drops to settle, no drops were formed unless the
expansion exceeded this limit, while if it were exceeded, a shower of drops
was seen to fall.”
Introduction of nuclei reduced this supersaturation requirement. So it works, but, as Steve Mosher says “..effect is small”
Pamela Gray (Pamela Gray says:
September 5, 2013 at 7:28 am) made the considerable point that there is no shortage of nuclei from a variety of sources already in the atmosphere and that cloud formation is a big item. GCR may already be “too late” to the party. There is no doubt it works (Wilson’s and Svensmark’s experiments attest to that) but at most it would be marginal. BTW, Wilson’s Nobel lecture is a peach and the demonstration of the scientific method worth a review by many. The apparati are beautiful.
Abstract & conclusion from Agee, et al. 2011, Relationship of Lower-Troposphere Cloud Cover and Cosmic Rays: An Updated Perspective, from Dr. Curry’s site:
http://judithcurry.com/2011/09/26/relationship-of-lower-tropospheric-cloud-cover-and-cosmic-rays/
The authors found the anomalous result that recent high GCR flux coincided with low levels of cloudiness, as measured by the International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project. But the issue remains unresolved for various good reasons.
Abstract (from paper as published):
An updated assessment has been made of the proposed hypothesis that galactic cosmic rays (GCRs) are positively correlated with lower-troposphere global cloudiness. A brief review of the many conflicting studies that attempt to prove or disprove this hypothesis is also presented. It has been determined in this assessment that the recent extended quiet period between solar cycles 23 and 24 has led to a record-high level of GCRs, which in turn has been accompanied by a record-low level of lower-troposphere global cloudiness. This represents a possible observational disconnect, and the update presented here continues to support the need for further research on the GCR–cloud hypothesis and its possible role in the science of climate change.
From the Conclusion (from preview made available to Dr. Curry by Dr. Agee):
Several studies, as referenced here, have continued to promote the controversial cosmic ray-cloud connection hypothesis, both from the standpoint of errors in data analysis as well as scientific links that establish GCR-CCN as a viable contributor to climate change. It is also important to note (see Carslaw et al. 2002) that there are two mechanisms by which cosmic rays may affect cloud droplet number concentrations or ice particles: a) Ion-aerosol clear-air mechanism, and b) Ion-aerosol near-cloud mechanism. Recent attempts have also been made to further resolve the GCR-CCN controversy by examining the global cloudiness response to very short-term solar variations (namely Forbush Decreases that are approximately of one-week duration). Calogovic et al. (2010) have found no response in global cloud cover to Forbush Decreases at any altitude and latitude. Svensmark et al. (2009), however, have shown that Forbush decreases associated with CME passage results in lower troposphere clouds containing less liquid water. Their results, in general, show global scale influences of solar variability on both cloudiness and aerosols. The work by Harrison and Ambaum (2010) also shows a positive relationship between cloudiness and large GCR changes associated with Forbush decreases (as observed at Shetland, England). Laken and Kniveton (2011) on the other hand, found no evidence of any relationship between liquid cloud fraction and GCRs.
It is concluded that the observational results presented, showing several years of disconnect between GCRs and lower troposphere global cloudiness, add additional concern to the cosmic ray-cloud connection hypothesis. In fact, this has been done in the most dramatic way with the measurement of record high levels of GCRs during the deep, extended quiet period of cycle 23-24, which is accompanied by record low levels of lower troposphere global cloudiness. Research on the GCR-cloud correlations must continue, particularly in view of the two physical mechanisms mentioned above (as well as the uncertainty in the reliability of the ISCCP lower troposphere cloudiness to show the proposed correlations). Finally, it is clearly known that other factors can affect mean global cloudiness besides solar variability, due to internal forcing mechanisms on different time scales (such as ENSO).
This does not seem inconsistent with, or “the reverse of”, what Fred Berple claimed. TSI is not a measure of all solar activity. In fact, it seems as if other types of solar activity vary much more than TSI. This supports Ferd Berple’s claim.
milodonharlani says:
September 6, 2013 at 10:01 am
it is clearly known that other factors can affect mean global cloudiness besides solar variability, due to internal forcing mechanisms on different time scales (such as ENSO).
Which is my point: the Sun is not the primary driver overpowering everything else. I’m reminded of some believers’ reaction when spoon-bender Uri Geller was caught cheating: “so what? perhaps he was cheating on those occasions, but all the other times it was the genuine article”
wobble says:
September 6, 2013 at 10:15 am
TSI is not a measure of all solar activity. In fact, it seems as if other types of solar activity vary much more than TSI.
TSI is where the energy is. But, you are of course correct, the amount of loose change in Bill Gates’ pockets also varies a lot, but is hardly a good measure of his wealth. Cosmic rays of the energy need to get to the lower atmosphere vary very little [a couple of percent] over the solar cycle.
Well, if I’m trying to predict the jingling sound emanating from Bill Gates’ pants, then I should be looking at the variation in the amount of loose change in Bill Gates’ pockets. I shouldn’t be concerned about the variation of his wealth. I think that was Fred Berple’s point.
This fact isn’t material to the point.
wobble says:
September 6, 2013 at 10:34 am
“TSI is where the energy is.”
This fact isn’t material to the point.
Under the assumption that Ferd’s point was climate related, the energy is material. The HF and sunspot variations being just proxies for the variations of solar output. If Ferd’s comment was just some OT throw-away, you are correct.
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 6, 2013 at 10:15 am
I’m the opposite of a believer. I’m a doubter, except of the fact that the hypothesis that man-made CO2 is the prime driver of climate on earth has repeatedly been falsified.
I have nothing invested in the GCR-cloud-T hypothesis as an alternative. I’m OK with there being no primary driver of terrestrial climate on any time scale, or that of other planets in the solar system.
However I also haven’t seen enough evidence against Svensmark, Shaviv, et al to consider their hypothesis falsified on any time scale. You don’t see much correlation with sunspots & cosmogenic isotopes & astronomical-climatic phenomena such as the Maunder Minimum & the LIA, but I’m not so certain.
To me the situation is the reverse of evolution before Darwin & Wallace & continental drift before the discovery of seafloor spreading. In those case, there were valid observations which lacked convincing explanation. Svensmark has increasingly convincing experimental explanation of the GCR-cloud connection, but so far lacks compelling observation for its action in the atmosphere. Also lacking, as you note, is support for a major role in climate fluctuations for solar magnetism-modulated, GCR-influenced CCNs.
IMO climate science should be looking for genuine causes of change on all time scales rather than wasting time & resources on “communicating” a blatant falsehood. Milankovitch orbital mechanisms explain well fluctuations on the order of magnitude of a hundred thousand years in the glacial climate of the past three million years or so, but comparably good explanations are still wanting for longer & shorter time frames.
LEIF, you are wrong the sun is the primary force behind the driver of climate, but it is the change in magnetic activity more so then the change in TSI
Again you will not accept data that shows a clear connection between low solar activity on a prolonged basis and the climate that resulted during both the Maunder Minimum and the Dalton Minimum
Secondly you do not understand that in order to have a solar/climate connection show up the solar conditions have to vary by a certain degree of magnitude over a certain duration of time, anything short of that WILL NOT BE ENOUGH ,to show a solar /climate connection.
This is why it is hard to show solar/climate connections since the end of the Dalton , to very recently.
However the sun has gone into a prolonged solar minimum state which is turing out much WEAKER then the conventional forecast thus far ,and IS going to have an impact on the climate going forward if the prolonged solar minimum reaches the many solar parameters I have talked about.
solar flux sub 90 sustained.
solar wind sub350 km/sec. sustained.
UV light off upwards of 50% sustained.
cosmic ray count 6500 or more sustained.
solar irradiance off .015% or more sustained
ap index 5.0 or lower 98+% of the time sustained.
These solar values folowing several years of sub solar activity in general which we have had since year 2005.
Leif when and only IF these values are attained and the climate does NOT respond will you be able to say you ae rcorrect about the solar climate connection, until then you are just GUESSING, and have no clear picture on how much or little the solar/climate connection might be once those solar parameters I mentioned become established.You can not PROVE ME WRONG.
So it is a wait and see game, and you can bring up all the arguments you want to show the lack of solar/climate connections with your data mainly 1844-present which has no prolonged solar minimum periods in it with the parameters I have metioned on a sustained basis, to back up your arguments.
If I were you I would not be to confident going forward.
Latest Solar News and Updates
Solar Update / Fundraiser Update
09/06/2013 by Kevin VE3EN @ur momisugly 11:35 UTC
ZeroFive is located in the United States and specializes in multi-band vertical antennas and much more.
Updated 09/06/2013 @ur momisugly 11:35 UTC
Solar Update
Welcome to Friday. Below is an updated image of this visible solar disk. Solar activity is very low this morning and could potentially stay this way heading into the weekend. We are down to three visible regions, each of which are not a threat for strong solar flares. Regions 1834 and 1835 are both now located behind the west limb. The entire middle portion of the visible disk is void of sunspots. Hard to believe this was predicted to be solar maximum during Solar Cycle 24. When will the next rise in activity take place? Stay tuned to SolarHam.com to find out.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
September 6, 2013 at 10:49 am
Earth & Sun will be running an experiment for us over the coming solar cycles. I hope that improved methods of cloud observation will enable science to come to a firmer conclusion in a decade or two, but even then the issue might not be “settled”, as indeed it ought not be.
The above just substanciates how FAR OFF the so mainstream called solar experts continue to be in their ability to forecast future solar activity, even a few months out.
Exactly, I hope the solar parameters I mentioned will become established over a LONG enough period of time so we can see IF a solar /climate connection is present or not present.
Past history suggest it is present, but we need a current prolonged solar minimum to verify this beyond a doubt.
Leif Svalgaard said:
“Which is my point: the Sun is not the primary driver overpowering everything else. ”
It can still be the primary driver modulated by everything else.
Everything else can itself be complex such that the solar signal is often out of phase with the climate response so that it only becomes apparent on longer time scales except when the solar change is exceptionally large and rapid.
I am hoping that the collapse in solar activity from cycle 23 onwards will be deep enough and sustained enough for the climate response to be apparent on a short time scale despite the modulating effects of everything else.
So far it has been enough to cause a stall in warming plus reversals of certain other trends which I have referred to previously.
Exaclty Stephen. Leif, and others will not accept that simple concept.
milodonharlani says:
September 6, 2013 at 10:48 am
However I also haven’t seen enough evidence against Svensmark, Shaviv, et al to consider their hypothesis falsified on any time scale.
The shoe is on the other foot. S&S and you have to show that the hypothesis is supported [the ‘any time scale’ is too general – but typical – how about microseconds?]
Salvatore Del Prete says:
September 6, 2013 at 10:49 am
You can not PROVE ME WRONG.
If you cannot be proven wrong, what you do is not science.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
September 6, 2013 at 10:54 am
The entire middle portion of the visible disk is void of sunspots. Hard to believe this was predicted to be solar maximum during Solar Cycle 24.
Just show someone’s ignorance about what solar cycles behave. The similar cycle 14 had many days with zero sunspots throughout the maximum http://www.leif.org/research/SC14-and-24.png [yellow curve]
Salvatore Del Prete says:
September 6, 2013 at 11:14 am
Exaclty Stephen. Leif, and others will not accept that simple concept.
We accept data, not [too] simple concepts…