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:
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 6, 2013 at 12:17 pm
I know you’re a qualified expert in this field. The errors I had in mind were in comments outside the sun’s effect on climate or lack thereof, as for instance overlooking the fact that seasonal effects might be different by day or night (although of course sunshine is involved, that was a temperature measurement question).
I’ve cited Herschel on this blog more than once. I still find his observations valuable. Modern farming practices have obscured the connection, but IMO it can’t be ruled out as an accidental coincidence.
The sunspot-climate pendulum may well swing back again. Only further evidence, probably available in coming decades, will decide. I can’t join you in categorically ruling that possibility out yet.
Leif for each and every person you claim has changed there mind there are 10 more that have come on with their original thoughts.
So that is meaningless.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
September 6, 2013 at 12:21 pm
Leif, the Layman sunspot count, counts sunspots the SAME WAY for both cycle 14 and cycle 24 ,(right or wrong) and that is what matters when making a comparisome.
Shows your ignorance. I am the expert on this. LSC throws away small spots [you call them ‘specks’], by Wolfer [who observed from 1877 to 1925, and thus during SC14] included them, apart from several other [more subtle] differences.
by Wolfer
but Wolfer
Salvatore Del Prete says:
September 4, 2013 at 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
Salvatore Del Prete says:
September 6, 2013 at 12:25 pm
Leif for each and every person you claim has changed there mind there are 10 more that have come on with their original thoughts. So that is meaningless.
I agree that your statement is quite meaningless [no surprise]
You are really twisting in order to make this claim. Fred Berple’s comment can stand on its own. It’s fairly clear that he was saying that certain outputs from the sun can have certain material effects even if those outputs have very little effect on TSI.
It’s fine for you to argue that changes in the sun’s output can’t have a material impact on climate, but don’t attempt to claim that he’s wrong by stating that changes other than TSI most certainly have demonstrable effects on the atmosphere.
It seems as if you don’t understand the issues related to the actual atmospheric propagation of high frequency electromagnetic energy. Perhaps this is your disconnect.
No, I am correct even though Fred Berple’s comments was not an OT comment.
The above study shows contrary to what Leif is trying to convey the thoughts of many of the pioneers in the study of solar/climate relationships are alive and well and expanding.
The article is cutting edge and is where we are going despite the old school way of thinking Leif subscribes to.
milodonharlani says:
September 6, 2013 at 12:24 pm
overlooking the fact that seasonal effects might be different by day or night (although of course sunshine is involved, that was a temperature measurement question).
huh?
The sunspot-climate pendulum may well swing back again. Only further evidence, probably available in coming decades, will decide. I can’t join you in categorically ruling that possibility out yet.
We cannot base policy on what might happen. My view is that we have to consider the evidence we have and that evidence doesn’t look good to me. But, as I have said, some people have a much lower bar in what they will accept and believe in.
That is where the problem lies the specks which are counted in a ridiculous fashion now, in comparisome to when solar cycle 14 was going on.
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 6, 2013 at 12:21 pm
I didn’t know that Eddy had changed his mind about the MM, which he named. Must have been after this 1999 interview, or he failed to tell the interviewer:
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/eddy_int.htm
As you know, he died in 2009, after ten more years of CACA-phoney. As a colleague, would know his opinion in the last decade of his life, but I’d appreciate learning how precisely his late conclusions came to differ from his prior.
wobble says:
September 6, 2013 at 12:30 pm
It’s fine for you to argue that changes in the sun’s output can’t have a material impact on climate, but don’t attempt to claim that he’s wrong by stating that changes other than TSI most certainly have demonstrable effects on the atmosphere.
The upper atmosphere [ionosphere, thermosphere] is very much influenced by solar activity, but that has nothing to do with the climate in the troposphere, and hence Ferd’s comment was true but irrelevant and OT.
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 6, 2013 at 12:36 pm
The issue had to do with average winter T. There was another similar issue, which I can’t recall now, possibly having to do with the CET. But they’re beside the point.
I don’t accept or believe Svensmark’s entire hypothesis, but nothing in climate science is secure enough upon which to base policy.
milodonharlani says:
September 6, 2013 at 12:42 pm
The issue had to do with average winter T. There was another similar issue, which I can’t recall now, possibly having to do with the CET. But they’re beside the point.
I have no idea what you are referring to, but since, as you say’ “they are beside the point”, why did you bring it up?
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 6, 2013 at 12:40 pm
Mr. Wilde thinks variation in UV composition of TSI affects the ozone layer in the stratosphere, IIRC. Sorry if I have the wrong commenter.
Are you claiming that variations in TSI do influence climate in the troposphere?
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 6, 2013 at 12:45 pm
As instances of your having been wrong or not considered the alternatives in areas outside your specialty. I could try to find them if you’d like, but not germane to this discussion.
Leif,
Thanks for the links to your earlier involvement in the sun / Earth interaction but you did say this:
“The optimism we all had back then 40 years ago has since been doused by the failure of any and all of the avenues of research that we then thought promising to pan out.”
So let’s get more specific in light of more recent data and observations of climate behaviour. I tend to think that data pre 1900 is pretty unreliable as to timing so I prefer to look at the recent past with the benefit of modern sensors.
i) Do you or do you not accept that the global air circulation does seem to change in response to some aspect of solar variability?
The evidence for that during my lifetime looks good to me. We had more meridional jets during lowish cycle 20, more zonal jets during cycles 21 to 23 and more meridional jets during cycle 24. The MWP with an active sun saw more zonal jets, the LA with a less active sun saw more meridional jets. You have correctly pointed out the higher solar activity in the 1700s but that was a warmer period within the LIA which saw more zonal jets.
ii) Do you or do you not accept that stratosphere temperatures determine in part the height of the tropopause?
A warmer stratosphere pushes the tropopause down whereas a colder statosphere allows the tropopause to rise.
iii) Do you or do you not accept that tropopause height varies between equator and pole AND that any solar effects if present are likely to have a greater effect above the poles.
The importance of this is that any solar effects present would therefore affect tropopause height above the pole differently to that above the equator.
iv) Do you or do you not accept that the only way to get the jets and climate zones sliding poleward or equatorward, latitudinally would be to alter the gradient of tropopause height between equator and poles.
v) Do you or do you not accept that sliding the jets and climate zones poleward or equatorward below the tropopause would affect global cloudiness and albedo and thus the amount of solar energy able to enter the oceans to fuel the climate system.
vi) Do you or do you not accept that latitudinal shifting of jets and climate zones would fundamentally affect the rate of energy flow from surface to space and therefore affect the global net energy budget.
There is more, but that is enough to be going on with.
Leif , until the solar parameters I have talked about are meant, and we see the climate reaction ,all your talk and insistence of a solar /climate connection is just SPECULATION on your part, because you don’t have the data.
So you can harp on this all you want , it ain’t going to change my mind or the minds of many who agree essentially with my stance, and there are many.
Absent the AGW fanatics most agree with my stance not yours when it comes to solar/climate relationships.
The upper atmosphere [ionosphere, thermosphere] is very much influenced by solar activity, but that has nothing to do with the climate in the troposphere, and hence Ferd’s comment was true but irrelevant
LEIF’S it has much to do with the troposphere.
milodonharlani says:
September 6, 2013 at 12:39 pm
As a colleague, would know his opinion in the last decade of his life, but I’d appreciate learning how precisely his late conclusions came to differ from his prior.
At the time in 1974 it was thought that variations in TSI [Solar Energy Output] were as large as 1-2% [based on Abbot’s measurements http://www.leif.org/EOS/Abbot-Variation-Sun.pdf ]. Such variation translates into 1-2 degree temperature. We later learned that the variation is ten times smaller, and that translates into 0.1 degree, so not enough. Eddy struggled with that. In 2003 he chaired a NASA study http://www.leif.org/EOS/Eddy/2003NASA_living.pdf with a guarded and carefully worded conclusion “These qualified reconstructions of past changes in solar irradiance, which were based quite explicitly on assumed long-term changes that have yet to be observed, have been subsequently adopted in a growing number of climate models and climate attribution studies. They were also initially interpreted as evidence that much if not all of the global warming of the last 100 years could be attributed to natural as opposed to anthropogenic causes. Subsequent studies of Sun-like stars and of the documented behavior of
the Sun itself during an early 20th century minimum in solar activity have called the original interpretation of the stellar data into question. What seems more likely today is that the unusually inactive stars that were originally sampled were not the same but somewhat different from the Sun, rather than “solar analogs caught passing through a Maunder Minimum phase.” This revised interpretation obviously affects at least some of the conclusions drawn in climate model studies that utilized reconstructed values of solar irradiance. Further resolution of these uncertainties is obviously very important in Sun-Climate research.”
And he left it at that in the public document. In his last paper: http://www.leif.org/EOS/Eddy/2007SP_prairie.pdf he notes “To obtain a climatically significant TSI decrease, Lean, Beer, and Bradley proposed the disappearance not only of the bright network structures associated with spicule foot points but even of the faintest inter-network magnetic elements located within supergranule cell centers. The historical eclipse observations [1706 and 1715] described here seem to require the presence of even the bright network structures, and thus of substantial solar photospheric magnetism during at least the last decade of the Maunder Minimum. Hence, the red-flash observations would argue against a climatologically important decrease in TSI during that period of time.”
.
Leif you have a lack of understanding in past climate change and thresholds, and why and how they may or may not come about.
Ignorance is bliss.
Dear Leif, TSI is but a SMALL part of the solar climate relationship as you know from looking at the many solar parameters I have listed.
All of which will have secondary effects on the items that control the earth’s climate, and hence change the climate.
News flash, the atmosphere is all interconnected therefore a change to one part of the atmosphere is going to effect all of the other parts.
should have been non solar/climate relationship– post done at 1:01pm